Berkeley City Council
July 22, 2025

21 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Make resources on police-civilian encounters publicly available such as through RAHEEM.org
This Council directive is mentioned in the BPD quarterly updates, but no information is provided regarding its implementation status.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Racial disparities in stops, arrest, and searches remain high, and there is little public accountability for the overall results of the FIP effort due to a lack of statistical reporting or outcome analysis in BPD quarterly updates. While some policy changes have been implemen ted by the BPD, modification of these changes is needed in some areas. Other FIP recommendations have not been implemented.

The PAB offers the following recommendations for action by BPD, the PAB, and City Council with the goals of improving upon steps that have already been taken, ensuring that no directives remain unfulfilled, and establishing an expectation for future BPD updates to include analysis of racial disparity outcomes.

Recommendations to the Berkeley Police Department

1. Three-prong approach.
a. Definition of Low-Level Traffic Infractions: A definition consistent with SB 50 should be adopted.
b. Primary Collision Factors: This prong should specify the mode of the party at fault.
c. Community Reports: Under the category of "a variety of unsafe driving incidents," policies should be put in place that specify which calls for service will result in law enforcement action. That specification should be derived from an analysis of the 13% of calls from community members that resulted in a citation or arrest, as per the City Auditor’s July 2021 report.

22 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
d. Community Caretaking: More specificity is needed in this prong, and its components should be based on Berkeley data rather than national statistics, as is done for Prong 1 (Primary Collision Factors).

Specifically, the analysis should examine which other factors (non - PCFs) are highly associated with severe and fatal collisions in Berkeley. The open -ended quality of this prong may contribute to more non -safety related stops than is called for in the Council directive. If more specificity is not possible or feasible, this prong should be eliminated.
e. Reporting: Future BPD updates on FIP implementation should include statistical information enabling an analysis of the impact of the three- prong approach on reducing or eli minating stops for low -level offenses—a primary focus of the Council directive—in a manner that supports an overall assessment as well as an understanding of the impact of the approach on reducing racial disparities in traffic stops.

2. Evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects. a. Establish an evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects. b. Explain how the precision -based policing, feedback loops, and accountability measures, referenced in BPD FIP implementation updates in relation to this recommendation, address the directive to establish an evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects.

3. Enhanced implicit bias training: Ensure that intensive annual training dedicated to the topic of implicit bias is delivered to BPD personnel per the Council’s directive.

4. EIS: Pending the deployment of a new E arly Intervention and Risk Management system , EIS audits should be focused on officers who are outliers on the variables stipulated in the Department’s EIS, with a particular focus on racial disparities in stops, arrests, and searches. A designated PAB Member should serve as an observer in this process, as has been informally

23 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
agreed to . Future audit reports should include the scope of what was reviewed and a clear statement of findings , within the confines of officer confidentiality.

5. Written consent searches: Future reporting to council should include the number of consent searches conducted per reporting period and their effect on racial disparities in searches, with a comparison to consent search numbers before implementation.

6. Warrantless searches of people on supervised release: Future FIP updates should identify the impact of the new BPD Policy 311.6 on the numbers of, and racial disparities in, searches and arrests of people on probati on and parole.

7. Profiling by proxy: Future BPD updates should specify what instruction dispatchers are given on the topic of profiling by proxy, as well as any impact the instruction and corresponding Communications Manual amendments have had on racial disp arities in departmental response to calls for service.

8. Business cards: Ensure that business cards are distributed as mandated by the Council directive.

9. Make resources on police -civilian encounters publicly available, such as through RAHEEM.org.

Recommendations to the Police Accountability Board

1. Scenario-based training: The 2021 Council specifically referred to the PAB oversight of the implementation of a scenario -based training component in the existing officer training required by the California Penal Code . This topic will be agendized for discussion at a future PAB meeting , including the appropriateness of, and ability of, the PAB to oversee departmental training.

24 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report

2. Crisis Intervention Team (CIT): The 2021 Council item refers to the PAB the acceleration of CIT activity. This will be taken up for discussion in future PAB meetings.

Recommendations to the Berkeley City Council

1. Establish metrics to assess the success of the implementation of FIP directives. Currently the BPD appears to be focused entirely on policy, and on tests of bias, as evidenced in its recently published Annual Report.

The PAB has focused instead on outcomes, addressing the key question of whether racial disparities have decreased in any of the areas subject to FIP directives.

2. Eliminate reporting requirements for recommendations that the PAB ascertains have been fully implemented.

3. Require BPD to report biannually on:
a. Traffic stops by each prong of their 3-prong framework and by race within each prong.
b. Stop, search, and arrest data by probation/parole status and race. c. Calls for service by the race of the reporter and reportee.

Ensure that employees of the BPD whose speech or behavior is inconsistent with fair and impartial policing be held accountable.

25 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Appendix
Appendix 1. Berkeley Police Department 2024 Annual Report “Tests for Bias”
The PAB has several concerns about the adequacy of the three tests conducted for stops and searches (use of force is not part of the FIP focus): “At-fault collision demographics”:
“yield rate analysis”; and, the “veil of darkness”.

1. The at-fault collision test is the most problematic of these analyses. This BPD test purports to compare the parties at fault in collisions, by race, to the rate of police stops by race. Because they find that the proportion of stops fo r each race is approximately the same as the proportion of each race at fault in collisions, they conclude that police stops are “race -neutral”. In other words, while not citing disparity statistics, the BPD implies that the racial disparity in stops is th e result of Black motorists’ more dangerous driving.

There are numerous problems with that analysis, including the following:
• In the interest of focusing on “discretionary stops,” which as they note are most likely to involve potential bias, the BPD only includes in their analysis stops that were officer -initiated. Curiously, however, it omits the most discretionary stops of all —those based on equipment violations, registration or license plate infractions and other such low-level offenses that make up 19% of all vehicle stops. • The “at-fault collision” side of this equation is also problematic. Only those collisions for which the police were called to the scene or were nearby when the accident happened, and/or for which a written police report was filed, are included in the analysis. Personal experience suggests that many if not most collisions are not reported to the police.

2. The BPD’s yield rate analysis cites the 2024 RIPA Annual Report that shows there were no statistically significant differences in r ates of discovery of contraband in searches of Black people and White people in Berkeley. This is an important RIPA finding. It must be qualified, however, by the RIPA Board’s advice on interpreting the finding. As the RIPA Board notes, when search rates a re higher and discovery

26 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
rates lower for Black people than for white people, it can be concluded that racial bias was involved in the searches. However, “[w]hen these statistics do not move in opposite directions, it is more difficult to determine whether disparate treatment is present.” (RIPA 2024 Annual Report; Appendix B.3, p. 46).

3. The veil of darkness test is an industry -wide standard for testing racial bias. It assumes that if racial bias exists in vehicle stops, people of color would be more likely to be stopped during the day than at night when it is presumably less possible to discern motorists’ race. The BPD analysis compares vehicle stops at the “inter - twilight” period around 6:30 pm during daylight savings time (when it is light) and standard time (when it is dark). The BPD finding is that the stop rates by race are comparable in the light and in the dark, and that “this is what we would expect to see if those stops were being made based on race-neutral factors.” This is quite different from the fi nding of Stanford researchers who analyzed 95 million traffic stops across the United States using the veil of darkness test and found statistically significant racial disparities13. The BPD finding for Berkeley is a positive one, but we need more details here. It is possible that stops occurring in the inter-twilight period in Berkeley in one year would not be sufficient in number to draw statistically valid inferences. Finally, while the veil of darkness is an industry-standard, several cautions must be ap plied. As numerous scientists have explained, and the BPD report acknowledges, both street lighting and car profiling may skew results.

In sum, we cannot confidently conclude from these BPD tests for bias that it is not a factor in racial disparities in BPD vehicle stops and searches. More rigorous studies would be required to untangle the web of socio -economic, cultural, institutional, and individual factors —and their interactions —that produce these racial disparities.

13 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0858-1

27 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Appendix 2. PAB Data Workbook
To access a copy of the Data Workbook, please use the following link:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PAB%20Data%20Workbook_2024 %20FIP%20Implementation%20Report%20.xlsx

28 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Attachment List

1. Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing. Proposal to City Council. February 23, 2021.

2. Working Group Recommendations Passed by Council. February 23, 2021

3. Summary of BPD Quarterly Updates on Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation

4. BPD Three-Pronged Approach to Traffic Enforcement

5. Berkeley Police Department Memorandum Titled: “PD Response to PAB FIP Implementation Report”

Attachment 1: Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing. Proposal to City Council. February 23, 2021

DRAFT
The Mayor's Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing Pol icy Proposals
Developing and implementing reforms that will effectively reduce existing racial disparities requires changes at several levels. The following recommendations include setting new policy, updating institutional structures, and mandating individual accountability. Their implementation and ongoing effectiveness require supportive leadership, transparency and police accountability.

Executive Summary. Mayor's Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing (hereafter, "the working group") focused on reducing racial disparities in stops and_searches and improving community relationships damaged by the racially disparate practices in stops and searches.

This report advances the following recommendations for BPD practices:
• Focus on public safety and eliminate stops for low-level offenses not directly impacting public safety.
• Use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence-based criteria.
• Institute annual implicit bias training and scenario-based training for California Penal Code 13519.4, prohibiting racial or identity profiling. • Establish a truly effective Early Intervention System and risk management process to ensure department accountability and identify officers who are outliers in stops, searches, dispositions, and outcomes.
• Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status such as Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), probation, or parole. • Require written consent for consent searches.
• Include evaluations of cultural competence in hiring and promotion, and fire officers who have expressed racist attitudes and/or are identified as members of racist groups.

The report also advances these recommendations for the Berkeley City Council and/or the City of Berkeley:
• Hire a consultant to create a plan for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of these recommendations.
• Ensure the creation of a Specialized Care Unit with crisis-response field workers, as included in the recent contract for a community-process to establish an SCU. • Ensure a robust community engagement process, including annual surveys and community forums
• Require quarterly analysis of stop, search, and use of force data by City Auditor and/or the PRC.
• Adopt and carry out the compliance and accountability system outlined in this document. 1

DRAFT
Proposed Actions
Table 1 provides a proposed action for each recommendation in the body and appendices of this draft report.

Action Recommendations • Focus traffic stops on safety
• Use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects • Use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence-based criteria
• Eliminate stops for low-level offenses
• Implement an Early Intervention System {EIS) and a risk-management structure • Immediately release stop, arrest, calls for service and use of force data from 2012Direct the City to present to the Working GroupManager to • Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status such asimplement key Post Release Community Supervision {PRCS), probation, or parolerecommendations, • Reguire written consent for all consent searcheswith at minimum, quarterly progress • Address Profiling by Proxy {PAS Policy Development, Dispatcher Training) reports to the PAS • Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens and/or the Working • Address Profiling by Proxy {Council develop & pass CAREN policy) Group • Reguire regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data • Make resources on police-civilian encounters more publicly available such as RAHEEM.org
• Adopt Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms
a. Hire consultant to develop implementation plan
• For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card with info on a website similar to RAHEEM and info on complain process with PAS • The City should create a formalized feedback system to gauge community Refer to be response to ongoing reforms and ensure
this constructive input system is
included in the institutionalized and includes a basic report card and guarterly neighborhood process to check-ins
reimagine public • Conduct a baseline community survey . safetv
• Include a scenario-based training component in the existing officer training Refer to the Police reguired by California Penal Code 13519.4 Accountability • Reguire enhanced annual implicit bias training for police Board • Accelerate Crisis Intervention Team {CIT) activity • Evaluate the impact of these proposals on racial disparities in stops and searches, Follow-up with PAS using regular updates to stop and search data and/or Fair and • Conduct a regular community survey and annual community forums on Police andImpartial Working Public SafetyGroup Recommendations • Fund and implement a specialized care unit for mental health crises already underway • Conduct a Capacity Study of police calls and responses and use of officer time outside of case work
Outstanding - • Include community member participation and feedback in the hiring process No Action • Include the following for Performance Appraisal ReportsRecommended 2

DRAFT
Reducing Disparities in Vehicle, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Stops & Searches:

1. Focus traffic stops on safety
According to Dr. Frank Baumgartner's 2018 book, Suspect Citizens, "Safety stops are those aimed at enforcing the rules of the road to decrease the likelihood of an accident" (pg. 191 ). The types of stops falling into this traffic safety category may include:
• Excessive speeding1
• Running a stop sign or stop light
• Unsafe movement
• Driving while intoxicated

2. Use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects Dr. Baumgartner's analysis2reveals that "investigatory stops" (stops that use a minor infraction as a pretext for investigating rather than to prevent or reduce dangerous behavior pgs. 53-55) allow for the most officer discretion and open the possibility of implicit bias or "reliance on cultural heuristics" (pg. 191 ). Based on analyses of more than 9 million stops, Baumgartner's team found that 47% were investigatory and that they added substantially to the racial disparity statistics. Thus, investigatory stops and stops of criminal suspects shall be restricted to those made because the person and/or vehicle fits a description in relation to a specific crime. 34 Since the Oakland Police Department (OPD) has implemented evidence-based methods, the number of African American civilians stopped by the OPD has declined Since Oakland Police Department has implemented evidence-based methods, the number of African American civilians stopped has declined from 19,185 in 2017 to 7,346 in 2019, a drop of 62% and a stop disparity rate reduction of almost 60%, 5 with no corresponding increase in crime (Captain Chris Bolton presentation, 7/15/2020).

3. Use race and ethnicity as relevant factors when determining law enforcement action only when provided as part of a description of a crime and suspect that is credible and relevant to the locality and timeframe of the crime and only in combination with other specific descriptive and physical characteristics. 6• 7 Specific descriptive and physical characteristics may include, for example: the gender, age, height, weight, clothing, tattoos and piercings of the suspect, the make and model of the car, and the time and location of the crime. Simple race and ethnicity alone are not 1 https://www.idrivesafely.com/dmv/california/laws/traffic-tickets-and-violations/, https://www.martenslawfirm.com/bloq/2015/november/what-is-excessive-speedinq-/ 2 Suspect Citizens, pp. 190-192
3 Eberhardt, J. L. (2016). Strategies for change: Research initiatives and recommendations to improve police­ community relations in Oakland. Calif Stanford University 4 This definition was created by Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt in collaboration with the Oakland Police Department. 5 This is the percentage of African American stops within all discretionary non-intel led stops made by Police Area 2 officers fell from 76% in September 2017 to 31% in September 2018 6 Southern Poverty Law Center, 10 Best Practices for Writing Policies Against Racial Profiling 7 CA Penal Code
3

DRAFT
satisfactory as bases for reasonable suspicion under the law, and amount to racial profiling.

4. Eliminate stops for low-level offenses
According to the presentation to the Working Group by Captain Bolton of the OPD, Oakland significantly reduced stops for these low-level, non-public safety related offenses, resulting in a reduction in the number of African Americans being stopped and a reduced stop-disparity rate, with no effect on crime rates {homicides and injury shootings went down during the same period). There is often overlap between "investigatory stops" and "stops for low-level offenses," as the latter may be used as a pretext for investigation. The types of stops falling into these categories may include:
• Equipment violations
• Not wearing a seat belt
• Improper use of high beams
• Violating a regulation (e.g. expired license tags)
• Stop purposes recorded as "other''

5. Implement an Early Intervention System (EIS) and a risk-management structure These measures to ensure individual accountability have operated successfully in Oakland and many other localities for some time. They involve identifying officer outliers in stops, searches, and use of force and their outcomes and examining the reasons for racial disparities. Existing software programs to assist BPD in implementing an EIS could be utilized or BPD can build its own system.

These programs operate to identify officers who are a danger either to themselves or to the public. They are referred to as "risk management" systems because they help limit the financial liability of the City and hence its taxpayers. They may address a broad range of concerns, but in this document, we only consider their use with regard to racial disparities. Elements of this process include the following steps:
a. Evaluate and assess stop incidents for legality and enforcement yield. b. Analyze data to determine whether racial disparities are generalized across the force or are concentrated in a smaller subset of outlier officers or squads/groups of officers. To the extent that the problem is generalized across the department, supervisors as well as line officers should be re-trained and monitored, and department recruitment, training, and structure should be reviewed. In addition, department policy should be examined for their impacts. c. Where disparities are concentrated in an individual or a group of officers, with no race-neutral legitimate evidence for this behavior in specific cases, initiate an investigation to determine the cause for the disparity. Evaluate whether there are identifiable causes contributing to racially disparate stop rates and high or low rates of resulting enforcement actions exhibited by outlying officers. Determine and address any trends and patterns among officers with disparate stop rates. In the risk management process, the responsible personnel in the chain of 4

DRAFT
command reviews and discusses the available information about the subject officer and the officer's current behavior.
d. Absent a satisfactory explanation for racially disparate behavior, monitor the officer .. Options for the supervisor in these cases include reviewing additional body-worn camera footage, supervisor ride-alongs, and other forms of monitoring. Further escalation to intervention, if necessary, may include a higher form of supervision, with even closer oversight. If performance fails to improve, command should consider other options including breaking up departmental units, transfer of officers to other responsibilities, etc. The goal of this process is to achieve trust and better community relations between the department as a whole and all the people in Berkeley. Formal discipline is always a last resort unless there are violations of Department General Orders, in which case this becomes an IAB matter.
e. Identify officers who may have problems affecting their ability to make appropriate judgments, and monitor and reduce time pressures, stress and fatigue on officers.
f. An outside observer from the PRC shall sit in on the risk management and/or EIS program. Reports from these meetings, or other accurate statistical summary, can be given to the commission without identifying any officers' names. g. Report the results of this data analysis quarterly.

6. Immediately release the following data to the Working Group:
a. All data given to the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) - This data includes:
i. Calls for Service (January 1, 2012 - December 2016)
ii. Use of Force Data (January 1, 2012- December 31, 2016) iii. Crime Report Data (January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2016) b. STOP DATA- this data shall include information on "call type," similar to the data used by the Center for Policing Equity. The timeframe would be January 1, 2012 to present.
c. USE OF FORCE DATA - This data was used in the analysis presented in the CPE report. Along with the CPE data, it would be helpful to have more recent Use of Force data. The timeframe would be January 1, 2012 to present. d. DEIDENTIFIED STOP & ARREST DATA- To determine if there are any problematic patterns among certain officers, or perhaps pairs of officers, data that we can be attached to anonymized individuals. The timeframe for this data would be January 1, 2012 to present.
e. ADDITIONAL ARREST DATA- Currently, the Open Data Portal posts arrest data from January 1, 2015. The timeframe for this data would be January 1, 2012 to present day.
f. ADDITIONAL CALLS FOR SERVICE - Currently, Calls for Service data are posted for the last 180 days. The timeframe for this data would be January 1, 2012 to present.
5

DRAFT

7. Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status, including probation, Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), and parole, absent evidence of imminent danger
California is one of a handful of states that allow high-discretion, suspicionless searches of probationers and parolees. The following was passed by the Police Review Commission on 9/23/2020 and the Working Group endorses this approach:
"In accordance with California law, individuals on probation, parole, Post Release Community Supervision, or other supervised release status may be subject to warrantless search as a condition of their probation. Officers shall only conduct probation or parole searches to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

Searches shall not be conducted in an arbitrary, capricious, or harassing fashion.

However, under Berkeley policy, officers shall not detain and search a person on probation or parole solely because the officer is aware of that person's probation or parole status.

The decision to detain a person and conduct a probation or parole search, or otherwise enforce probation or parole conditions, should be made, at a minimum, in connection with articulable facts that create a reasonable suspicion that a person may have committed a crime, be committing a crime, or be about to commit a crime.:

8. Require written consent for all consent searches
Baumgartner (pp. 195-209) and his team found that in cities requiring written consent to perform a consent search, these searches declined by 75%. Since people of color are disproportionately the subjects of these searches, it makes sense that a significant reduction would lead to fewer consent searches for people of color.

Examining three cities in North Carolina, Baumgartner found that in cities where there was resistance by leadership to the new written-consent policy, there was a substitution effect, such that as consent searches went down, probable cause searches went up. However, the substitution effect seemed to be directly correlated with leadership priorities. The chapter concludes, "We showed that a combination of leadership directives and simple initiatives can alter the relationship a department can have with their community" (pg. 213). This speaks to the need for clear buy-in from BPD leadership. The Working Group recommends that the BPD adopt the written consent form used in North Carolina, a copy of which can be found here.

9. For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card with the following
information on the back
a) A website similar to RAHEEM that collects information on police-civilian encounters. 8
b) Contact information for filing a complaint with the PRC or its successor, the Police Accountability Board.
8 https://www.raheem.ai/en/
6

10. Address Profiling by Proxy9

DRAFT
Police should not be dispatched to calls that are motivated by caller bias or malintent, e.g., a claim that someone is suspicious with no corroborating reason.10 These types of calls harm police-community relationships and undermine the authority of the police. To protect against profiling by proxy the police department shall:
a. work with PRC and other appropriate agencies to formulate a policy that defines and remedies profiling by proxy.
b. enhance Dispatcher training to evaluate calls and add implicit bias training for 911 Dispatch.

An article on profiling by proxy by the Vera Institute of Justice recommends including 911 Dispatch in implicit bias training as a method for reducing issues with profiling by proxy. Anti-bias training will also help Dispatchers become aware of their own biases.

For example, when they receive calls about behavior the complainant may dislike but is not illegal-e.g., "too many" black teenagers in the public park.11 Hiring & Evaluation
The successful hiring and evaluation of police officers is an important part of creating a healthy and high-functioning police department. The types of people the department hires, and the effective evaluation of police officers are important in determining police department culture.

Researchers on policing have repeatedly found that organizational culture is the single most important determinant of officer behavior.12 Human Resource Management research supports including the evaluation for cultural competency as important in improving agencies. The key components for a high degree of cultural competency are: awareness, attitude, knowledge, skills.

11. Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens A third-party agency, hired by the City of Berkeley, or agency outside the police department should screen police officers and potential new hires' social media accounts for racist or violent comments, affiliations to racist groups whether public or private, including private groups expressing racist or violent rhetoric.
a. BPD shall immediately fire all identified
officers who have engaged in racist or
violent actions or commentary online.
b. A social media screen of officer online conduct shall be done annually. 9 Profiling by proxy may occur "when an individual calls the police and makes false or ill-informed claims of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against-e.g., ethnic and religious minorities, youth, homeless people" (retrieved from The Vera Institute of Justice). 1° Captain Bolton of the Oakland Police Department made improvements on profiling by proxy using an approach that educated citizens on focusing on criminal behavior instead of suspicion when calling police. 11 "Avoiding 'profiling by proxy',"Vera Institute of Justice, March 13, 2015, https://www.vera.org/blog/police­ perspectives/avoiding-profiling-by-proxy
12 Organizational Culture and Police Misconduct
7

DRAFT
Recommendations for Council
Community Engagement and Feedback - When the City of Berkeley pledged to consider reducing funding for the police department by 50%, it also committed itself to shifting to new and alternative methods of community safety. To effectively understand and implement new and alternative safety practices and services, the City of Berkeley must look to its residents for ongoing insight and feedback. The City must collect and utilize regular community feedback to inform the city on community investment priorities including police department policies and practices and future direction. To that end:

12. Address Profiling by Proxy13
To protect against profiling by proxy City Council should:
a. Introduce profiling by proxy legislation similar to CAREN Act in SF, which would hold residents accountable for using police in a biased manner. b. Issue a quarterly review of data from 911 Dispatch, for the PRC or City Auditor to help understand the extent of calls from community members presenting 'biased' suspicions."

13. Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data The City Auditor and/or PRC shall update the analysis of BPD data completed by the Center for Policing Equity and the PRC and publish the results on the BPD website every quarter. This report shall include stop, search, and use of force analysis. - Ensuring Timely and Effective Implementation:

Since the fall of 2017, the police department has received 37 separate policy or legislative directives to address the racially disparate treatment of City of Berkeley residents. Those directives are the result of extensive and on-going racial disparities in police department stops, searches, and use of force. As of the drafting of this report, at least 30 of those directives remain outstanding with no plan for implementation.

We respectfully recognize that the role of the Mayor's Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing is to advise the Berkeley City Council and staff. We recognize that we are not in a position to make final decisions; rather, our role is to offer advice and recommendations to the Council. The Mayor's Working Group is committed to ensuring that the policy recommendations outlined in this proposal are not added to the long list of unaccomplished directives. Therefore, we have included an accountability system with our policy proposal. This accountability system 13 When an individual calls the police and makes false or ill-informed claims of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against-e.g., ethnic and religious minorities, youth, homeless people; retrieved from The Vera Institute of Justice
8

DRAFT
will ensure that the changes necessary to establish fair and impartial policing and rebuild public trust occur.

Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms:

A. Working in partnership with the Mayor's Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing and within six months from approval of the proposal (extended for good cause), the City Manager hires an experienced consultant to help draft an implementation plan that includes a timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the working group's policy proposal.
i. If a consultant is not hired within six months from approval of the proposal, the Council should move to item "E" below.
ii. If a consultant is not hired within six months (extended for good cause), the working group should remain formally organized by the Mayor until a consultant is hired and a plan is approved.

B. The Working Group, Police Chief, and the consultant will create an implementation plan that includes a timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the Working Group's policy proposal. Long-term monitoring and assessments will be the responsibility of the police oversight body (the PRC or its successor the Police Accountability Board).

C. The implementation plan will be presented to the Berkeley City Council for approval.

Once the plan is approved by the City Council, the consultant's work is finished. Long­ term monitoring and assessment will be
the responsibility of the police oversight body
(the PRC or its successor the Police Accountability Board).

D. The City Manager and the Berkeley Police Chief should do everything within their power to implement the items outlined in the plan and timeline set forth and approved by City Council.

E. The City Council should set the implementation of this plan as a priority in the annual evaluation of the city manager.

F. If the City Manager does not ensure that the Police Department implements the plan in accordance with the timeline, the City Manager should be held accountable. i. In the event of a new Berkeley Police Department Chief: the Mayor's Working Group, on Fair and Impartial Policing, the new Police Chief and the City Manager shall meet and agree upon an updated timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the plan approved by City Council. ii. In the event of a new City Manager: the Working Group, the Berkeley Police Chief, and the new City Manager shall meet and agree upon an updated timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the plan approved by City Council.

If these recommendations are adopted and implemented promptly, we expect that the disparate stop data can show significant improvement in the near future. We expect the City Manager and the Police Chief to implement these programs with enthusiasm and dedication, as they reflect the constitutional imperative of equal protection under the law. 9

DRAFT
10

DRAFT
Appendix A: Additional Recommendations
The following recommendations are also supported by the working group, which suggests referring them to the reimagining process and/or follow-up with the Police Accountability Board and the Fair and Impartial working group. See table 1 for recommended actions.

14. Include a scenario-based training component in the existing officer training required by California Penal Code 13519.4
a. The training must include specific, relevant examples of prohibited actions and how to conduct law enforcement activities in an unbiased manner. 14 b. MILO and VIRTRA are two such scenario-based training programs15 c. An independent observer shall review the training and report back to the PRC or its successor on the quality of the training.

15. Require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police There is scant scientific evidence that implicit bias training works to change implicit biases over the long-term. However, agency-wide, enhanced, and well-executed training that occurs on a regular basis could have a positive effect on the cultural environment of the police department and on expectations for behavior. Regular, required implicit bias training provides an expression of institutional support for fairness, which is important in improving relationships across groups16and improving agency culture. a. Officers should receive intensive anti-racism and implicit bias training as part of their core instruction in the first 90 days of employment, and an annual 'refresher' course.
b. An independent observer shall attend the training and report back to the PRC on the quality of the training.

16. Accelerate Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) activity
a) Require 40 hours of CIT training in the first year of employment. b) Collect data on CIT calls to allow BPD to make informed decisions about staffing and deployment so that a CIT officer is available for all shifts in all districts to respond to every CIT call.
c) Develop a CIT reporting system so that each deployment of a CIT officer is well documented. CIT officers should submit narrative reports of their interactions with persons in crisis so the appropriateness of the response can be evaluated in an after­ action analysis.
d) Implement an assessment program to evaluate the efficacy of the CIT program as a whole and the performance of individual CIT officers. A portion of a CIT officer's performance review should address skill and effectiveness in CIT situations. 14 CA Penal Code
15 MILO in an Oakland setting
16 Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice. 11

DRAFT

17. The City of Berkeley should conduct annual community forums on Police and Public Safety:
a. Identifying community-based leaders and impacted individuals for control of the envisioning process.
b. Placing the process under the Office of the Mayor, not the City Manager. Upon establishment of the Police Accountability Board, place the process under the auspices of the Police Accountability Board.
c. Including the creation of community-based measures of safety as part of the first round of the envisioning process. 17
d. Once community-based measures of safety are created, including these measures in the annual community survey (see item 17) and publishing the data as per item 17b.

18. The City of Berkeley should conduct an annual community survey.

Sample surveys include the Milwaukee survey and the Dallas survey. a. Data collected should be shared publicly via the City of Berkeley website or an online community dashboard.,_

19. The City should create a formalized feedback system to gauge community response to ongoing reforms and ensure this constructive input system is institutionalized and includes:
a. A basic "Report Card," in collaboration with the PRC or its successor the Police Accountability Board, based on community feedback for each reform. This will enable the Department to take the 'community's temperature' on how the implementation of the reforms are being perceived by the public. b. Quarterly neighborhood 'check ins' for relationship building .

20. Conduct a Capacity Study
a. Release data including but not limited to 911 dispatch calls, BPD stops and interventions, written reports, and body-worn camera footage to the City Auditor and/or PRC for analysis. 18
b. Conduct an audit on officer down time to determine the percentage of police time spent outside of responding to calls for service and how police officers spend this time. Share this information with the City Auditor and/or PRC for analysis for use in the capacity study.
c. Conduct an audit of police overtime to determine the factors that contribute to the use of overtime .
17 This process should follow or be modeled after the Everyday Peace Indicators process 18 This study could be time-limited and would not have to be a comprehensive analysis of internal data; a random sample done correctly would suffice to determine how best to restructure the response to a variety of problematic
situations.
12

DRAFT
d. Identify what percentage of calls for service require a unique police response and what percentage of calls could be better served by an alternative response with the goal to focus police response on issues that can best be responded to by police officers.
e. These data can also assist in identifying calls suspected of profiling by proxy.

21. Fund and implement a specialized care unit for mental health crises Fully fund and implement the specialized care unit as swiftly as possible in order to remove mental health and homeless encounters from the responsibility of BPD.

Research has found that individuals with mental illness are at a higher risk of police stops, use of force, 19 and a fatal police encounter.20 These disparities increase for Black and Latinx individuals. Specialized mental health crisis units are a safer option for those experiencing a mental health crisis than a police response and a more cost-effective use of public resources.21 The Council's July 14, 2020 decision to create a Specialized Care Unit will better serve people in Berkeley experiencing a mental health crisis. The Working Group supports transitioning away from police as first responders to 911 calls related to mental health and towards trained, unarmed mental health first responders.

The Berkeley Community Safety Coalition in collaboration with Councilmember Bartlett
are developing a proposal related to a pilot program transitioning away from sworn police as first responders to professional mental health first responders. The Working Group supports this effort.

22. Make resources on police-civilian encounters more publicly available, including:
a. A website similar to RAHEEM that collects information on police-civilian encounters. 22
b. Contact information for filing a complaint with the PRC or its successor.

23. Evaluate the impact of these proposals on racial disparities in stops and searches, using regular updates to stop and search data
19 Mental Illness. Police Use of Force, and Citizen Injury 20 Deaths of people with mental illness during interactions with law enforcement 21 CAHOOTS Media Guide. 2020
22 https://www.raheem.ai/en/
13

Attachment 2: Working Group Recommendations Passed by Council. February 23, 2021

ANNOTATED AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
4:00 P.M.

DISTRICT 1 - RASHI KESARWANI
DISTRICT 2 - TERRY TAPLIN
DISTRICT 3 - BEN BARTLETT
DISTRICT 4 - KA TE HARRISON

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 5 - SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 6 - SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 7 - RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 8 - LORI DROSTE
PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH

VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE
Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N-29-20, issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020, this meeting of the City Council will be conducted exclusively through teleconference and Zoom videoconference. Please be advised that pursuant to the Executive Order and the Shelter-in-Place Order, and to ensure the health and safety of the public by limiting human contact that could spread the COVID-19 virus, there will not be a physical meeting location available.

Live audio is available on KPFB Radio 89. 3. Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B-TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/CalendarEventWebcastMain.aspx.

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this URL https://us02web.zoom.us/i/81676274736. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the "raise hand" icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.

To join by phone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 {Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 816 7627 4736. ff you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

To submit an e-mail comment during the meeting to be read aloud during public comment, email [email protected] with the Subject Line in this format: "PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM##-." Please observe a 150 word limit. Time limits on public comments will apply. Written comments will be entered into the public record.

Please be mindful that the teleconference will be recorded as any Council meeting is recorded, and all other rules of procedure and decorum will apply for Council meetings conducted by teleconference or videoconference.

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

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 1

Preliminary Matters
Roll Call: 4:06 p.m.

Present: Taplin, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin

Absent: Kesarwani
Councilmember Kesarwani present at 4:13 p.m.

Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Wengraf) to adopt a special rule for this meeting to limit public comment to one minute per speaker, with the option to yield time up to a total of four minutes.

Vote: Ayes - Taplin, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes - None; Abstain - None; Absent - Kesarwani
Action Calendar - New Business

1. Report and Recommendations From Mayor's Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group
From: Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Harrison (Author) Recommendation:

1. Accept and acknowledge the report from the Fair and Impartial Working Group (Attachment 1 ).

2. Direct the City Manager to implement the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1, with at minimum, quarterly progress updates to the Police Accountability Board (PAB) and/or the Working Group. -Focus traffic stops on safety
-Use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects -Use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence-based criteria
-Eliminate stops for low-level offenses
-Implement an Early Intervention System (EIS) and a risk-management structure -Immediately release stop, arrest, calls for service and use of force data from 2012 to present to the Working Group
-Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status such as Post Release Community Supervision
(PRCS), probation, or parole
-Require written consent for all consent searches
-Address Profiling by Proxy (PAB Policy Development, Dispatcher Training) -Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens -Address Profiling by Proxy (Council develop & pass CAREN policy) -Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data -Make resources on police-civilian encounters more publicly available such as RAHEEM.org
-Adopt Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms; -Hire consultant to develop implementation plan
-For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card with info on a website similar to RAHEEM and info on complaint process with PAB

3. Refer the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 to be included in the process to reimagine public safety:

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 2

Action Calendar - New Business
-Create a formalized feedback system to gauge community response to ongoing reforms and ensure this constructive input system is institutionalized with the Police Review Commission or its successor and includes a basic report card and quarterly neighborhood check-ins
-Conduct a baseline community survey

4. Refer the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 to the Police Review Commission, to be taken up by the Police Accountability Board when it is established
-Include a scenario-based training component in the existing officer training required by California Penal Code 13519.4
-Require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police -Accelerate Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) activity

5. Acknowledge and reaffirm the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 that are already underway:
-Fund and implement a specialized care unit for mental health crises -Conduct a Capacity Study of police calls and responses and use of officer time outside of case work

6. Refer $50,000 to the FY 2022 budget process for a consultant to develop an implementation plan as described in Attachment 1 and other minor costs the Department may confer
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, (510) 981-7100
Action: 40 speakers. M/S/C (Arreguin/Harrison) to:

1. Accept and acknowledge the report from the Mayor's Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group;

2. Acknowledge and appreciate the work already completed or underway by the City Manager's Office and Police Department to implement policing reforms including:
• Adoption and implementation of Policy 401, Fair and Impartial Policing • Public reporting of stop data on the BPD Open Data Portal • Initiation of the Center for Policing Equity study
• Implementation of the Body Worn Camera Program
• Early adoption of Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data collection and reporting
• Updates to the Use of Force Policy, Policy 300
• Development and passage of Measure II to create a new Police Accountability Board
• Launching of the Public Safety Reimagining process

3. Refer to the City Manager to implement the following recommendations summarized below, with quarterly progress updates to the City Council and Police Review Commission/Police Accountability Board (when established):

Implement a new evidence-based Traffic Enforcement Model • Focusing the basis for traffic stops on safety and not low-level offenses; • Reaffirming and clarifying that the Berkeley Police Department will use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects; • Reaffirming and clarifying that the Berkeley Police Department will use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence-based criteria
• Minimize or de-emphasize as a lowest priority stops for low-level offenses.

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 3

Action Calendar - New Business
Implement Procedural Justice Reforms
• Refer amendments to existing BPD policy and the creation of an Early Intervention System (EIS) related to traffic, bike and pedestrian stops; • Adopt a policy to require written consent for all vehicle and residence searches and update the consent search form in alignment with best practice and community feedback;
• Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status such as Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), probation, or parole; • Address Profiling by Proxy (PAB Policy Development, Dispatcher Training); • Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens;
• Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data; • Make resources on police-civilian encounters publicly available such as through RAHEEM.org;
• For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card with info on the commendation and complaint process with PAB and Berkeley Police Department.

Request that the City Manager report back at a Council Work Session in three months with budget estimates for implementation (to be considered along with the FY 22 budget process), information on legal and operational considerations, and a short-term action plan of recommendations which can be implemented without the hiring of a consultant, and those that will require the assistance of a consultant and additional resources.

Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms
• The City Manager will create an implementation plan with the assistance of a consultant that includes a timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the Working Group's policy proposal.

Long-term monitoring and assessments will be the responsibility of the police oversight body (the PRC or its successor the Police Accountability Board). • The implementation plan will be presented to the Berkeley City Council for approval. Once the plan is approved by the City Council, the consultant's work is finished. Long-term monitoring and assessment will be the responsibility of the police oversight body (the PRC or its successor the Police Accountability Board).

4. Refer the following recommendations summarized below to the Reimagine Public Safety process:
• Create a formalized feedback system to gauge community response to ongoing reforms and ensure this constructive input system is institutionalized with the Police Review Commission or its successor and includes a basic report card and quarterly neighborhood check-ins
• Conduct a baseline community survey.

5. Refer the following training recommendations summarized below to the Police Review Commission, to be taken up by the Police Accountability Board when it is established, and consider the resources required to implement this expanded training:
• Include a scenario-based training component in the existing officer training required by California Penal Code 13519.4
• Require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police • Accelerate Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) activity
Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page4

Action Calendar - New Business
• Refer to the PRC/PAB to consider a departmental policy on requiring written consent for person searches and report back in 6 months.

6. Acknowledge and reaffirm the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 that are already underway and have been completed:
• BPD released stop, arrest, calls for service and use of force data from 2012 to present to the Working Group;
• Fund and implement a specialized care unit for mental health crises; • Conduct a Capacity Study of police calls and responses and use of officer time outside of case work.

7. Refer $50,000 to the FY 2022 budget
process for a consultant to assist the City
Manager/Police Department in the implementation of these recommendations and other minor costs the Department may confer; and also refer to the FY 2022 budget process a line item for police training for the new evidence-based stop program (costs to be determined by BPD).

Vote: All Ayes.

Adjournment
Action: M/S/C (Robinson/Taplin) to adjourn the meeting.

Vote: All Ayes.

Adjourned at 7:07 p.m.

Communications
• None
Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
• None
Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Item #1: Report and Recommendations From Mayor's Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group

1. Elizabeth Ferguson
Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Item #1: Report and Recommendations From Mayor's Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group

2. Material, submitted by Mayor Arreguin

3. Presentation, submitted by the Police Department

4. Janice Schroeder

5. Thomas Luce

6. Ben Gerhardstein, on behalf of Walk Bike Berkeley

7. Diana Bohn

8. Sivan Orr

9. Ali Lafferty
Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 5

Attachment 3: Summary of BPD Quarterly Updates on Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation

FIP
Recommendation
June 2021 Oct 2021 Feb 2022 June 2022 September
2022
March 2023 June 2023 October
2023
Implement a new
evidence-based
traffic
enforcement
model:
minimize or de-
emphasize as a
lowest priority
stops for low-level
offenses
A working group
(wg) has been
established
consisting of
employees
working in every
division of BPD
and a
representative of
the BPA
leadership. The wg
is tasked with
identifying what
low-level offenses
are applicable
while balancing
the necessity of
traffic safety and
the Berkely Vision
Zero initiative. The
wg will present
recommended
policy language as
well as analysis of
risk or unintended
outcomes no later
than Fall 2021.

Officers have
been directed
to focus less
attention on
equipment
violations and
are expected
to make
investigative
stops related
to criminal
intelligence
information.

The wg has
been working
to identify
traffic
offenses that
most impact
public safety.

Officers have
been provided
data regarding
primary collision
factors and have
been directed to
enforce those
violations. The wg
created a three-
prong approach
that focuses on
primary collision
factors,
community
member reports,
and community
caretaking.

Implementation
in progress.

Training has
commenced.

Implementation
complete1.

Officers have
been provided
data regarding
primary
collision factors
and have been
directed to
enforce those
violations. BPD
has
implemented
and conducted
departmental
training on the
three-prong
approach.

Implementation
complete.

Training on the
three-pronged
approach has
concluded. The
Department will
continue to
review data on
traffic offenses
that affect
community
safety.

Same as
previous
In addition, this
has been
formalized as a
departmental
directive in a
Special Order
on traffic
enforcement.

Same as
previous
Use a clear,
evidence-based
definition for stops
BPD is establishing
a precision based
policing model
that considers
BPD
continues to
develop and
deploy data-
BPD is
establishing a
precision-based
policing model
BPD is
establishing a
precision-based
policing model
Implementation
complete. BPD
is establishing a
precision-based
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
1 Reflects BDP-reported status update.

of criminal
suspects
data and public
safety. Data driven
tools that enable
close to real-time
dashboard
tracking of calls
for service have
been provided to
Community
Service Bureau
and Patrol Watch
Commandeers.

The goal is to have
data-driven
approaches to
violence
prevention
programs in real
time crime and
call analysis for
patrol deployment
strategies.
driven tools
to enhance
precision-
based policing
model.

Interviewing
for two data
analysts and
continuing to
build data
dashboard.
that considers
data and public
safety. Data
driven tools that
enable real-time
dashboard
tracking (close to
real time) have
been provided to
Patrol Watch
Commanders.

Exploring
feasibility of a
system that
employs a
feedback loop to
provide
information back
to the
Community
Services Bureau
to support
accountability.

Filled one of two
data analyst
positions.
that considers
data and public
safety. Data
driven tools
that enable
real-time
dashboard
tracking (close
to real time)
have been
provided to
Patrol Watch
Commanders.

Exploring
feasibility of a
system that
employs a
feedback loop.
policing model
that considers
data and public
safety. Data
driven tools
that enable
real-time
dashboard
tracking (close
to real time)
have been
provided to
Patrol Watch
Commanders.

During this
reporting
period feedback
loop
implemented.

System
provides
tracking of calls
for service with
the goal of call
analysis for
patrol
deployment
strategies and
allows officers
in the field to
communicate
to the
Community
Service Bureau.

Use race and
ethnicity as
determining
factors in stops
only when paired
with clear,
evidence-based
criteria
Implementation
complete. Existing
law prohibits
racial profiling.

Policy 401 (Fair
and Impartial)
explicitly states
that officers shall
not consider race,
ethnicity, national
origin, gender….in
establishing
reasonable
suspicion or
probable
cause…the above
policies were
reviewed in light
of taskforce
recommendations
and found to
affirm and clarify
officer
responsibility in
stops.

Same as
previous
Same as previous Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Implement an
Early Intervention
System (EIS) and a
risk-management
structure
Working on
amendments
to EWS to
include data
around traffic,
bike, and
pedestrian
stops.

Amendments are
being made to
specifically
identify
additional activity
that should be
considered when
applying the EWS
policy. Language
Implementation
complete.

Updated policy
finalized
reflecting
amendments to
include
monitoring of
stop data for
Implementation
complete.

Random
quarterly audits
of officers’ stop
data,
complaints, and
use of force,
and other
Implementation
complete. The
City Council
referred
$100,000 to the
June 2023
Budget Process
to enter into a
contract to
Same as
previous

added to include
data around
traffic, bicycle
and pedestrian
stops. The new
policy is being
reviewed by the
police union.
individual
officers. The
Audits and
Inspections
Sergeant will
also conduct
separate and
random
quarterly audits
of officer’s stop
data,
complaints, and
use of force
incidents and
other factors
and will share
these audits
with the PAB.
factors, the
results of which
will be reported
to the Chief of
Police.
design and
assist with
implementing a
comprehensive
Early
Intervention
and Risk
Management
System.

BPD to provide
regular analysis of
stop, search, and
use of force data
BPD is in the
process of
expanding the
call for service
dataset to
include all call
types and
eliminate
180-day time
range. BPD
has started
working with
a vendor to
update the
public facing
open data.

In the process of
eliminating the
180-day time
range that
currently exists.

In the process of
expanding the
call for service
data set.

Expected
completion is
summer 2022.

Implementation
complete. Open
Data Portal and
Transparency
Hub effectuate
this
recommend-
ation.

Implementation
complete. The
department will
regularly
analyze stop,
search, and use
of force data.

Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous

Require written
consent for all
consent searches
Policy to
require
written
consent for all
vehicle and
residence
searching
using updated
form near
completion.

Revised consent
form has been
created.

Implementation
in progress. New
search and
seizure policy
being reviewed
by union.

Implementation
complete.

Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Limit warrantless
searches of
individuals on
supervised release
status such as
PRCS, probation, or
parole, absent
reasonable
suspicion
Implementation
complete. Policy
311 updated to
limit searches on
individuals who
are on supervised
release, absent
reasonable
suspicion.

Implementation
complete.

However, In
July 2022, City
Council
approved a
revised Policy
311 to allow for
searches of
those on
supervised
release for
violent crimes.

Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Address profiling
by proxy
Implementation
complete.

Comms Center
Operation
Manual amended
to address.

Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Fire racist police
officers identified
through social
media and other
media screens
The FIP
taskforce
identified
additional
methods for
Implementation
complete.

Existing policy
implements this
recommendation
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous

discovering
issues and
BPD will work
with the
taskforce to
determine
the
effectiveness,
legality, and
usefulness of
these tools.

Make resources on
police-civilian
encounters more
publicly available
such as through
RAHEEM.org
Not Addressed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

For any individual
detained BPD
officers shall
provide a business
card
Implementation
complete. In May
2021 business
cards modified to
add info for IA
and PAB on back.

Officers directed
to provide to all
detained.

Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Conduct a capacity
study of police
calls and responses
and use of officer
time outside of
case work
City Auditor’s
report included
analysis of CAD
data. BPD has
reviewed and
added additional
disposition codes
to CAD program.

An assessment
of overall
staffing levels
as well as patrol
beat specific
analysis has
been referred
to the budget
Same as
previous
The City
Auditor’s
report was
released
which
analyzed CAD
data.

Recommend
The BPD has
completed an
RFP. Citygate
has been
selected to
conduct the
workload study.

A contract with
A
contract
with
Citygate
will be in
place by
the end

One data analyst
will be tasked
with ongoing
analysis of police
calls and
responses.
process via the
Council’s
direction on
Reimaging
public safety
ations were
provided to
the BPD and
findings were
referred to
the
Reimagine
Public Safety
Task Force.

BPD has
implemented
the
recommenda
tions and an
assessment
of overall
staffing
levels as well
as patrol
beat specific
analysis will
be conducted
as part o the
sworn
staffing
assessment.

Citygate is
expected in the
near future.
of
August.

Fund and
implement a
specialized care
unit
XX (PAB has not
tracked
implementation
status of this
effort)

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
Create a
formalized
feedback system to
Implementation
in progress.

Baseline survey
Initial
implementation
complete. BPD
Same as
previous
Same as
previous
Initial
implementation
complete. To
Same as
previous

gauge community
response to
ongoing reforms
and ensure this
constructive input
system is
institutionalized
with the police
review commission
or its successor
and includes a
basic report card
and quarterly
neighborhood
check-ins; conduct
a baseline
community survey.
completed as
part of
Reimagining
Public Safety
Taskforce
process.
will be seeking
ongoing
community
input and
feedback via
the
Transparency
Hub
support
feedback
systems, the
BPD will be
seeking ongoing
community
input and
feedback
around reform
efforts via the
Transparency
Hub.

Attachment 4: BPD Three-Pronged Approach to Traffic Enforcement

The BPIJ �as mp 11iari t i zed t raffi c safety el'fo rt s arau d a th rel!'-p rang approac h U1at foc c11ses o□ pr i mairy c oll i si 11n fact ors (IPCF].
1ct1 mmuni t � 1:ari c uns submi tt ed ta t he BPIJ. and our rnle a<S c om1111urii t y ca re t akers. Gommuni t y ca ret aki ng fu nci i ons c onsi der safety
vi ola ·ans that are n't al1 i a�s not ed as t he pri mar� c olli <Si on fa c to r but 1can be a si gnifi c ,rnt co nt ri but i ng tac to r i n se ri ous c oll i si ons.

The BPIJ o
ol lec t s a range of dat a re lat ed to tr affic safet y to i nc lude ca l Is for serM1i ce, c olli si on data. and ,qualit at i ve sunvey data . T ti e analrse:s n e t he II used to gui de emoroe me□t , ediucat i o□. and pr eve lltia n st rat e gi es. �rang If 1 - Pin1111a['{ Gol li s<io n !Fact o rs
.[Buike ley S>J!e:Di fi c dat a}
t-cll-t111
e 11 111 i
• lia:lllllJl 11
1i31I I
• Stop SI II .,ms
crom,11
lo llllrnlt a ra �Ml tl!lll se I out tn r oon 01
Ille
0 1 mllstro
I !Ill
�L

Attachment 5: Berkeley Police Department Memorandum Titled: “PD Response to PAB FIP Implementation Report”

Berkeley Police Department
Memorandum

From: Chief Jennifer Louis Date: 4/15/2024
To: The Police Accountability Board and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability Subject: PD Response to PAB FIP Implementation Report
We sincerely thank you for sharing the draft of your Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report and for being open to accepting our comments and feedback. The Berkeley Police Department commends the Police Accountability Board for your analysis and efforts to enhance policing standards in our community. Your work plays a vital role in promoting fairness, equity, and impartiality in policing.

BPD is fully committed to collaborating with the PAB as we share the goals of ensuring justice and safety for every community member. We value your partnership as we implement effective reforms and strive for continuous improvement.

Regarding the specific recommendations:
• BPD appreciates the guidance to focus on outcomes, not just policies. We commit to including measures of our impact on racial disparities, such as steps taken to mitigate officer bias, in our quarterly FIP reports. While acknowledging external factors, we will emphasize areas where BPD can drive meaningful change.
• Since implementing our Three-Pronged Traffic Enforcement model, we've decreased equipment violation stops by 21% from 2022-2023 and reduced disparities in all discretionary vehicle stops.

The data shows that the percentage of all discretionary equipment violation stops involving Black individuals has decreased from 29.49% in 2021 to 20.93% in 2023, indicating progress in addressing the overrepresentation of Black people in these stops. We are open to further adjustments but believe our current approach needs more time to demonstrate its full impact. • BPD will continue to exceed the Council's directives for implicit bias training through our comprehensive KIND program, which embeds these principles into trainings on tactics, de- escalation, and communication. This holistic approach reinforces recognizing and mitigating bias across all aspects of our work.
• BPD is actively collaborating with the PAB and the Berkeley Police Association to enhance and refine our Early Intervention System. We are working to ensure our approach reflects best practices and balances the goals of fairness and effectiveness in identifying areas for improvement. The system's design will be informed by comprehensive analysis and guidance from these subject matter experts.
• Our policies mandate strict accountability for any biased conduct by officers. BPD is fully committed to enforcing these standards to maintain the highest levels of integrity and public trust.

Regarding the collision analysis, we want to clarify that it aims to provide a relevant baseline of the demographics of Berkeley drivers, especially those driving dangerously, to enable a fair assessment of officers' decision-making. The data reflects operational realities, not an attribution of driving behaviors

Berkeley Police Department
Memorandum

to any racial group. We acknowledge the omission of equipment violations and commit to expanding our analysis to examine these stops in future reports.

We suggest the FIP subcommittee develop a theory of change linking each recommendation to specific factors contributing to disparities (e.g., socioeconomic inequities, institutional practices, individual bias).

This will allow us to better assess if reforms are addressing the intended aspects of the disparities.

We also recommend clarifying that the disparity figures compare stop demographics to city demographics, not necessarily differential treatment for identical behaviors, to accurately capture the complex factors shaping police interactions beyond just department policies.

Regarding implementation progress, BPD has engaged on every recommendation, completing all but one. The outstanding recommendation, 'Conduct a capacity study of police calls and responses and use of officer time outside of case work,' is expected to be completed by June, pending the results of an upcoming report from Citygate Associates. Our 2023 annual report reflects this progress and commitment. Beyond the completion of the final recommendation, the department will continue efforts related to fair and impartial policing and will continue to assess and review the efficacy of our efforts.

In conclusion, the Berkeley Police Department reaffirms our unwavering dedication to fair and impartial policing. We deeply value the PAB's crucial role in achieving our shared goals and welcome your continued feedback. BPD is committed to learning, improving, and engaging in open dialogue as we work together to promote equity and justice.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input. We look forward to our continued partnership to ensure Berkeley's policing lives up to our city's values.

Igor Tregub, Councilmember, District 4
Adena Ishii, Mayor
Mark Humbert, Councilmember, District 8
Cecilia Lunaparra, Councilmember, District 7

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Igor Tregub (Author), Mayor Ishii (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Humbert (Co-Sponsor), and Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Resolution in Support of California Senate Bill 81 (Arreguín) Health and Care Facilities: Information Sharing to Amend Sections 56.05 and 56.10 of the Civil Code, and to Add Chapter 1.5 to Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Health and Care Facilities

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution in support of California State Senate (SB) Bill 81 (Arreguín), Healthcare Provider Entities: Information Sharing amend Sections 56.05 and 56.10 of the Civil Code, and to add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 1249) to Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to health and care facilities, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately; 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.

SB 81 would mandate healthcare facilities to develop protocols for monitoring and receiving visitors, as well as designating certain areas as nonpublic in order to maintain a secure environment aligned with the facility’s mission and commitment to patient care.

Additionally, the bill would prohibit immigration enforcement agents from entering nonpublic areas of a facility without a valid judicial warrant or court order. It would also protect patient information by barring the disclosure of a person’s current or past immigration status or place of birth for purposes related to immigration enforcement.1 1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB81

14

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In January of 2025, the City of Berkeley reaffirmed its status as a Sanctuary City, which outlines that “no department, agency, commission, officer or employee of the City of Berkeley shall use any City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of Federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information on the status of individuals in the City of Berkeley unless required by federal law.”2
Similarly, the California Values Act (SB 54) ensures that no state and local resources are used to assist federal immigration enforcement and that schools, hospitals, and courthouses are safe spaces for everyone.

SB 54 required the Attorney General to prepare and publish guidance promoting safe and secure healthcare access for all in the state of California. This guidance is to provide the administrators of healthcare provider entities with policies for collecting patient and family health information, while preventing unnecessary collection and maintenance of information on the immigration status of patients and their families.

SB 81 would require health and care facilities to restrict access for immigration enforcement to its nonpublic areas without a valid judicial warrant or court order and prohibit such facilities from disclosing current and previous immigration status or birthplace as part of a patient’s medical information for the purposes of immigration enforcement by amending Sections 56.05 and 56.10 of the Civil Code, and to add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 1249) to Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Health and Care Facilities.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Limited staff time associated with communicating the city’s position to the above- referenced recipients.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Igor Tregub, Council District 4
510-981-7140, [email protected]
Amy Johnson, Legislative Aide, Council District 4
[email protected]
2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-01- 21%20Item%2027%20Reaffirming%20Berkeley%20as%20a%20Sanctuary%20City.pdf

Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Fact Sheet

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

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 81 (ARREGUÍN) CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT OF 2026 TO AMEND SECTIONS 85300 AND 85320 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, RELATING TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 81 (Arreguín) would require health and care facilities to restrict access for immigration enforcement to its nonpublic areas without a valid judicial warrant or court order and prohibit such facilities from disclosing current and previous immigration status or birthplace as part of a patient’s medical information for the purposes of immigration enforcement; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 81 is co-sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California Immigrant Policy Center, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, and California Nurses Association, and supported by a broad coalition of labor unions, immigrant rights organizations, not-for-profit community health centers, civic engagement non-profits, civil rights advocates, healthcare policy advocates, organizations for ethnic equity, and youth health commissions, who recognize it as a critical step in protecting the civil rights of immigrants; and WHEREAS, current law does not strictly prohibit health and care entities from sharing patient birthplace and immigration status information with immigration enforcement, leaving immigrants and their families vulnerable when accessing care that is essential to life; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 81 seeks to explicitly prohibit patient birthplace and immigration status information from being shared by healthcare entities to immigration enforcement and restrict access for immigration enforcement to its nonpublic areas without a valid judicial warrant or court order; and
WHEREAS, immigrants and their families have been targeted by the current federal administration, increasing the immigrants’ dire need for support and protection; and WHEREAS, the passage of Senate Bill 81 would help strengthen California’s commitment as a Sanctuary State, ensuring that information regarding immigration status is only shared with due process; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley was the first city in the nation to declare Sanctuary City Status and reaffirmed this commitment in January of 2025; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Berkeley City Council hereby declares its support for California State Senate Bill 81; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Berkeley City Council directs the City Manager to distribute copies to the California Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Jesse Arreguin, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, California Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, and California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas to advocate for its passage.

SB 81– Healthcare Provider Entities: Information Sharing SUMMARY_______________________________
SB 81 would require healthcare facilities to establish
procedures for monitoring and receiving visitors and
designating nonpublic areas to promote a safe environment conducive to the facility’s mission and patient care.

Moreover, this bill would require health facilities to restrict access to its nonpublic areas for immigration enforcement without a valid judicial warrant or court order. Finally, this bill would include current and previous immigration status or place of birth as part of a patient’s medical information that would be prohibited from being disclosed for the
purposes of immigration enforcement.

BACKGROUND__________________ ______
The California Values Act (SB 54) ensures that no state and local resources are used to assist federal immigration
enforcement and that our schools, hospitals, and courthouses are safe spaces for everyone in the community. SB 54 required the Attorney General to prepare and publish guidance
promoting safe and secure healthcare access for all in the state of California. Such guidance is to provide healthcare provider entities administrators with policies for collecting patient and family health information, while preventing unnecessary collection and maintenance of information on the immigration status of patients and their families.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), including its Privacy Rule and its Security Rule, provides protections for the use and disclosure of information contained in medical records. Under HIPAA, personal health information may not be used or disclosed, except under certain conditions, including for treatment or payment for health care and upon the consent of the patient.

PROBLEM_______________________________
Health care is a universal right where one should feel safe and comfortable seeking the care they need. Our
communities should do so without fear of deportation,
harassment, or intimidation. Moreover, immigration status and place of birth are not expressly listed as protected personal health information.

SOLUTION_______________________________
This bill would codify existing policy guidance from the Attorney General as part of SB 54. SB 81 would r equire healthcare facilities to establish procedures for monitoring and receiving visitors, and designate nonpublic areas to promote a safe and inclusive environment for all patients so everyone can get the care they need without fear of
intimidation, harassment, and deportation.

CONTACT_______________________________
Carmen Ayon
Legislative Aide
[email protected]

SUPPORT ______________________________
Co-Sponsors:

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
California Immigrant Policy Center
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
California Nurses Association

Support:

California Primary Care Association
California Hospital Association
La Clinica De La Raza, Inc.

UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute
Venice Family Clinic
Western Center on Law and Poverty, Inc.

First 5 Contra Costa
South Asian Network
The Children’s Partnership
The Los Angeles Trust for Children’s Health

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Pre-Health Dreamers
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Thai Community Development Center
Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice
Indivisible CA State Strong
Healthy Contra Costa
Gender Justice LA
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Farm2People
Ensuring Opportunity Campaign
Disability Rights California
Deaf Hope
CPCA Advocates
Courage California
Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
Ceres Community Project
California Pan Ethnic Health Network
Buen Vecino
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Alliance San Diego

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

PUBLIC HEARING
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Terrance Davis, Director, Public Works
Subject: Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Carleton Street from Westerly Terminus Extending 381.23 Feet Easterly

RECOMMENDATION

1. Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt the first reading of an Ordinance vacating a 381.23-linear-foot (27,449 square foot) portion of the public right-of-way on Carleton Street, located at the westerly terminus of Carleton Street.

2. Schedule a public hearing and second reading of the Ordinance for the July 29, 2025, Council meeting.

3. Upon conclusion of the second reading of the Ordinance, authorize the City Manager to execute a deed quit claiming that portion of the right-of-way of Carleton Street and conveying to the adjacent property owner, Bayer Healthcare LLC ("Bayer").

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There is no negative fiscal impact to the City of Berkeley from adopting this ordinance.

Bayer has paid the appropriate fees related to processing this street vacation. In addition, the street vacation would have a positive financial impact as it will reduce long- term City maintenance and public service costs as well as increase property tax due to increase of the Bayer-owned parcel.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The 381.23-linear-foot segment of Carleton Street proposed for vacation, as described in Exhibit A (attached) and shown on Exhibit B (attached), is a dead-end right-of-way.

Bayer owns all properties adjacent to the proposed vacated section, including on the north, south, and west sides of the subject roadway segment. Therefore, Bayer submitted a request for the City to vacate the dead-end portion of Carleton Street to improve internal circulation and enhance facility security.

The City is currently responsible for maintaining this segment of Carleton Street. In addition, the City is liable for any incidents and accidents that may occur in this section

15

Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Carleton Street from PUBLIC HEARING Westerly Terminus Extending 381.23 Feet Easterly July 22, 2025 of the right-of-way. By vacating this segment, the City eliminates maintenance responsibility and liability while allowing Bayer to move the effective western terminus of Carleton Street eastward to improve site circulation and security.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 3 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, a local agency may vacate a public right-of-way of a street or highway when the street is unnecessary for present or prospective public street uses. The Streets and Highways Code allows the initiation of public street vacation by the City Council by the adoption of a Resolution of intention, the fixing of a date for a public hearing, and the publication and posting of notice as required therein. The Council adopted the Resolution of intention on July 8, 2025, for this purpose.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Vacating a portion of Carleton Street decreases the amount of right-of-way available to motor vehicles which reduces the amount of pollution they produce. Similarly, maintenance activities that may have negative environmental impacts, such as street repaving and concrete sidewalk replacement, would be reduced.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed vacation pursuant to the California Streets and Highways Code §§ 8320, 8322, 8323, 8324 and determined that the segment is "unnecessary for present or prospective public use." This segment of the right-of-way is not identified as (1) a major, collector, or local residential street in the General Plan; (2) as a current or future part of the City's bicycle network in the Bicycle Plan; (3) as a primary or secondary transit route; or (4) as an emergency evacuation route. This portion of Carleton Street provides access to only Bayer's campus, and the vacation of this portion of the street is similar to others the City has adopted in the immediate area in connection with Bayer's campus.

City staff also determined that the vacation will not negatively impact emergency services or utility access. Bayer will preserve the right of the City of Berkeley and utility providers including but not limited to Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), and American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) to maintain, repair, and perform other activities related to their infrastructure in the vacated right-of-way per Section 8340 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

In addition, approval of this vacation allows the City to avoid maintenance costs and liability on a portion of Carleton Street that provides access to only one property owner (Bayer).

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The alternative course of action is to deny the request for street vacation. The City would continue to be responsible for maintaining this portion of Carleton Street and hold

Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Carleton Street from PUBLIC HEARING Westerly Terminus Extending 381.23 Feet Easterly July 22, 2025 liability for any incidents that may occur despite this area being surrounded on three sides by Bayer-owned properties.

CONTACT PERSON
Ronald A. Nevels, Manager of Engineering, Engineering Division (510) 981-6439 Vincent Chen, Supervising Civil Engineer, Engineering Division (510) 981-6409 Attachment:
1: Ordinance
Exhibit A: Street Vacation Area Legal Description
Exhibit B: Street Vacation Area Plat

2: Public Hearing Notice

Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Carleton Street from PUBLIC HEARING Westerly Terminus Extending 381.23 Feet Easterly July 22, 2025 ORDINANCE NO. –N.S.

VACATION OF A PORTION OF CARLETON STREET BETWEEN THE WESTERLY

TERMINUS OF CARLETON STREET AT THE BAYER CAMPUS AND A POINT APPROXIMATELY 381.23 FEET EASTERLY THEREOF
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. Vacation of Portion of Right-of-Way
That pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 8320 et. seq., the City of Berkeley hereby vacates the following portion of the public right-of-way of Carleton Street located at the westerly terminus of Carleton Street at the Bayer Campus, more specifically described in Exhibits A and B, on the basis of the following findings:
a. That the public right-of-way described above is a dead-end street providing street access to one single property, that being the Macaulay Foundry located at 811 Carleton Street;
b. That the owner of the Macaulay Foundry site, Bayer Healthcare LLC, has requested the City vacate that portion of Carleton Street providing access to the Macaulay Foundry site, such owner having established legal access to public streets through property located west and adjacent to it;
c. That the portion of the right-of-way described in Exhibits A and B is not identified as a present or prospective major, collector, or local residential street in the City's General Plan;
d. That the portion of the right-of-way described in Exhibits A and B is not a current or future part of the City's bicycle network in the Bicycle Plan; e. That the portion of the right-of-way described in Exhibits A and B is not identified as a present or prospective primary or secondary transit route in the City's General Plan; f. That the portion of the right-of-way described in Exhibits A and B is not identified as a present or prospective emergency access and evacuation route in the City's General Plan;
g. That the portion of the right-of-way described in Exhibits A and B causes the City to incur maintenance and other public services costs necessary to keep this portion safe and in good repair;
h. That the portion of the right-of-way described in Exhibits A and B is, for the foregoing reasons, unnecessary for present or prospective public street uses; i. That there are public utility facilities that are in use, but they would not be affected

Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Carleton Street from PUBLIC HEARING Westerly Terminus Extending 381.23 Feet Easterly July 22, 2025 by the vacation of the public right-of-way described in Exhibits A and B because the City's quitclaim of interests reserves sufficient easement rights for the benefit of affected utility providers to maintain, repair, and otherwise to affect their utility infrastructure; and j. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this ordinance of vacation, attested by him under seal, to be recorded in the Office of the Recorder for Alameda County, California.

Said vacation shall except and reserve therefrom, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8340 of the Streets and Highways Code, and for the benefit of the City itself, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), and American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), the permanent, non-exclusive easement and right at any time, and from time to time, to excavate for, construct, maintain, operate, replace (of initial or any other size), remove, inspect, use, renew and enlarge public utility facilities, including but not limited to line of pipe, conduits, cables, poles, wires and other convenient structures, equipment and fixtures for the operation of communication lines, electrical transmission distribution lines, natural gas lines, water lines, sanitary and storm sewers, stormwater infrastructure, and communication facilities, including ingress, egress, access and the right to keep the property free from inflammable material and wood growth, including without the limitation the right to trim and cut down trees and other vegetation, and protect the same from all hazards, in, upon, over and across those portions of Carleton Street so vacated and abandoned. Areas above, below, and within 8 feet of such public facilities shall be kept open and free of new buildings, structures, wells, and other obstructions. For the purposes of this section, a fence shall not constitute a new building, structure, well, or other obstruction.

Section 2. Conveyance of Property
That the City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute a quitclaim deed, conveying the City’s interests in the portion of the right-of-way described in Exhibits A and B to the adjacent property owner Bayer Healthcare LLC; and That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause the executed quitclaim deed to be recorded in the Official Records of Alameda County, California.

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

Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Carleton Street from PUBLIC HEARING Westerly Terminus Extending 381.23 Feet Easterly July 22, 2025 Exhibits
A: Street Vacation Area Legal Description
B: Street Vacation Area Plat

March 5, 2025
EXHIBIT “A”
VACATION DESCRIPTION
CARLETON STREET

A L L  O F  T H A T  R E A L  P R O P E R T Y  S I T U A T E  I N  T H E  C I T Y  O F  B E R K E L E Y ,  A L A MEDA  COUNTY,  STATE  OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEING  A  PORTION  OF  CARLETON  STREET,  AS  SAID  STREET  BEING  LABELED  AS  CARLTON  STREET  AND SHOWN ON THE “MAP OF BYRON JACKSON IRON WORKS PROPERTY” FILED O N JULY 14TH, 1909 IN BOOK 24 OF MAPS AT PAGE 84, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING  A T  T H E  I N T E R S E C T I O N  O F  T H E  N O R T H E R L Y  R I G H T  O F  W A Y  L I N E  O F  C A R L ETON  STREET WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 7 TH STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID “MAP OF BYRON JACKSON IRON WORKS PROPERTY”;  THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CARLETON STREET, SOUTH 72°14'00" WEST 240.54 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE D E E D  T O  J O H N  A L L E N  A N D  K E N  D A V I D ,  R E C O R D E D  MARCH  18,  2004 AS  DOCUMENT  NUMBER  2004‐ 113321,  SAID  POINT  ALSO  BEING  THE  POINT  OF  BEGINNING ;  THENCE  CONTINUING  ALONG  THE N O R T H E R L Y  R I G H T  O F  W A Y  L I N E  O F  CA R L E T O N  S T R E E T ,  SOUTH  72°14'00"  WEST  381.23  FEET,  TO  THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CARLETON STREET AS DESCRIBED IN O RDINANCE 6618‐N.S., CITY OF BERKELEY,  ALAMEDA  COUNTY;  THENCE A L O N G  S A I D  W E S T E R L Y  R I G H T  O F  W A Y  L I N E  O F  C A R L E T O N STREET, SOUTH 17°46'00" EAST 72.00 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF CARLETON STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CARLETON STREET,  SOUTH 72°14'00" WEST 381.23 FEET, TO A POINT WHICH WO ULD BE INTERSECTED BY A LINE D RAWN SOUTHERLY AND AT RIGHT ANGLE FROM THE POINT OF  BEGINNING, SOUTH 17°14’00 EAST 72 .00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING AN AREA OF 27,449 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.

ATTACHED HERETO IS A PLAT ENTITLED EXHIBIT “B” FOR REFERENCE ONLY.

END OF DESCRIPTION

PREPARED BY:

_______________________                             M a r c h   5 ,   2 0 2 5 V I N C E N T   J .   D ’ A L O                          D A T E LS 4210

CARLETON STREET
7TH STREET

CARLETON STREET
Civil Engineers
Traffic Engineers
Surveyors
Aliquot Associates, Inc.
1390 S. Main St. - Ste. 310
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 476-2300
Fax: (925) 476-2350

EXHIBIT B
LEGEND

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL

CARLETON STREET VACATION
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

Bayer Healthcare, LLC (Bayer) has requested the city vacate a portion of Carleton Street public right-of-way from its westerly terminus extending 381.23 feet easterly and conveying the vacated portion to Bayer. See attached legal description and plat of the proposed vacation.

The proposed street vacation will be pursuant to Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 3 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.

A public hearing and first reading of an ordinance is scheduled for the Tuesday, July 22, 2025 City Council meeting, with a second hearing and reading scheduled for Tuesday, July 29, 2025. The location of the hearings is the School District Board Room – 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley, CA 94702. City Council meetings commence at 6:00PM.

A copy of the agenda material for the July 22, 2025 hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of July 10, 2025. A copy of the agenda material for the July 29, 2025 hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of July 17, 2025. Once posted, the agendas for these meetings will include links for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

For further information, please contact Vincent Chen at [email protected], 510- 981-6409.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to
[email protected] in order to ensure
delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Communications to the Berkeley 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.

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 at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing 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 July 10, 2025.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, 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.ci.berkeley.ca.us/manager

PUBLIC HEARING
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Prepared by: Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution:

1. Approving the attached Compendium reflecting the current operational agreements between the Berkeley Police Department and other law enforcement agencies and private organizations.

2. Accepting the attached Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).

3. Accepting the attached Mutual Aid requests and responses report as submitted in accordance with existing City Council directives.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal impact of not approving these inter-agency operational agreements is difficult to quantify, but the potential costs to the City of Berkeley could be substantial. Without formal partnerships between agencies, the City could face significantly higher expenditures when responding to critical incidents or large-scale emergencies, including but not limited to major criminal investigations, civil unrest, natural disasters, or acts of terrorism. The absence of these agreements may also necessitate that the department develop and maintain additional internal expertise, equipment or specialized programs in order to meet operational needs independently.

These agreements are essential for enabling coordinated, timely and cost-effective responses that minimize strain on City resources and ensure public safety during such events.

Approval of these agreements supports the continuation of law enforcement operations as outlined in the Department’s current budget. While non-approval may yield short-term budget savings, it could lead to increased investigative costs and immeasurable impacts on public safety and justice outcomes if offenders are not effectively identified or prosecuted.

The cost, or lack thereof, for each agreement are outlined in the summary included in the attached MOU Compendium.

16

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 22, 2025 2 CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The majority of these agreements have been in place for several years and are updated as necessary to ensure continued relevance and operational effectiveness. This allows daily law enforcement operations to proceed smoothly. Challenges that may arise are addressed through mutual cooperation and strong working relationships between agencies. Without these agreements or memoranda of understanding (MOUs), the Department’s efficiency and ability to deliver services effectively would be significantly diminished.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) §§2.04.150 – 2.04.210 requires City Council approval of any agreements, understandings, or policies involving mutual aid, information sharing, or operational cooperation between the Berkeley Police Department and local, state or federal law enforcement agencies, military or intelligence agencies, and private security organizations. These provisions came into effect under Ord. 4640 NS §1, 1973, requiring annual City Council approval. The last City Council approval was July 23, 2018. Subsequent delays resulted from a combination of factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic, staffing shortages, the transition from legacy General Orders to updated Lexipol Policies, and extended legal review processes across multiple agencies for new and revised agreements. This hearing brings the Department back into compliance with the ordinance.

While the original ordinance requires annual review, the administrative burden of reviewing, updating, and securing approval for over two dozen separate agreements each year, many involving multiple external legal and policy stakeholders, has proven operationally inefficient and resource intensive. Given that most agreements do not materially change year to year and are subject to ongoing internal and partner agency review, the requirement for annual Council approval imposes a recurring administrative obligation without clear operational necessity or benefit. To ensure continued compliance while reducing unnecessary administrative strain, the Department has implemented a systematic internal review process. Staff will return at a future date with a recommendation for City Council to adopt the first reading of an ordinance amending BMC 2.04 to allow this report to be submitted every three years. This approach would maintain transparency and oversight while allowing the Department to allocate resources more effectively.

Previous iterations of the MOU Compendium included not only formal operational agreements and memorandum of understanding, but also included policy documents, general orders, and multiple “general understandings.” Throughout the MOU Compendium there were numerous agreements that fall under the terminology ‘general understandings,’ some of which date back to the 1970’s. These understandings are not written into a formal agreement between the City of Berkeley or the Berkeley Police Department and another law enforcement agency, public or private entity or other persons. They attempted to convey to Council and the public how the Police Department interacted with certain state or federal agencies. However, current state and federal laws, as well as our current policies have supplanted the usefulness of these one-sided understandings. As they do not provide any substantive operational benefit or enhance the efficacy of the Berkeley Police Department, their continued recognition is unnecessary and unwarranted. The current MOU Compendium includes a list of the items that have been removed

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 22, 2025 3 since the approval of the prior 2018 MOU Compendium. and only contains formal, actionable agreements.

The 2018 MOU Compendium was shared with the Police Accountability Board (PAB) on April 12, 2025 and discussed in several internal and public meetings. The PAB has been informed of the process and specific content to be removed from this MOU Compendium. Included in attachments is a supplemental letter form the PAB to City Council regarding the revised MOU Compendium and a recommendation to amend the review cycle to a more sustainable timeline.

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 Berkeley Police Department provides law enforcement services to the citizens of Berkeley.

It does so under the guidance of federal, state and local laws. The ability to leverage regional partnerships and shared resources is critical to the Department’s mission and to maintaining a just system and effective system of law enforcement. That cannot be accomplished without the cooperation of other law enforcement agencies and private organizations.

Effectively containing and managing large-scale emergencies, critical incidents or disasters requires substantial personnel and logistical resources. Such responses are only possible through a mutual aid system established by the State and coordinated at the County level.

Additionally, to remain eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster funding and/or reimbursement, agencies must follow the guidelines set forth by the National Incident Management System (NIMS), as required by federal law.

Many external agencies, including the University of California, Bay Area Rapid Transit, East Bay Regional Parks, and California Highway Patrol, have jurisdictional interests in areas, buildings or structures located within Berkeley. Formal agreements help ensure seamless coordination and, in some cases are required by state law.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED:

An alternative to approving the current set of inter-agency agreements would be to defer or decline their adoption. However, this is not recommended. Failure to approve these agreements would place the City out of compliance with BMC 2.04.150–2.04.210 and compromise the Berkeley Police Department’s ability to coordinate effectively with external agencies. Without formal agreements in place, the Department would face operational limitations, increased risk during critical incidents, and potential disqualification from certain state and federal funding. In addition, the absence of MOUs could hinder joint investigations, prolong emergency response times, and reduce the Department’s ability to ensure public safety. Given the critical role these agreements play in maintaining compliance, operational

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 22, 2025 4 readiness, and regional collaboration, there is no viable alternative to their review and approval.

CONTACT PERSON:

Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police, 510-981-5900
Attachments

1. Resolution
Exhibit A: MOU Compendium: Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations
Section # / Title
Section 1 - Local Agencies
Section 2 - State Agencies
Section 3 - Federal Agencies
Section 4 - Private Security Entities
Section 5 - Military Entities
Section 6 - Other Mutual Aid/Cooperative Activity Policies Exhibit B: SAR Report
Exhibit C: Mutual Aid Report

2. Public Hearing Notice

3. Supplemental Letter from Police Accountability Board

RESOLUTION NO. N.S.

APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING COMPENDIUM, REVISED AND UPDATED AS OF JULY 22, 2025, WHICH EXPRESS TERMS AND CONDITIONS

OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ALL OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS.

WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department has established written agreements with other law enforcement agencies and private organizations; and WHEREAS, such agreements are needed to enhance investigative resources and emergency services provided to the citizens of Berkeley, creating a safer environment for all; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley Municipal Code §2.04.150 et seq. (the Ordinance) requires public disclosure and City Council approval of written agreements between the Berkeley Police Department and outside agencies or organizations; and
WHEREAS, the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) has been prepared and submitted in accordance with Council directives and is attached for review and acceptance; and WHEREAS, the Mutual Aid Requests and Responses Report has been prepared and submitted in accordance with existing City Council directives and is also attached for Council review and acceptance.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley approves the agreements between the Berkeley Police Department and other law enforcement agencies and private organizations as set forth in City Manager Report dated July 22, 2025, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and made part hereof.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley accepts the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) and the Mutual Aid Requests and Responses Report as submitted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that record copies of aforementioned documents to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and be available electronically via the City of Berkeley website.

CITY OF BERKELEY

POLICE DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) COMPENDIUM

AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
(Submitted in compliance with Berkeley Municipal Code §2.04)

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 22, 2025 1 PREFACE
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium contains current written agreements referenced in Berkeley Municipal Code §2.04.150, et seq. (hereafter, Ordinance).

It fulfills the Ordinance’s requirement for public disclosure of formal relationships with other law enforcement agencies and private organizations.

The 2025 MOU Compendium has been updated to align with the Ordinance’s intent and content. It reflects current agreements presented to and approved by Council on July 22, 2025.

Informal agreements or understandings are excluded to maintain a clear focus on active, formal agreements.

Where interaction, cooperation, or information sharing with other law enforcement agencies and private organizations is not specified in this compendium, the Department shall do so only as permitted by law, p olicy, and when necessary to support lawful investigations and public safety.

For reference, the previous 2018 MOU Compendium can be found at this link.

The information below describes changes that were made to the current MOU Compendium and is organized as follows:
• New agreements added since July 23, 2018
• Existing agreements renewed or revised
• Existing agreements pending revision
• Existing agreements removed or discontinued
• General Understandings removed or superseded by policy New Agreements
• 1.1 Alameda County Sobering Center: This operational agreement with Cherry Hill Detoxification Services Program, managed by Horizon Treatment Services, is an updated agreement that previously was between BPD and the Safe House Sobering Center, which is no longer in operation.
• 1.21 Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMS Agency) : The EMS Agency has agreed to provide BPD with 14 Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs), which supplies one AED for each BPD beat car. The purpose of this agreement is to enhance BPD’s readiness and response capabilities when a community member experiences cardiac arrest.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 22, 2025 2 • 3.13 United States Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force : The primary mission of this task force is to investigate and arrest, as part of joint law enforcement operations, persons who have active warrants for their arrest. The targeted crimes will primarily include violent crimes against persons, weapons offenses, felony drug offense, failure to register as a sex offender, and crimes committed by subject s who have a criminal history involving violent crimes, felony drug offenses, and/or weapons offenses. A BPD task force officer would refer cases for which they hold the primary warrant for the fugitive, for approval through the task force’s Chief Inspector.

Existing Agreements: No Substantive Changes and/or only Updated Signatories • 1.4 Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Victim/Witness Assistance Division • 1.7 Bay Area Rapid Transit Police (BART).
• 1.9 East Bay Regional Parks Police (EBRP Police)
• 1.11 Union Pacific Railroad Police Department
• 2.7 California Department of Justice CALPHOTO
• 2.9 California Department of Justice CLETS
• 2.15 Law Enforcement Penal Code 830.1
• 2.16 California Sex and Arson Registry (CSAR)
• 3.12 Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) • 4.1 Child Abuse Listening, Interviewing and Coordination (CALICO) • 4.3 A Safe Place Domestic Violence Resource Center

Existing Agreements: Minor Updates
• 1.12 University of California Police Department (UCPD): The General Order (GO O- 2) was rescinded and references to the order have been removed from the agreement.

GO O-2 Appendices 1 and 2, contained two lists of UCPD addresses within the City of Berkeley. The two appendices have been combined into one list documented under Appendix 1, and subsequent appendices were re -numbered. This agreement was signed in September 2024.
• 2.11 California Highway Patrol (CHP): This operational agreement was updated and remains largely the same. The main difference is that CHP will now handle criminal investigations in their jurisdiction and on freeways. This agreement was signed in 2024. • 4.2 Critical Reach Public Safety Communications Systems: This longstanding agreement has a recent addition consisting of an updated Terms of Use Agreement.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 22, 2025 3 • 4.5 Bay Area Women Against Rape (BAWAR) : The MOU is unchanged. However, this agreement will expire in September 2025 when BAWAR will cease to operate due to lack of funding.

Agreements Pending Updates
• 1.8 Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) : There was an operational agreement from 2010. There is a pending update from 2025.
• 1.11 Union Pacific Railroad Police Department: This agreement is from 2010 and is being reviewed for minor updates and new signatories.
• 1.15 San Jose Police Department, Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force : This agreement is from 20 08 and is being reviewed for minor updates and new signatories.

Agreements Removed or Discontinued
• 1.3 Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Threat Management/Stalking Vertical Prosecution Program (2004): This program was discontinued. This Operational Agreement was established in 2004.
• 1.5 Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Victim Advocacy Program/Elder abuse Working Group: This program was discontinued. The Operational Agreement expired in 2018.
• 1.6 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO): There was a 2019 agreement to participate in ACSO’s Narcotics Task Force which expired in April of 2020. • 1.13 Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit (HEAT): This program was discontinued in 2023. The Operational Agreement expired in 2020.
• 1.14 Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Violence Against Women/Domestic Violence Project: This agreement expired in 2021 and the program has been discontinued.
• 1.17 Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Memorandum of Understanding for Clearing and Preventing the Backlog of SART Exam Kits: This 2015 agreement was grant funded and meant to clear the backlog of sexual assault forensic evidentiary exams. The grant funding and program have been discontinued. • 1.18 Alameda County Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) Task Force:

This task force was disbanded (approximately three years ago) due to funding and staffing issues.
• 2.17 California Department of Justice UC Berkeley and Berkeley Police Department Domestic Violence / Sex Assault Reduction on Campus Grant: This grant expired in 2023.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 22, 2025 4 • 3.6 Department of Homeland Security Urban Area Security Initiative (DHS UASI):

This had previously been a financial agreement whereby BPD was granted or awarded funds for a specific purchase. The last UASI agreement was for the purchase of an armored van for rescue or high-risk operations.
• 3.8 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): Part of the agreement was previously removed. There was a 2009 agreement to participate in an Organized Crime Task Force which expired in September of 2010. There have been no additional or updated agreements since then. The general understanding with the FBI is removed and is now covered under Policy 327, Mutual Aid.

General Understandings – Removed or Superseded by Policy • 1.2 Alameda County Chiefs of Police and Sheriff’s Association (ACCOPSA): These were p rotocol and policy statements amongst Alameda County law enforcement agencies and were not formal agreements. This information is reference material and is maintained by Alameda County.
• 1.10 Oakland Police Department: This understanding covered a routine request for mutual assistance from the Oakland Police Department for response to their jurisdiction on Panoramic Way in an emergency. It was removed and now covered under Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 1.16 Los Angeles S heriff’s Department: This is a 2013 letter from the Los Angeles County Sheriff that any California peace officer has the authority of a peace officer at all times within Los Angeles County . These letters are typically coordinated by the California Police Chief’s Association and there is no operational need for it at this time.

This letter relates to Item 2.15.
• 1.19 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF): This was a letter requesting assistance with trespassing and was not an agreement or compact. BNSF does not own any railroad stations, tracks, or right of way in the City of Berkeley. • 1.20 Oakland Police Department (OPD) : Radio Communications: This item is outdated, as it addressed a time when OPD had a separate stand-alone radio system.

They have subsequently been incorporated into the East Bay Regional Communications System Authority (EBRCSA).
• 2.1 California Boxing/Athletic Commission : This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 2.2 California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control: This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 22, 2025 5 • 2.3 California Department of Consumer Affairs : This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 2.4 California Department of Corporations: This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid and he agency no longer exists. • 2.5 California Department of Corrections (Parole Division) : This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid. • 2.6 California Department of Fish and Game : This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 2.8 California DOJ, Law Enforcement Division : This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 2.10 DMV Division of Investigations : This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 2.12 California Horse Racing Board : This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 2.13 Cal OES LEMA Plan : The 2019 version of the California Office of Emergency Services (CAL OES) Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan is a state policy document and is consistent with and describes state law concerning application of the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) in law enforcement mutual aid situations. • 2.14 Homeland Security, State Threat Assessment Center (STAC) This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid. • 3.1 DHS Citizenship and Immigration Services : This general understanding was removed a s it was made obsolete by Policy 415, Immigration Law, which was implemented on May 24, 2019. Further it is covered Policy 327, Mutual Aid. • 3.2 DHS US Coast Guard This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 3.3 DHS US customs and Boarder Protection This general understanding was removed and is covered under the Immigration Policy and Policy 327, Mutual Aid. • 3.4 Department of Homeland Security: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): This agreement was removed per the City Council’s direction on September 13, 2018.
• 3.5 DHS US Secret Service This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 3.7 DOJ ATF This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 3.9 DOJ DEA: This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 22, 2025 6 • 3.10 Internal Revenue Service ( IRS): This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 3.11 US Postal Services (USPS): This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid.
• 4.4 National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB): This was for use of an NICB vehicle that is no longer in service. The agreement was removed in 2018. • 5.1 Armed Services Police, Criminal Investigation and Special Operations Units :

This general understanding was removed, and is covered by Policy 327, Mutual Aid. • 6.1 Processing Stolen Vehicles : This general understanding was removed and addressed under Policy 609.
• 6.2 Disaster Management, COB Emergency Operations Plan 2016. This report was produced by the Fire Department’s Office of Emergency Services and may be downloaded from the following link: 2016-Emergency-Operations-Plan.pdf • 6.3 Mutual Aid- “General Order M -2” was updated to “BPD Mutual Aid and Outside Assistance Policy, Policy 327” and California Office of Emergency Services Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan
• 6.4 Vehicle Pursuit: This policy statement was removed and is covered under Policy 307.
• 6.5 Criminal Investigations- This general understanding was removed is covered by Policy 429.
• 6.6 Info Sharing with Review of Police Reports by Outside Agencies : This general understanding was removed and covered under Policy 804. • 6.7 Jail Operations : This general understanding was removed and covered under Policy 900 and Resolution 62,066-N.S.
• 6.8 Use of Police Canines and Helicopters: This policy reference was removed and is covered in policy 308 and 418 and Resolution 51,408-N.S.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 22, 2025 7 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
City Council accomplished public hearings, review and approval of submitted agreements and general understandings as required by BMC 2.04.170 on:

March 12, 1974 (Resolution No. 46,409 N.S.)
March 11, 1975 (Resolution Nos. 47,103 N.S.; 47, 104 N.S.; 47, 105 N.S.) March 30, 1976 (Resolution No. 47,873 N.S.)
March 22, 1977 (Resolution No. 48,630 N.S.)
July 27, 1982 (Resolution No. 51,445 N.S.)
October 16, 1984 (Resolution No. 52,458 N.S.)
April 29, 1986 (Resolution No. 53,207 N.S.)
September 19, 2006 (Resolution No. 63,432 N.S.)
April 20, 2010 (Resolution No. 64,847 N.S.)
November 8, 2011 (Resolution No. 65,505 N.S.)
September 18, 2012 (Resolution No. 65,901 N.S.)
September 18, 2012 (Resolution No. 65,902 N.S.)
October 15, 2013 (Resolution No. 66,344 N.S.)
October 28, 2014 (Resolution No. 66,836 N.S.)
December 15, 2015 (Resolution No. 67,327 N.S.)
March 14, 2017 (Resolution No. 67,870 N.S.)
June 20, 2017 (Resolution Nos. 68,050 N.S, 68-051 N.S., 68-052 N.S., 68-053 N.S) July 23, 2018 (Resolution No. 68517 N.S.)

DEPARTMENT HEAD AFFIRMATION AND APPROVAL
I affirm I have reviewed the contents of this Compendium and approve its presentation to City Council for public hearing, review and approval.

__________________ ____06/25/25_____
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police Date

Ch. Pg. Title

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT
MOU COMPENDIUM: AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
2025

CITY COUNCIL REVIEW

REVISED/NEW ITEMS ARE IN RED REMOVED ITEMS ARE IN GREEN CHAPTER 1 - LOCAL AGENCIES
1 1 Alameda County, Safe House Sobering Center (sponsored private program) 1 2 Alameda County Chiefs of Police and Sheriff Association Countywide Policy Statements 1 3 Alameda County DA’s Office, Threat Management/Stalking Vertical Prosecution Program 1 4 Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Victim/Witness Assistance Division 1 5 Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Victim/Witness Assistance 1 6 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office
1 7 Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department
1 8 Berkeley Unified School District
1 9 East Bay Regional Parks Police Department
1 10 Oakland Police Department
1 11 Union Pacific Railroad Police Department
1 12 University of California Berkeley Police Department 1 13 Alameda County District Attorney, Human Exploitation and Trafficking 1 14 Alameda County District Attorney, Domestic Violence Prosecution Program 1 15 San Jose Police Department, Silicon Valley, Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force 1 16 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
1 17 Alameda County District Attorney, Clearing and Preventing the Backlog of SART Exam Kits 1 18 Alameda County District Attorney, Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) Task Force 1 19 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF)
1 20 Oakland Police Department, Radio Communications
1 21 Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency
CHAPTER 2 - STATE AGENCIES
2 1 California Athletic Commission
2 2 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 2 3 California Department of Consumer Affairs
2 4 California Department of Corporations
2 5 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Parole Division 2 6 California Department of Fish and Game
2 7 California Department of Justice, Cal-Photo
2 8 California Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Division 2 9 California Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) 2 10 California Department of Motor Vehicles, Investigations Division 2 11 California Highway Patrol

CHAPTER 3 - FEDERAL AGENCIES
3 1 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 3 2 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard
3 3 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 3 4 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. ICE – PREVIOUSLY RESCINDED 3 5 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service 3 6 Department of Homeland Security, Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Program 3 7 Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 3 8 Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation 3 9 Department of Justice, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration 3 10 Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
3 11 United States Postal Service, Postal Inspection Service 3 12 Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) 3 13 United States Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force

4 1 Child Abuse Listening, Interviewing & Coordination (CALICO) 4 2 Critical Reach Public Safety Communication System
4 3 A Safe Place
4 4 National Insurance Crime Bureau – PREVIOUSLY RESCINDED 4 5 Bay Area Women Against Rape

5 1 Armed Services Police, Criminal Investigation and Special Operations Units

6 1 Investigation, Processing Evidence from Local Recovered but Outside Stolen Vehicles 6 2 Disaster Management, City of Berkeley Emergency Operations Plan 6 3 Mutual Aid and Agreements with Law Enforcement Agencies 6 4 Vehicle Pursuit
6 5 Criminal Intelligence
6 6 Information Sharing with and Review of Police Reports by Outside Agencies 6 7 Jail Operations and Services to Outside Agencies
6 8 Use of Police Canines and Helicopters

2 12 California Horse Racing Board
2 13 California Emergency Services Agency, Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan 2 14 Governor's Office of Homeland Security, State Terrorism Threat Assessment Center (STTAC) 2 15 Law Enforcement Consent Authorization (Penal Code 830.1) 2 16 California Sex and Arson Registry
2 17 California Department of Justice UCBPD and BPD DV/Sexual Assault Reduction Grant CHAPTER 4 - PRIVATE AGENCIES
CHAPTER 5 – MILITARY AGENCIES
CHAPTER 6 – OTHER PROTOCOLS

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 1.1
Title: LOCAL: ALAMEDA COUNTY, CHERRY HILL DETOXIFICATION SERVICES PROGRAM (sponsored private program)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: April 20, 2010 / Latest: PENDING UPDATE Summary:

Cherry Hill Detoxification Services Program (hereafter “Program”) is operated on behalf of Alameda County by Horizon Treatment Services. Its mission is to provide opportunities for consenting eligible adults exhibiting acute physiological effects of alcohol and/or drug intoxication to regain sobriety in a safe, supervised environment. The Police Department agrees to support the Program’s operational mission and participate as a referring law enforcement agency.

Rationale:

The supervised sobering services offered by the Program provide consenting intoxicated persons a reasonable alternative to incarceration, and an avenue toward detoxification and
improvement in their health and quality of life. Referrals to the Program may have a positive effect upon other social services, health care facilities, communities, and families adversely impacted directly or indirectly by chronic intoxicant abuse. Maintaining an operational agreement with the Program promotes consistent participation in their Program and may serve as a viable alternative to incarceration.

Cost:

If Approved: Specific costs for incident investigation and criminal case preparation cannot be exactly calculated. Non-criminal disposition may reduce costs associated with investigation and prosecution.

If Not Approved: Fiscally neutral. Staff will continue to investigate incidents, direct offenders to the criminal justice system, and participate in court case preparation.

Recommendation: Approval

Police Department

2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.5700 TDD: 510.981.5799 Fax: 510.981.5704 E-mail: [email protected]
Cherry Hill
Horizon Treatment Services
2035 Fairmont Dr.

San Leandro, CA 94578

Subject: MUTUAL OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT

Mr. Anthony Bass, Program Manager:

This Operational Agreement stands as evidence that the involved Parties, the City of Berkeley Police Department (hereafter "Department'') and Cherry Hill Detoxification Services Program (hereafter "Program") intend to work together toward the mutual goal of providing opportunities for consenting eligible adults exhibiting acute physiological effects of alcohol and/or drug intoxication (hereafter "Clients") to regain sobriety in a safe, supervised environment.

Both Parties to this Agreement believe that the supervised sobering services offered by the Program provide Clients a reasonable alternative to incarceration and criminal prosecution, and an avenue toward detoxification and improvement in their health and quality of life. The Parties also acknowledge referral of Clients to the Program may have a positive effect upon social services, health care-facilities, communities, and families adversely impacted directly or indirectly by chronic intoxicant abuse.

To this end, the Department agrees to support the Program’s operational mission and participate as a referring law enforcement agency. Within written operational guidelines established and agreed to by both Parties:

1) Department employees will refer Clients to the Program as an authorized alterative to their investigation and incarceration for criminal public intoxication (e.g., CA Penal Code §647(f)). Department employees may also cite and release Clients for Penal Code §647(f) while simultaneously referring them to the Center.

2) The Department will be responsible for the Client's care and safety until the conclusion of the Program’s intake process and Iawful release from custodial detention.

3) The Program will evaluate eligibility of Clients referred to their facility by Department employees during the intake process and receive those deemed acceptable.

a. Should the Program determine a Client is not acceptable for entry to the Program due to medical reasons, the Program will accept responsibility for the Client and be responsible for coordinating necessary immediate medical care.

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 1.4
Title: LOCAL: ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,

VICTIM / WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: 2015 / Latest: October 1, 2022

Summary:

The Alameda County District Attorney's Office's Victim/Witness Assistance Division provides services to victims of crime and their families. The Police Department affirms its statutory responsibilities regarding provision of Victim Assistance information (ref. Government Code §13968(c)), commitment to victim referral, and facilitation of in- service training programs sponsored by the District Attorney’s Office.

Rationale:

Cooperation with the District Attorney's Office's Victim / Witness Assistance Division promotes the successful prosecution of offenders and effective recovery for victims and their families.

Cost:

If Approved: Costs would be neutral. Maintenance of victim assistance referral services with the Police Department are managed within its existing budget.

If Not Approved: Cannot estimate cost of/or liability associated with non-compliance with statutory requirements regarding provision of victim assistance.

Recommendation: Continued approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 1.7
Title: LOCAL: BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (BART) POLICE DEPARTMENT Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: March 12, 1974 / Latest: PENDING SIGNATORY UPDATE Summary:

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police Department is responsible for the investigation of criminal incidents occurring at BART owned or leased properties within Berkeley (e.g., BART stations, parking lots, subterranean rail system, lease commercial spaces). As BART PD generally does not engage in enforcement action in areas outside of BART jurisdiction, Berkeley Police Department personnel generally refrain from law enforcement activity on BART properties.

In an emergency or critical incident, BPD may submit, or participate in response to, a formal request for assistance pursuant to formal Mutual Aid protocols.

Rationale:

A single written agreement improves the Police Department's ability to function efficiently and effectively in the provision of law enforcement services.

Cost: Cost factor is neutral; as there is no extraordinary fiscal commitment.

Recommendation: Continued approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 1.8
Title: LOCAL: BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (BUSD)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: April 20, 2010 / Latest: PENDING UPDATE Summary:

Berkeley Police Department personnel participate in routine safety planning meetings, provide on-site safety services at BUSD events, and maintain an on-going dialogue regarding emergency response and crisis management planning. A written Partner Agreement affirms this commitment.

The Police Department has tasked the Youth Services Detail as the primary liaison with BUSD, and has assigned an officer to the high school as a School Resource Officer (ref. BPD Youth Services policy).

Rationale:

For many years, the Berkeley Police Department has partnered with BUSD to promote public safety at and proximal to District facilities/campuses.

Continued collaboration will ensure effective preparation for and, if necessary, response to a critical incident or other emergency situation associated with BUSD.

Cost:

Cost factor is generally neutral, as most activity occurs in the conduct of normal business and is provided for in the existing Berkeley Police Department budget. Infrequent, extraordinary training
programs/exercises or participation in support of safety-related BUSD programs would necessitate additional expenditures.

Recommendation: PENDING UPDATE

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 1.9
Title: LOCAL: EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT POLICE

DEPARTMENT (EBRPD PD)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 19, 2006 / Latest: PENDING SIGNATORY UPDATE Summary:

EBRPD PD is responsible for the investigation of incidents occurring on properties in Berkeley that are owned or contractually obligated to the East Bay Regional Parks District. EBRPD PD generally does not engage in enforcement action in areas outside its primary jurisdiction.

Similarly, Berkeley Police Department personnel generally refrain from law enforcement activity on EBRPD PD properties.

In an emergency or critical incident, the Police Department may submit, or participate in response to, a formal request for assistance pursuant to formal Mutual Aid protocols.

Rationale:

Written agreements support the law enforcement mission and promotion of public safety. They ensure the Police Department's ability to function efficiently and effectively in the provision of law enforcement services in areas of concurrent jurisdiction.

Cost: Cost factor is neutral. Activities funded in existing Police Department budget.

Recommendation: Continued approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 1.11
Title: LOCAL: UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD POLICE DEPARTMENT
(UPRRPD)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: April 20, 2010 / Latest: PENDING SIGNATORY UPDATE

Summary:

The Union Pacific Railroad Police Department (UPRRPD) is responsible for the investigation of incidents occurring on, and which affect the operation of, Union Pacific Railroad properties and right- of-ways.

UPRRPD generally does not engage in enforcement action in areas outside its primary jurisdiction. An enforcement authorization letter from UPRR allows the Berkeley Police Department entry upon UPRR properties to enforce criminal trespass laws and to remove abandoned or illegally parked vehicles. Subsequently, a formal Operational Agreement was executed.

The Police Department has primary investigative responsibility for all incidents occurring at the University Avenue train station, as well as crimes against persons (e.g., homicide, rape, robbery, kidnapping, assault/battery, etc.) and critical incidents (e.g., barricaded subjects, hostage situations, etc.) which occur on UPRR properties. This does not preclude transfer or sharing of such responsibility.

Rationale:

Written communications support the law enforcement mission and promotion of public safety. They ensure the Police Department's ability function efficiently and effectively in the provision of law enforcement services in areas of concurrent jurisdiction.

Cost: Cost factor is neutral. Activities funded in existing Police Department budget.

Recommendation: Continued approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 1.12
Title: LOCAL: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

POLICE DEPARTMENT (UCBPD)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: March 12, 1974 / Current: November 9, 2024 Summary:

UCBPD is responsible for investigation of incidents occurring at University- owned or leased properties in Berkeley. UCBPD may engage in enforcement activity withing one mile of campus or in/around the aforementioned properties (ref. Education Code § 23501). Police Department personnel generally refrain from law enforcement activity on UCBPD properties.

In an emergency or critical incident, the Police Department may submit, or participate in response to, a formal request for assistance pursuant to formal Mutual Aid protocols.

Rationale:

Developing and maintaining a single written agreement supports the law enforcement mission and promotion of public safety, as well as ensures compliance with statutory written agreement requirements. It improved the Police Department’s ability to function efficiently and effectively in the provision of law enforcement services in areas of concurrent jurisdiction.

Cost: Cost factor is neutral. No extraordinary fiscal commitment.

Recommendation: Continued Approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 1.15
Title:

LOCAL: SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SILICON VALLEY

INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 18, 2012 / Latest: PENDING UPDATE Summary:

The Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (SVICAC) is committed to the protection of children from the sexually-oriented dangers posed by the internet. In an effort to create a networking group focused on internet crimes against children and to work in concert with the community of law enforcement agencies.

Rationale:

The Berkeley Police Department is committed to the investigation and prosecution of internet crimes against children and related offenses.

Cooperation with regional groups promotes successful prosecution through resource and information sharing.

Due to the nature of these crimes, they are often decentralized, and require specialized contacts, and investigators experienced in computer crimes to successfully resolve. Building the Police Department's expertise and network may lead to long-term reduction of these crimes.

Cost:

If Approved: Costs would be neutral. Participation in this task force does not require a full-time assignment to the task force therefore services with the Police Department are managed within its existing budget.

If Not Approved: Loss of resources, expertise, and potentially lower closure rate for internet crimes against children.

Recommendation: Continued approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 1.21
Title: LOCAL: ALAMEDA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL

SERVICES AGENCY
Type: Memorandum of Understanding
Approvals: Initial: NEW, July 9, 2024
Summary:

Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMS) has agreed to provide Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) to BPD to enhance readiness and response capabilities when a community member experiences cardiac arrest.

This is a pilot program to assess whether police response increases pre-hospital cardiac arrest survival.

Rationale:

The Berkeley Police Department and the EMS recognize the critical importance of AEDs in saving lives during cardiac emergencies.

The deployment of AEDs by BPD may significantly improve outcomes in cardiac arrest incidents.

Cost:

If Approved: Specific costs for these devices and maintenance are not incurred by the department. Potentially life saving emergency medical equipment may arrive to cardiac emergencies faster than it would without these AEDs being deployed.

If Not Approved: Fiscally neutral. There are no costs associated with this agreement.

Recommendation: Approval

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Between: City of Berkeley, on behalf of its
Berkeley Police Department, 2100 Martin Luther
King Jr. Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704 , hereinafter,
Law Enforcement Agency or Berkeley Police
Department

And: County of Alameda on behalf of its Alameda
County Emergency Medical Services Agency,
1000 San Leandro Blvd., Suite 200, San Leandro,
CA, 94577, hereinafter EMS

Subject: Memorandum of Understanding for the Usage of Avive AEDs Date: 7/4/2024

1. Purpose: This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes the terms and conditions between the Berkeley Police Department and Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMS) governing the usage of Avive Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) to enhance readiness and response capabilities when a community member experiences cardiac arrest.

This is a pilot program to assess whether police response increases pre-hospital cardiac arrest survival.

2. Background: The Berkeley Police Department and the EMS recognize the critical importance of AEDs in saving lives during cardiac emergencies. Avive AEDs offer advanced technology and features that can significantly improve outcomes in cardiac arrest incidents.

3. Terms and Conditions:

Equipment: Each Avive AED will be issued with a protective case and one set of pads.

Deployment and Maintenance: EMS shall provide Avive AEDs to the Berkeley Police Department. The Berkeley Police Departement shall deploy Avive AEDs at strategic locations determined jointly by the Berkeley Police Department and the EMS, considering high-traffic areas, events, and emergency response needs.

EMS shall be responsible for scheduling the regular maintenance, inspection, and replacement of Avive AEDs or pads as needed. The Berkeley Police Department shall cooperate with EMS regarding the scheduling of such regular maintenance, inspection, and replacement of Avive AEDs or pads. The Berkeley Police Department should promptly notify EMS in the event of damage, loss, or loss of function of any Avive AED or the need for replacement pads.

The Avive AEDs will remain the property of EMS, and Berkeley Police Department shall return the Avive AEDs to the EMS within thirty (30) days of the termination or expiration of this MOU. The Berkeley Police Department is not required to reimburse EMS in the event of accidental damage during the course of use or malfunction of an Avive AED due to a manufacturing issue.

The Berkeley Police Department shall store the Avive AEDs in their protective cases at all times when they are not in use to prevent excessive wear and tear. The Avive AEDs shall also be kept inside of a locked location to reduce the chance of theft. The Berkeley Police Department shall reimburse EMS in the event of misplacement or theft of an Avive AED unit; damage incurred outside of the intended use of the of an Avive AED unit; or loss of function that is not due to a manufacturing issue.

Training: EMS will work with Avive to ensure that Berkeley Police Department officers receive proper training in the operation and use of Avive AEDs, in accordance with guidelines established by the EMS.

The Berkeley Police Department shall only permit officers who have received proper training to use and operate the Avive AEDs.

Notification: In the event of a cardiac emergency, Berkeley Police Officers are encouraged to respond.

Notification of a cardiac emergency will be made through each law enforcement agency’s respective dispatch center.

Data Sharing: Subject to applicable laws and regulations, both parties agree to share relevant data and incident reports regarding the usage of Avive AEDs for evaluation and improvement purposes.

Indemnification: The Berkeley Police Department acknowledges that the County of Alameda, including without limitations EMS, is not a dealer in or manufacturer of AEDs and that the County of Alameda makes no warranty as to the fitness of any or all equipment provided under this MOU and makes no guarantee that any or all equipment is free of manufacturer defects or latent, hidden, or obvious defects.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Berkeley Police Department shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the County of Alameda, its Board of Supervisors, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from or under this MOU, provided that any such claim, loss, damage, liability or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, death or to injury to or destruction of property, including the loss therefrom, or to any violation of federal, state or municipal law or regulation, which arises out of or is any way connected with the performance of this MOU (collectively “Liabilities”) except where such Liabilities are caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of any indemnitee. The County of Alameda may participate in the defense of any such claim without relieving the Berkeley Police Department of any obligation hereunder. The obligations of this indemnity shall be for the full amount of all damage to County of Alameda, including defense costs, and shall not be limited by any insurance limits.

Term: This MOU shall commence on the date of signing and remain in effect for a period of June 30, 2028, subject to renewal by mutual written agreement of authorized representatives of both parties.

Termination: Either party may terminate this MOU with thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. Upon termination, all equipment will be returned to the EMS Agency within thirty (30) days.

Entire Agreement: This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the usage of Avive AEDs and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, relating to the same subject matter.
[Signature page to follow]

4. Signatures: This MOU shall be effective upon the signatures of authorized representatives from both parties.

For the City of Berkeley on behalf of its Berkeley Police Department:

Signature: _______________________ Name: Chief Jennifer Louis Title: Police Chief Date: _________

For the County of Alameda on behalf of its Alameda County EMS Agency:

Signature: _______________________ Name: Lauri McFadden Title: EMS Director Date: ___________

By signing above, the signatory warrants and represents that signatory executed this MOU in signatory's authorized capacity and that by signatory's signature on this MOU, signatory or the entity upon behalf of which signatory acted, executed this MOU.

Approved as to form:

Donna R. Ziegler, County Counsel

By:___________________________
K. Joon Oh, Deputy County Counsel

7/9/2024
7/9/2024

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 2.7
Title:

STATE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CAL PHOTO PROGRAM
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 19, 2006 / Current: March 8, 2024 Summary:

The CA Department of Justice (CADoJ) is responsible for the enforcement of State law and management of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI). Pursuant to common professional courtesy, the Police Department may assist, extend cooperation to, and share information with the CADoJ in the interest of criminal justice and public safety.

Via the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), CADoJ's Cal-Photo Program provides law enforcement CORI-classified driver license and image data obtained by the Department of Motor Vehicles. As such, Police Department agrees to conform to all laws, regulations, policies and audits associated with access to Cal-Photo Program CORI.

Rationale:

Police Department cooperation and information exchange with this State agency promotes public safety and serves the law enforcement mission.

Maintenance of efficient access to CORI is valuable in crime prevention and essential for the successful investigation and prosecution of criminal acts.

Cost:

If Approved: Cost will be neutral. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activities, funded in existing budget.

If Not Approved: Increased cost cannot be calculated. Staff time and resources for investigation will increase. The reduced access to CORI will hinder investigation, obstruct offender identification, and reduce the incidents of successful prosecution.

Recommendation: Approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 2.9
Title:

STATE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS

SYSTEM (CLETS)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 19, 2006 / Current: June 23, 2025 Summary:

The CA Department of Justice (CADoJ) is responsible for the enforcement of State law and management of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI). Pursuant to common professional courtesy, the Police Department may assist, extend cooperation to, and share information with the CADoJ in the interest of criminal justice and public safety.

CADoJ manages CLETS, which provides access to state and federal CORI databases. In accordance with Government Code § 15164, the Police Department agrees to conform to all laws, regulations, policies, audits, and technological requirements associated with access to CLETS.

Rationale:

Police Department cooperation and information exchange with this State agency promotes public safety and serves the law enforcement mission.

Maintenance of efficient access to CORI is valuable in crime prevention and essential for the successful investigation and prosecution of criminal acts.

Cost:

If Approved: Cost will be neutral. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activities, funded in existing budget.

If Not Approved: Increased cost cannot be calculated. Staff time and resources for investigation will increase. The reduced access to CORI will hinder investigation, obstruct offender identification, and reduce the incidents of successful prosecution.

Recommendation: Approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 2.11
Title: STATE: CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (CHP)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 19, 2006 / Current: March 17, 2025 Summary:

The California Highway Patrol has responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of the Vehicle Code, investigation of traffic accidents on all freeways, investigation of incidents at state owned/leased properties, investigation involving student-occupied school buses, and mitigation of activities affecting safety upon Interstate 80.

In an emergency or critical incident, the Police Department may submit, or participate in response to, a formal request for assistance pursuant to formal Mutual Aid protocols.

Rationale:

Police Department cooperation and information exchange with this State agency promotes public safety and serves the law enforcement mission.

Maintenance of effective relationships supports crime prevention and is essential for successful investigation and prosecution of criminal acts.

Cost:

If Approved: Cost will be neutral. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activities, funded in the existing budget.

If Not Approved: Increased cost cannot be calculated. Staff time and resources for investigation will increase.

Recommendation: Approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 2.16
Title:

STATE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CALIFORNIA SEX AND ARSON REGISTRY (CSAR)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: October 28, 2014 / Current: March 27, 2024 Summary:

The CA Department of Justice (CADoJ) is responsible for the enforcement of State law and management of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI). Pursuant to common professional courtesy, the Police Department may assist, extend cooperation to, and share information with the CADoJ in the interest of criminal justice and public safety.

CSAR provides law enforcement CORI-classified sex and arson registry information. As such, the Police Department agrees to conform to all laws, regulations, policies and audits associated with access to CSAR.

Rationale:

Police Department cooperation and information exchange with this State agency promotes public safety and serves the law enforcement mission.

Maintenance of efficient access to CORI is valuable in crime prevention and essential for the successful investigation and prosecution of criminal acts.

Cost:

If Approved: Cost will be neutral. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activities, funded in existing budget.

If Not Approved: Increased cost cannot be calculated. Staff time and resources for investigation will increase. The reduced access to CORI will hinder investigation, obstruct offender identification, and reduce the incidents of successful prosecution.

Recommendation: Approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 3.12
Title: FEDERAL: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER (NCRIC)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: February 19, 2019 / Current: August 7, 2024 Summary:

Berkeley Police Department General Order N-17 previously governed the relationship between the Berkeley Police Department and NCRIC. In 2019, NCRIC and BPD entered into a more formalized written MOU agreement.

NCRIC facilitates the legal sharing of terrorism and criminal-oriented information. In this effort, NCRIC produces/disseminates intelligence, conducts training, and provides investigative and analytical case support to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. NCRIC strives to ensure the protection of privacy and civil liberties of citizens in its assistance to local, state and federal agencies with their mission of protecting the communities they serve from the threats and dangers of terrorist, gang, narcotics and organized criminal activities. Local Threat Liaison Officers (TLOs) facilitate information sharing and investigative collaboration.

The Police Department has a comprehensive policy regarding the provision of a Suspicious Activity Report to NCRIC, including several steps of review, and the reporting to City Council, in redacted form, of all SARs submitted to NCRIC.

The Police Department may receive and share confidential or law enforcement sensitive public safety-oriented information with NCRIC to facilitate criminal investigation or to promote the safety of the community and/or law enforcement. The Police Department has designated sworn employees to act as TLO's in addition to their normal assigned duties, as described within BPD Suspicious Activity Reporting Policy, #432.

Rationale:

Police Department interaction with NCRIC, previously governed by General Order N- 17, will now be governed by the NCRIC MOU. Interaction between NCRIC and BPD promotes public safety and serves the law enforcement mission.

Transparency of Suspicious Activity Reporting to NCRIC is accomplished through reporting redacted SARs to City Council.

Cost:

If Approved: Cost will be neutral. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activity, funded in existing budget.

If Not Approved: Effect on cost cannot be calculated. Absence of or reduced interaction would inhibit investigations and impact successful prosecution. Public and employee safety would be adversely affected. Increased local enforcement responsibility would increase local costs.

Recommendation: Continued Approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 3.13
Title:

FEDERAL: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE (USMS)

FUGITIVE TASK FORCE
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: New
Summary:

The United States Marshals Service directs and coordinates a regional fugitive task force consisting of federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The mission of the task force is to investigate and arrest persons who have active warrants for their arrest. The Police Department will work with them to target crimes that primarily include violent crimes against persons, weapons offenses, felony drug offenses, failure to register as a sex offender, and crimes conducted by subjects who have a criminal history involving violent crimes, felony drug offenses and/or weapons offenses.

Cases that the Police Department seeks assistance on must be submitted to the task force and accepted at the discretion of the task force Chief Inspector/Chief Deputy.

Civil immigration enforcement is not a part of the mission of the task force.

Rationale:

As part of the Fugitive Task Force the Police Department gains valuable resources to apprehend violent fugitives. Involvement in this task force brings additional personnel and resources to locate and arrest persons with active felony warrants.

Cost:

If Approved: Cost will be neutral and may consist of overtime reimbursement.

Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activity, funded in the existing budget.

If Not Approved: Effect on cost cannot be calculated. Absence of or reduced interaction would inhibit investigations and impact successful prosecution. Public and employee safety would be adversely affected. Increased local enforcement responsibility would increase local costs.

Recommendation: Approval

Sean LoPiccolo
8/15/24

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 4.1
Title: PRIVATE: CHILD ABUSE LISTENING, INTERVIEWING &

COORDINATION (CALICO)
Type: Written agreement
Approvals: Initial: April 20, 2010 / Current: November 12, 2024 Summary:

CALICO is a private organization that provides legal, medical, and therapeutic services to children and developmentally-delayed adults in Alameda County who are victims or witnesses of abuse and neglect.

CALICO provides similar services to effected families.

The Police Department and CALICO commit to a partnership toward mutually valued goals: facilitating a multidisciplinary team response to child abuse; accomplish forensic interviews with trained Child Interview Specialists in a safe, neutral, child-friendly environment; and, share relevant information as permitted by law.

Rationale:

Partnerships between the Police Department and public safety­ focused organizations like CALICO enhance the effectiveness of juvenile criminal investigation, promote prevention of child abuse and neglect, and facilitate supportive provision of services to juvenile victims and their families.

Cost:

If Approved: $5,400.00 donation (annual). While there is no contractual or statutory obligation to remit funds to CALICO for services rendered, the Police Department, on behalf of the City, has for many years responded to an annual request for donation to support CALICO operations. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activity, funded in existing budget.

If Not Approved: Effect on cost cannot be calculated. Absence of or reduced interaction would inhibit investigations and impact successful prosecution. Public safety would be adversely affected. Increased local enforcement responsibility would increase local costs.

Recommendation: Continued approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 4.2
Title: PRIVATE: CRITICAL REACH
Type: General understanding
Approvals: Initial: September 19, 2006 / Current: May, 2025 Summary:

Critical Reach is a private company that provides an Internet based communication system designed to facilitate effective communication between law enforcement agencies and other subscribing entities (i.e., news media).

The Police Department employs the Critical Reach system to disseminate important crime­ oriented information and public notifications, historically referred to as "Be-On-The-Lookout" announcements and "All Points Bulletins". The intent and value of Critical Reach communications is the rapid location of missing persons, recovery of stolen property, the furtherance of criminal investigations, and enhancement of public safety.

Rationale:

Rapid communication is a crucial component of providing effective public safety services. The absence of practical communication mechanisms provides opportunity for criminal offenders to evade justice. Partnerships between the Police Department and public safety-focused organizations like Critical Reach enhance the effectiveness of criminal investigation and promote public safety.

Cost:

If Approved: Software licensing for up to six computers and system maintenance by Critical Reach costs the Police Department $1350 per year; the Police Department maintains two computers for Critical Reach.

The City provides all computer hardware components. As needed, equipment replacement costs would be based on the component required (est. $30- $1000). Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activity, funded in existing budget.

If Not Approved: Effect on cost cannot be calculated. Absence of this communication service would inhibit investigation and adversely affect public safety. Increased local enforcement re sponsibility would increase local costs.

Recommendation: Continued approval

25 Latham Ct.

Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
APBnet Terms of Use Agreement
APBnet Terms of Use Agreement
This Terms of Use agreement (“Agreement”) is a legal agreement between you and Critical Reach, Inc. (“us,” “we,” “our”) for the use of the APBnet law enforcement alert system. This Agreement governs access to and use of APBnet.

By using APBnet, you agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement and affirm that you have the authority to bind yourself and your employer to the Agreement. If you do not agree to the terms of this Agreement, you are not permitted to use APBnet.

Deployment of APBnet
You are entitled to unlimited deployment of APBnet (no limit on how many user numbers may be installed), unlimited use of APBnet, and unlimited support of APBnet users. The only cost for APBnet is an annual support fee paid to Critical Reach.

Acceptable Use
You agree to use APBnet only for its intended purpose. The intended purpose of APBnet is to help officers create photo bulletins for investigative and informational purposes and distribute them electronically to other officers, other agencies, and the public when appropriate; further, officers may search the database of previous bulletins based upon the data and images contained in those bulletins. Your officers, during their investigations, may upload data and images to APBnet and that information may be shared with other people and organizations at the bulletin creator’s discretion.

It is your responsibility to ensure that your use of APBnet, including the data that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into or cause to be stored by APBnet, conforms to all applicable laws and legal requirements. By using APBnet, you warrant that you have proper legal authority and standing to obtain, use, and hold any data that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into or cause to be stored.

You agree not to misuse APBnet in any way, including, but not limited to, (a) Uploading or otherwise inputting any data that you do not have the legal right, authority, or standing to obtain, hold, and use;

25 Latham Ct.

Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
(b) Sharing access to APBnet, including your username and password, with others; (c) Testing in any way the vulnerability of any component of APBnet;(d) Circumventing any security or authentication measures implemented by APBnet; (d) Interfering with any user, host, or network associated with APBnet; (e) Inputting malware to APBnet; (e) Sending promotions, advertisements, or spam to or from APBnet; (f) Using altered, deceptive, or false source-identifying information; (f) Violating the privacy of others, defaming others or violating the law in any way. Critical Reach reserves the right at its discretion to revoke access to APBnet for any misuse of APBnet.

You may not, without the prior written consent of Critical Reach, conduct, cause, or facilitate the: (a) use, copying, reproduction, modification, rental, lease, sublease, sublicense, public display, public performance, or transfer of APBnet except as expressly provided in this Agreement; (b) creation of any derivative works based on APBnet; (c) reverse engineering, disassembly, or decompiling of APBnet’s underlying computer code or software; (d) use of APBnet in connection with service bureau, facility management, timeshare, service provider, or like activity whereby you operate or use APBnet for the benefit of a third party that has not been licensed by Critical Reach to use APBnet; (e) use of APBnet by any third party under your user account or login for APBnet.

Any data or content that you input into APBnet is owned by you. Critical Reach expressly disclaims any legal liability for the data or content that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into or cause to be stored by APBnet.

Privacy Statement
By using APBnet, you consent to the data practices described in this statement. Critical Reach is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content on websites outside of the Critical Reach.org or apbnet.net domains that may link to our pages.

APBnet will store data that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into APBnet, and will process such data as needed to perform various functions of APBnet that you choose to use in conjunction with the data that you input. Critical Reach does not claim any right of ownership to any data that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into or cause to be stored by APBnet; you retain all rights of ownership to such data.

25 Latham Ct.

Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
Critical Reach collects personally identifiable information, such as your email address, name, home or work address or telephone number and general geographic location (e.g., by country or state). Critical Reach also automatically collects usage statistics for various functions offered by APBnet, as well as information about your computer hardware and software, including, but not limited to your IP address, browser type, domain names, access times and durations, and referring website addresses.

Critical Reach uses this information for the operation of APBnet, to maintain the quality of APBnet, and to provide for general statistical analysis regarding use of APBnet.

APBnet secures all data that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into or cause to be stored by APBnet, including your personally identifiable information, from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. When you upload data to APBnet, it is protected in transit through the use of encryption protocols, such as the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) protocol or the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol.

Critical Reach collects and uses your personally identifiable information to operate APBnet and to deliver the functionality to which you have requested access. Critical Reach may also use your personally identifiable information, from time to time, to inform you of other products or services available from or through Critical Reach. Critical Reach may also contact you via surveys to conduct research about your opinion of APBnet or of potential new services that may be offered. In the event that you are contacted for any of the forgoing reasons, you will be offered the opportunity to opt out of future contacts of the same nature.

Critical Reach does not sell, rent, or lease its customer lists, including personally identifiable information, to third parties. Critical Reach will disclose your personal information, without notice, to lawfully authorized recipients, only if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to (a) conform to the edicts of the law or comply with legal process served on Critical Reach, (b) protect and defend the rights or property of Critical Reach, and (c) act under exigent circumstances to protect the personal safety of users of APBnet or of the public.

Critical Reach may share data with trusted partners to help us perform statistical analysis, send you email or postal mail, provide customer support, or arrange for deliveries. All such third parties are

25 Latham Ct.

Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
prohibited from using your personally identifiable information except to provide these services to Critical Reach, and they are required to maintain the confidentiality of your information.

Superseding Provisions
Part or all of this Agreement may be superseded or augmented by one or more additional, legally binding contracts or provisions (collectively, “Provisions”) between the user or the purchasing agency associated with the user and Critical Reach. It is the user‘s responsibility to be aware of any such Provisions and of the terms and limitations specified by such Provisions. Any and all additional Provisions are subject to the terms of this Agreement unless otherwise explicitly specified in the Provisions and, except as otherwise expressly provided in the Provisions, in the event of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the terms of any Provisions, this Agreement shall control.

Limited Warranty
APBNET IS OFFERD AS IS. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, CRITICAL REACH DISCLAIMS

ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,

IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NONINFRINGEMENT, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF APBNET.

Critical Reach does not warrant or guarantee that the functions contained in or offered by APBnet will meet the User’s requirements or that the operation of or accessibility to APBnet will be uninterrupted or error free.

Limitations of Remedies and Liability

IN NO EVENT WILL CRITICAL REACH, ITS AFFILIATES, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, SUPPLIERS OR

LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY OR

CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOSS OF USE, DATA, BUSINESS, OR PROFITS, REGARDLESS

OF LEGAL THEORY, EVEN IF CRITICAL REACH HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH

DAMAGES, AND EVEN IF A REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY.

25 Latham Ct.

Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
Indemnification
By using APBnet, you agree to hold harmless and indemnify Critical Reach against any and all claims and actions arising or resulting from your use of APBnet, including, without limitation, expenses, judgements, fines, settlements, and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred in connection with any liability, suit, action, loss, or damage arising or resulting from your use of APBnet.

Governing Law
This Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflicts of laws provisions. In the event of a dispute, the user agrees to first negotiate and mediate the dispute. If such efforts are unsuccessful within 90 days of written notice of the dispute, as a last resort, the user agrees to submit exclusively to the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts of the State of California, and further agrees that any and all legal actions arising therefrom shall take place in such courts.

Severability
If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired and shall remain in force.

Term/Termination
Critical Reach invoices each organization using APBnet an annual support fee each December for the following calendar year’s use of APBnet. This is the only cost associated with use of APBnet. It is at the organization’s sole discretion to pay this invoice and renew use of APBnet for the following calendar year. If the organization terminates use of APBnet during that subscribed calendar year, they will have continued use of APBnet through that term. The organization will not be entitled to any refund or credit for support fees already paid.

General

25 Latham Ct.

Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
This Agreement creates no third-party beneficiary rights. Critical Reach’s failure to enforce any term or condition of this Agreement does not constitute or imply a waiver of its right to do so later, nor does it imply or permit any further waiver of that or any other term or condition. You may not assign any of your rights under this Agreement and any such attempt to do so is void, but Critical Reach may assign its rights under this Agreement to any of its affiliates or subsidiaries, or to any successor in interest of any business associated with APBnet.

Contact Information
Critical Reach welcomes your comments regarding this Agreement. You may contact us at [email protected].

Copyright
APBnet and other accompanying and supporting materials are the copyrighted intellectual property of Critical Reach, and are protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Critical Reach retains ownership of APBnet in all aspects and reserves all rights under copyright.

Notices of alleged copyright infringement should be reported to Critical Reach. We will respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement if they comply with the law and are properly provided to us.

We reserve the right to delete or disable content alleged to be infringing and to terminate access to APBnet by repeat infringers.

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium

Item # 4.3
Title: PRIVATE: A SAFE PLACE
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: November 8, 2011 / Current: April 17, 2024 Summary:

A Safe Place provides counseling and shelter placement for victims of domestic violence. They maintain and 24-hour crisis hot-line, as well as crisis counselors who will assist victims in shelter admittance.

Rationale:

The Police Department strives to create positive outcomes for domestic violence survivors by breaking the cycle of violence and helping victims tap into resources outside of their current domestic situation. A Safe Place is the first step towards fostering this independence for victims and forging a secure space for victims to launch into a violence free existence.

The Police Department agrees to use A Safe Place as their single point of contact when attempting to locate emergency placement services for domestic violence victims.

Cost:

If Approved: None.

If Not Approved: Effect on cost cannot be calculated, but the loss of this single-point-of-contact system to our community’s domestic violence victims would be significant.

Recommendation: Continued Approval

Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 4.5
Title: PRIVATE: BAY AREA WOMEN AGAINST RAPE
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: October 28, 2014 / Current: April 4, 2024 Summary:

The Bay Area Women Against Rape (BAWAR) has been serving Alameda County since 1971 with support services for survivors of sexual assault.

BAWAR provides a 24-hour crisis line, in-person and group counseling, as well as community awareness and prevention programs.

Rationale:

The City of Berkeley, despite significant declines in reported stranger assaults, provides police services to a significant number of sexual assault victims, many of whom require access to psychological and support services, which are not provided by the Police Department. BAWAR provides a bridge to healing, and to connecting sexual assault survivors to a community of successful survivors.

Cost:

If Approved: The Police Department will continue to have access to a resource, which is instrumental in meeting the needs of community members who have been victims of serious and violent crimes.

If Not Approved: Effect on cost could be significant. Absence of this resource would be a detriment to sexual assault survivors, as well as the City, as it would be required to attempt to provide follow-up services despite the absence of an established City program.

Recommendation: Continued approval

4/16/2024
Michelle La Place Watts
Director of Programs

Berkeley Police Department
1 EXHIBIT B
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS – 2018
02/25/18 Police investigated implied threats of a school shooting . The threats were received via an online message. No violence took place.
03/03/18 A person made specific threats of arson against a business. The person was identified and there were no further threats. No arson was committed.
03/15/18 Graffiti was found in a school bathroom that made a specific threat of school violence at a particular date and time. Police investigated the vandalism and provided extra security for the school. 07/26/18 A widely publicized protest was planned for August 5. Leading up to that event a person reported that one of their family members was making specific threats of arming themselves and attending the event. An allied agency investigated this and no further action was taken.
08/05/18 During a widely publicized riot there were multiple suspicious devices that were discarded by a large group of involved people when they were confronted by police.
08/25/18 Two unidentified men were walking in and around police headquarters filming and looking into protected and secured areas.

Upon contact they refused to ide ntify themselves and they have not since returned.
10/29/18 A former law enforcement officer and student at a graduate school was a self-identified sovereign citizen. The person’s mental health declined rapidly and he purchased a firearm and holster. Police investigated the matter and ultimately seized the person’s firearms. 12/15/18 An alleged member of a white-supremacist organization was trying to rent a venue in Berkeley to hold a recruiting event. They were denied the rental by the staff at the business.

Berkeley Police Department
2 EXHIBIT B
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS – 2019
02/11/19 An off -duty out of state peace officer had their gun and badge stolen from their vehicle in the Berkeley Marina.
02/18/19 There were three images posted on a sandwich board on the periphery of the UC Berkeley campus. The images depicted people being killed or injured via beheading or being run over by an automobile. The images were implied to be Jewish people based on some of the icons on the images.
03/08/19 A Jewish community facility had flyers distributed at the location.

The flyers were from a high-profiles neo-Nazi group.
08/01/19 A vehicle was burglarized and PG&E uniforms were stolen from it.

This occurred in the Berkeley Marina.
08/06/19 An unknown person called a local hospital and threatened o “shoot up” the hospital.

SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS – 2020
02/24/20 An individual spray -painted red swastika s on the rocks and surrounding park fixtures in Indian Rock Park.
08/28/20 Berkeley Technical High School received a bomb threat via email. 09/16/20 A person reported that there were suspicious items, including gasoline and combustible material, stuffed inside free speech statues on the University pedestrian overpass. The items were found and removed.

SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS – 2021
01/12/21 HHCS staff received a suspicious package. Berkeley Police EOD staff investigated the issue and determined the package was safe. 02/16/21 Person was filming the exterior of police headquarters, the parking lots, and tried to film inside of the building when the doors were opened.
03/04/21 A Berkeley Police vehicle was stolen from the street in front of the police department.

Berkeley Police Department
3 EXHIBIT B
10/04/21 An automobile burglary occurred and one of the stolen items included a National Guard uniform and hat.
11/20/21 A group of people tried to break into a high-end electronics retailer in Berkeley while the business was closed. This was part of a spree of crimes that occurred in Berkeley and surrounding jurisdictions. 11/20/21 A group of people broke into a rental car establishment and tried to steal cars and the safe while the business was closed. This was part of a spree of crimes that occurred in Berkeley and surrounding jurisdictions.
11/21/21 A group of people attempted to burglarize a cannabis dispensary while the business was closed. The business was also shot at by the suspects. This was part of a spree of crimes that occurred in Berkeley and surrounding jurisdictions.

SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS – 2022
01/05/22 The ATF Internet Investigations Center notified BPD of threats of a mass shooting at Berkeley High. A person was contacted on this case but no arrest was made.
02/20/22 Number of people in North Berkeley reported finding zip locked bags with an Anti-Semitic flyer inside the bag on the driveways of people’s property.
03/12/22 Anti-Semitic flyers were distributed throughout Berkeley. These were the same as those distributed in February 2022.
05/22/22 An individual contacted BPD to report that a fellow student was recruiting people to assist with a school shooting and bombing at Berkeley High School. An individual was arrested in this case. 07/08/22 Berkeley Public Library staff received a phone call about “Drag Queen Story Time” event. When the employee advised that none are scheduled at this time the subject stated, “good, some things should stay in San Francisco.” The subject then went on to say, “If you had an event, I would come with pepper spray, I stand with the Proud Boys on this.” The library did not have any such planned events.
07/17/22 Many vehicles were vandalized with swastikas etched into the paint on the car doors. Two of the victims were of Jewish ancestry.

Berkeley Police Department
4 EXHIBIT B
10/08/22 Early in the morning, 4 people were shot after an altercation in the South Campus area of Berkeley. One person died as a result of a gunshot wound.
01/05/22 The ATF Internet Investigations Center notified BPD of threats of a mass shooting at Berkeley High. A person was contacted on this case but no arrest was made.

SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS – 2023
03/12/23 Swastikas and phallic images were spray painted onto four fraternity houses. There were at least two Jewish members of one of the fraternities and one of the fraternities was next door to a Jewish Community Center.
03/31/23 A bomb threat was emailed to Maybeck High School and another school in a different state.
07/24/23 A cache of ghost guns, gun parts, a loaded firearm and multiple knives were found on the roof of an abandoned industrial building.

A suspect was identified.
10/07/23 Hate incident at Jewish -related facility whereby one person reportedly yelled hateful words at the reporting party. 10/13/23 An unknown suspect was seen spray painting message about Palestine on a Jewish-centered billboard.
10/16/23 Multiple private schools received an emailed bomb threat. 11/15/23 An unknown suspect mailed Fentanyl to a residence in a letter.

The matter was turned over to the FBI for further investigation. 11/17/23 Multiple private schools received an emailed bomb threat.

Berkeley Police Department
5 EXHIBIT B
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS – 2024
04/17/24 Berkeley High School received an emailed bomb threat. No suspect was identified.
05/08/24 Multiple Jewish facilities received an emailed bomb threat. No suspect was identified.
05/07/24 An unknown suspect attempted to steal an Israeli f lag from an outdoor patio at a residence.
07/12/24 An unknown suspect vandalized the windows of a business where the business displayed signs that were pro-Palestinian. 08/02/24 A west-Berkeley business was vandalized when an unknown suspect spray painted pro -Palestinian and pro-Congo phrases on their windows.
08/23/24 Anti-Semitic flyers were distributed in northeast Berkeley by an unknown person.
09/04/24 A nonprofit organization received a phone call with threats of pending violence. The suspect was identified, and the case was forwarded to the FBI.
09/14/24 An unknown suspect burned the victim’s Pride flag that hung in front of their residence.
09/29/24 An unknown suspect spray painted a racial epithet on a resident’s garage door.
10/01/24 An unidentified female was taking photographs into the secured police department parking lot. The person was unable to be located.

Berkeley Police Department
1 EXHIBIT C
Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Requests Berkeley PD (6/2019 – 12/2024) 7/29/19 Gilroy Police Department requested LEMA to assist in managing the expansive crime scene following the active shooter event that occurred at the Gilroy Garlic Festival on Sunday, July 28, 2019. Up to four BPD Officers responded each day between 8/2/19 and 8/6/19 to provide perimeter security to maintain the crime scene.
9/1/19* UC Berkeley Police requested LEMA for demonstrations in their jurisdiction on 09/01/19. BPD assisted in planning and supported UCPD during the event, as past similar events have spilled over from UCPD jurisdiction into that of BPD.

Members of the Berkeley Police Department Special Response Team were mobilized for this event.
10/26/19 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office requested LEMA to assist with the Kincaid Fire.

Up to ten BPD Officers responded each day between 10/26/19 and 10/29/19.

BPD Officers were assigned to assist with traffic control posts and looting patrol. 11/20/19* UC Berkeley Police requested LEMA for demonstrations in their jurisdiction on 11/20/19. BPD assisted in planning and supported UCPD during the event, as past similar events have spilled over from UCPD jurisdiction into that of BPD.

The demonstrations were in relation to Ann Coulter giving a speech on the UC campus. The majority of the Berkeley Police Department was mobilized for this event.
5/29/20 Oakland Police Department and Alameda County SO requested LEMA in response to widespread Alameda County protests and looting lasting several days. The Berkeley Police Department sent officers primarily to Oakland to assist in crowd management and looting calls. 52 BPD Officers responded on 5/29/20, 86 BPD Officers responded on 5/30/20 and 49 BPD Officers responded on 5/31/20.
8/16/20 Napa County Sherriff’s Office requested LEMA to assist with the Lightening Complex Fire. The request was for officers to provide security checks in mandatory evacuation zones, fire watches, and looting patrols. BPD Officers responded, beginning in the evening of 8/20/20 with two operational periods per day continuing through 8/31/20. The largest BPD response occurred at the first operational period, 8/20/20 from 1800-0700 hours, when 16 BPD Officers responded.

Berkeley Police Department
2 EXHIBIT C
6/29/21 Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office requested LEMA for SWAT teams, including Tactical Medics, to assist with locating an armed suspect who shot at the police and was hiding in a heavily wooded area. On 7/1/21, four BPD Special Response Team Officers and two Tactical Medics responded. They were assigned to stationary posts for the purpose of monitoring ingress/egress points where the suspect was believed to be hiding and filled the Tactical Medic need.

All BPD officers were released and returned on 7/3/21.
12/19/21 Oakland Police Department requested LEMA for dispatchers to assist with emergency and non-emergency call taking due to severe understaffing. One dispatcher assisted with the evening shift on 12/19/21 and 12/20/21. 11/15/23 San Francisco Police Department requested LEMA for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit. BPD responded and provided 12 officers for assistance.
04/27/24 Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office requested LEMA to support officers to assist with the continued civil unrest on the college campus at Cal Poly Humboldt.

They requested 125 officers per day on April 29 and April 30. The unrest was a result of the pro-Palestinian activities. BPD did not commit any officers to this request.
05-16-24* UC Berkeley Police Department requested LEMA support of 100 officers for Crowd Management, booking and transportation. The request was generated due to civil unrest regarding the closure and construction of People’s Park. 07-03-24 Butte County Sheriff’s Office requested LEMA for the Thompson Fire near Oroville. The request was for 80 police and 40 vehicles per day. The LEMA request was for assistance with fire evacuations, looter suppression, and staffing checkpoints in/out of evacuated areas. BPD did not commit any officer to this request.
*BPD did not commit officers to UCPD based on the potential impact of the event(s) in our jurisdiction

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on July 22, 2025 the Police Department is requesting a public hearing, and at the conclusion of the hearing, adoption of a Resolution approving agreements between the Police Department and other law enforcement agencies and private organizations, as required by Berkeley Municipal Code 2.04.150, et. seq. The hearing will be held at 6:00pm in the School District Boardroom at 1231 Addison St., Berkeley, CA A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of July 10, 2025. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

For further information, please contact Chief Jennifer Louis at 510-981-5700.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or emailed to [email protected] in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Communications to the Berkeley 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 or in person to the City Clerk. 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 at (510) 981-6908 or [email protected] for further information.

If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.

Published: July 11, 2025 – The Berkeley Voice
Berkeley Municipal Code §2.04.170
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of Council Chambers, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on July 10, 2025. __________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

1900 Addison Street, 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 TEL: 510-981-4950 Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/dpa Email: [email protected]

June 27, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL [Email]
Honorable Mayor Ishii and Members of the City Council
[email protected]
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704

Re: Supplemental Letter Regarding MOU Submission and Recommended Revision to BMC 2.04.190
Dear Honorable Mayor Ishii and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of the Police Accountability Board (PAB), I would like to express our appreciation to the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) for its efforts to comply with the requirements of Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 2.04.150 by preparing the current list of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) for Council review.

We especially commend the Department for its decision not to submit informal “general understandings” as part of its compendium of agreements, thereby upholding the intent of BMC Section 2.04.170 to increase transparency and ensure meaningful Council oversight. Two months ago, the PAB flagged for BPD that the inclusion of “general understandings” within its compendium of agreements could lead to substantial confusion, considering that general understandings are not formal agreements, but rather informal articulations of BPD policy and practice. BPD agreed and now submits to the Council a revised compendium that only includes official MOUs.

Additionally, the PAB respectfully recommends that the Council consider revising the timeline currently prescribed under BMC Section 2.04.190(C), which renders all MOUs null and void one year after Council approval unless affirmatively renewed. While we recognize the importance of regular review, the one-year expiration rule creates a recurring and administratively burdensome cycle that may unintentionally discourage the development or maintenance of otherwise lawful and beneficial agreements. Moreover, lapses in timely review may lead to unintended noncompliance or disrupt ongoing interagency coordination, especially in the context Joshua Cayetano
Chair of the Police Accountability Board
[email protected]

of specialized investigative or emergency response partnerships. The PAB observes that the BPD was in violation of section 2.04.190(c), as the MOU compendium has not been updated since 2018.

We propose that Council consider an amendment to BMC Section 2.04.190 to permit a multi-year review schedule (e.g., every three years), subject to earlier review at the discretion of Council or upon the recommendation of the City Manager, BPD, or the PAB. This would better align the review process with both operational realities and the evolving nature of law enforcement collaboration.

The PAB remains committed to partnering with BPD and the City Manager’s Office to identify a legally sound and administratively sustainable framework. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate further and offer technical assistance in shaping language for Council consideration.

Thank you for your leadership and ongoing commitment to transparent governance and police accountability.

Sincerely,

Joshua Cayetano, Chair
Police Accountability Board

Cc: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
David White, Deputy City Manager
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Jen Tate, Deputy Chief of Police
Farimah Brown, City Attorney
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Hansel Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability

ACTION CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: Surveillance Technology Ordinance Submission for External Fixed Surveillance Cameras (Flock Safety Condor Video Cameras)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution:

1. Accepting the attached Surveillance Acquisition Report for the Flock Safety Condor video cameras, pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (B.M.C.) Chapter

2.99. 2. Re-affirming the associated Berkeley Police Department (BPD) Use Policies (BPD Policy 351: External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras and BPD Policy 1304: Surveillance Use Policy—External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras), which were previously approved by Council on June 13, 2023.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This report is submitted in accordance with the Surveillance Technology Ordinance (STO) process, as codified in B.M.C. Chapter 2.99. The City is transitioning its External Fixed Video Surveillance Camera program to a new vendor, Flock Safety, and deploying Flock Safety Condor video cameras. This transition and the introduction of a new model of technology requires the submission of a Surveillance Acquisition Report for review and acceptance by the City Council.

This action will allow the Police Department to proceed with the camera installation plan as previously directed by Council, utilizing modern, solar-powered technology that resolves prior installation challenges and integrates with the City’s existing Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) network.

BACKGROUND
On October 12, 2021, and again on January 30, 2024, the City Council authorized the installation of an external fixed video surveillance camera program to enhance public safety. Subsequent analysis identified Flock Safety’s solar-powered Condor cameras as

17

Surveillance Technology Ordinance Submission for ACTION CALENDAR External Fixed Surveillance Cameras (Flock Safety Condor Video Cameras) July 22, 2025

the most effective technology to meet the City's needs and overcome significant power supply and right-of-way challenges associated with the previous vendor. On March 18, 2025, Council approved updated locations for the cameras and directed BPD to initiate the STO review process.

The adoption of a new vendor and specific technology initiated the requirement under the STO to submit a new Surveillance Acquisition Report for approval by Council. The BPD policies governing the use of this technology—Policy 351 and Policy 1304—are not being changed. These Use Policies underwent the full STO review process, including pursuant to the ordinance, Police Accountability Board (PAB) review, and were formally approved by the City Council on June 13, 2023. They are included with this submission solely to fulfill the procedural requirements of the ordinance, which mandates that a complete package of STO documents be presented. Also pursuant to policy, this acquisition report and the previously approved policies were submitted to the PAB on June 19, 2025.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Accepting the Surveillance Acquisition Report is the final procedural step required under the STO to implement the Council-approved External Fixed Video Surveillance Camera program with the selected vendor, Flock Safety. This action ensures the City remains in full compliance with its surveillance oversight laws while allowing the Police Department to deploy a critical tool to deter crime and support criminal investigations.

The Flock Condor cameras offer superior technical capabilities and flexible installation options that will allow the project to be completed promptly and effectively.

Furthermore, the Flock Safety Condor cameras align with the City's high standards for data privacy and civil liberties protection. As detailed in the Surveillance Acquisition Report, the system employs robust, multi-layered security measures, including end-to- end encryption, secure cloud storage on AWS GovCloud, and strict access controls.

The technology integrates seamlessly into the Police Department’s existing workflows, operating on the same platform as the City's ALPR network, which maximizes its public safety value without creating new operational burdens. This combination of advanced security, adherence to strict use policies, and operational efficiency ensures that the deployment of these cameras fully meets the Council's original intent to enhance safety while upholding community values.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Transitioning to solar-powered cameras will reduce the carbon footprint of this project.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
As detailed in the attached Surveillance Acquisition Report, Flock Safety Condor cameras are priced as a subscription service at $5,000 per camera per year. For the 16 proposed cameras, the total annual cost is approximately $80,000. This recurring

Surveillance Technology Ordinance Submission for ACTION CALENDAR External Fixed Surveillance Cameras (Flock Safety Condor Video Cameras) July 22, 2025

cost includes hardware, installation, ongoing maintenance, cellular service, data hosting, and software updates. Funding for this program is allocated from the FY 2024 baseline Public Works budget, with sufficient funds available to cover operating costs for four years. Further use of the technology beyond the initial four years will require additional funding allocations.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police, (510) 981-5700

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Surveillance Acquisition Report: Flock Safety Condor Video Cameras

3. BPD Policy 351: External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras (Approved 6/13/2023)

4. BPD Policy 1304: Surveillance Use Policy—External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras (Approved 6/13/2023)

Surveillance Technology Ordinance Submission for ACTION CALENDAR External Fixed Surveillance Cameras (Flock Safety Condor Video Cameras) July 22, 2025

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

ACCEPTING THE SURVEILLANCE ACQUISITION REPORT FOR FLOCK SAFETY

CONDOR VIDEO CAMERAS
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley is committed to leveraging technology to enhance public safety while ensuring transparency, oversight, and the protection of civil liberties and civil rights, as codified in the Surveillance Technology Ordinance (B.M.C. Chapter 2.99); and WHEREAS, the City Council previously authorized the implementation of an External Fixed Video Surveillance Camera program to aid in deterring crime and supporting criminal investigations; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department has, in accordance with B.M.C. 2.99.030, prepared and submitted a Surveillance Acquisition Report detailing the technology's description, purpose, location, impact, and safeguards; and
WHEREAS, the governing Use Policies for this technology, BPD Policy 351 and BPD Policy 1304, were previously reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 13, 2023, and are submitted herewith without change, pursuant to the requirements of the Surveillance Technology Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Council hereby accepts the Surveillance Acquisition Report for the Flock Safety Condor Video Cameras, allowing the City Manager and Police Department to proceed with the acquisition and deployment of this technology in accordance with the report and the previously approved Use Policies.

Surveillance Acquisition Report: External Fixed
Surveillance Cameras - Flock Safety Condor Video
Cameras
This report is submitted in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 2.99 concerning the Acquisition and Use of Surveillance Technology. The City of Berkeley is transitioning its External Fixed Video Surveillance Camera program vendor from Edgeworth Integration, LLC to Flock Safety and plans to deploy Flock Safety Condor video cameras.

1. Description (BMC 2.99.020(3)(a))
 Condor cameras capture high-definition video footage. PTZ models allow for remote control to pan, tilt, and zoom.
 They operate on the FlockOS platform, which is the same platform through which Berkeley PD currently accesses Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR).  The cameras do not record audio, and audio recording is explicitly prohibited by Berkeley policy for these types of cameras.
 The system utilizes AI for features like "People Detection Alerts" (identifying human presence without facial recognition) and "Visual Alerts" (tracking vehicles across feeds).  Some models feature dual lenses to maintain wide-angle context while zoomed in.  They offer features like 25x optical zoom and high-quality nighttime imagery.  Crucially for Berkeley's deployment challenges, Flock offers solar-powered, LTE-enabled cameras, eliminating the need for direct electrical wiring or complex network infrastructure setup on city poles.
 Data is transmitted wirelessly via cellular connection to cloud storage. Flock provides installation, ongoing maintenance, cellular service, and software updates as part of its subscription model.

2. Purpose (BMC 2.99.020(3)(b))
The proposed purpose for the Flock Safety Condor cameras is to provide real-time awareness and investigative capacity in following use cases:
 To support specific and active criminal investigations.  To support serious traffic-related investigations.
 To support police misconduct investigations, and
 To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.

3. Location (BMC 2.99.020(3)(c))
The cameras are proposed for deployment adjacent to the following intersections, chosen for high pedestrian traffic and analysis of crime trends:
 Center / MLK  College / Ashby
 Milvia / Alston  9th / Gilman

 Center / Shattuck  Solano / Colusa
 University / Shattuck  4th / Hearst
 Cedar / Shattuck  Adeline / Fairview
 Durant / Telegraph  Shattuck / Ashby
 4th / Virginia  62rd / King
 University / MLK  College / Alcatraz
Additional potential locations if funding allows include Ashby Ave / Domingo Ave, Ashby Ave / San Pablo Ave, Dwight Ave / San Pablo Ave, and University Ave / San Pablo Ave. This plan reallocates previously approved locations now covered by ALPRs or facing installation barriers.

4. Impact (BMC 2.99.020(3)(d))
 The deployment aims to enhance public safety and aid investigations.  As with any surveillance, there is a potential impact on privacy and civil liberties, specifically the expectation of anonymity in public spaces. The cameras will capture video of public areas with high foot traffic.
 Concerns regarding potential disparate impacts on specific communities are acknowledged.

Mitigation measures (Section 5) and adherence to a strict Use Policy are intended to prevent discriminatory use.
 Safeguarding privacy from potential misuse, particularly concerning federal immigration enforcement, is critical. Protections include state law (e.g., SB 54 prohibits sharing certain information for federal immigration enforcement), alignment of BPD policy with state law, Flock's terms forbidding such sharing, and prompt notification procedures if federal access is requested.
 The technology provider, Flock Safety, states its video cameras do not use facial recognition technology. Berkeley city policy explicitly prohibits the use of facial recognition technology.

5. Mitigation (BMC 2.99.020(3)(e))
 A comprehensive Surveillance Use Policy specific to this technology is in place and enforced (Policy 1304), outlining authorized uses, data handling, retention, and oversight, consistent with BMC 2.99.020(4).
 Use will comply with California SB 54, prohibiting data sharing for federal immigration enforcement. Flock's Terms of Agreement also forbid sharing data with federal immigration agencies. The City will be notified if federal authorities request access, allowing for intervention and oversight.
 Data access will be restricted to authorized personnel via secure login credentials managed by the City. Audit trails will log all access. Role-based access controls are available to manage least privilege.
 Data will be encrypted during transmission (TLS 1.2+) and storage (AES-256) to mitigate cybersecurity risks and prevent unauthorized third-party access. Data is stored on AWS GovCloud meeting strict governmental security standards.  Data will be retained for a limited period pursuant to the Department Use Policy, and automatically deleted thereafter using secure methods compliant with NIST 800-88 to reduce risks associated with unauthorized use.

 The technology will not be used for facial recognition or to unlawfully discriminate based on protected characteristics. The cameras will not be used for automated traffic enforcement.  Signage will be posted in areas where cameras are deployed. This report and the subsequent Use Policy will be public documents.
 Using solar-powered cameras minimizes infrastructure impact and reliance on grid power at specific pole locations.

6. Data Types and Sources (BMC 2.99.020(3)(f))
 High-definition video recordings of public spaces. Associated metadata including date, time, and camera location. AI-derived alerts for human presence (without identification) or vehicle characteristics (if integrated with ALPR features).
 Video feeds directly from the Flock Safety Condor cameras affixed to City-owned poles or other suitable infrastructure in public rights-of-way. The system may integrate data/alerts from the City's existing Flock ALPR system.

7. Data Security (BMC 2.99.020(3)(g))
Flock Safety describes a multi-layered security architecture prioritizing encryption, data protection, and compliance. Key aspects include:
 Flock states its practices align with principles in the FTC Safeguards Rule and comply with frameworks like NIST CSF, NIST 800-53 Rev 5, and holds ISO 27001 certification.  Flock employs dedicated security teams (Product Security, Corporate Security, Risk/Compliance) including a CISO and professionals with CISSP and CIPP certifications.  Regular risk assessments (annual, utilizing NIST frameworks) are conducted, prioritized threats are tracked, and cyber threat intelligence is monitored. Quarterly security reviews and board transparency ensure oversight.
 Data is encrypted in transit (TLS 1.2+ or higher) and at rest (AES-256).  Data is stored in Flock Safety's secure cloud environment (AWS, including AWS GovCloud for CJIS data accessible only by Law Enforcement), leveraging geographic redundancy and robust backup policies.
 Role-based access controls (RBAC) enforce least privilege for both customer administrators and Flock personnel. Access is centrally managed via an identity provider, reviewed quarterly.  Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is required for privileged access and recommended for all users (supported methods include authenticator apps, SMS, customer SSO). SSO technologies (Azure AD, Okta, SAML) are supported.
 Regular security assessments (including OWASP checks, vulnerability scanning) are performed on in-house and third-party applications. Advanced tooling monitors platform, container, endpoint, and network security.
 Hardware/software inventories are actively managed. A formal SDLC process (Agile, GitHub for source code, Jira for tracking) governs changes, with mandatory reviews, testing, separation of environments, and infrastructure management via Terraform.  Data is automatically deleted after the retention period pursuant to policy using secure methods (e.g., cryptographic wiping) aligned with NIST 800-88 guidelines.

 Continuous monitoring (including SIEM) detects unauthorized access attempts, security events, and logs privileged user access.
 Comprehensive security awareness training is mandatory for all personnel upon hire, annually, and for significant changes, covering policies, incident response, and role-specific duties.  Flock undergoes regular third-party assessments including SOC 2 Type II (annually), ISO 27001 certification, and CJIS ACE compliance assessment. A formal third-party risk management program vets vendors integrated with Flock products.
 Flock maintains a documented incident response plan that is tested quarterly and reviewed annually, defining roles, responsibilities, and procedures for handling breaches.

8. Fiscal Impact (BMC 2.99.020(3)(h))
 Flock Safety cameras are priced as a subscription service at $5,000 per camera per year. For the 16 proposed cameras, the annual cost is $80,000. This includes installation, maintenance, data hosting, cellular connectivity, and software updates.
 The FY 2024 baseline Public Works budget allocated $600,000 for external cameras. $290,000 was disbursed to the previous vendor, Edgeworth; the City aims to reassign these funds to other projects. The remaining $310,000 is sufficient to cover over four years of operating costs for the 16 Flock cameras. Recovering the $290,000 could fund an additional four years.  Ongoing costs include City staff time for system administration, oversight, auditing, and reporting, similar to the previous system. Specific costs are TBD but covered within existing departmental budgets.
 The City intends to seek grant funding to potentially offset purchase/subscription costs.

9. Third Party Dependence and Access (BMC 2.99.020(3)(i))  The City will depend on Flock Safety for the camera hardware, the FlockOS software platform, cellular data transmission, cloud storage, system maintenance, and software updates. This is inherent in the subscription model.
 Flock Safety handles and stores the data on its cloud platform.  The City owns the data. Flock Safety states it will not share or sell customer data. Access to the data by third parties (including Flock Safety personnel) is controlled by the City through permissions managed within the FlockOS platform. Any data sharing with other entities (e.g., other law enforcement agencies) would be governed by Berkeley PD’s Surveillance Use Policy and applicable laws.
 The City's contract with Flock Safety will require the company to provide prompt notification of any data request from a federal agency. Flock will not release data unless legally compelled to do so by federal law, and in such cases, will provide the City with advance notice to the greatest extent possible before complying.

10. Alternatives (BMC 2.99.020(3)(j))
 Continuing with the originally approved vendor, Edgeworth Integration, was considered but deemed infeasible due to insurmountable technical challenges related to power requirements at proposed locations and installation delays.

 Relying solely on traditional policing techniques (e.g., increased officer patrols) is an alternative but does not provide the persistent monitoring or video evidence capabilities offered by cameras.
 Deciding against deploying fixed video surveillance cameras altogether.

11. Experience of Other Entities (BMC 2.99.020(3)(k))
 Many cities, including neighboring jurisdictions like San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, utilize fixed surveillance cameras as a tool for public safety and crime deterrence, often with their own specific use policies.
 Flock Safety systems (including LPR and video) are used by numerous law enforcement agencies nationally. These agencies often cite benefits in investigations and situational awareness.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/17, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras - 1
Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras
351.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidance for the placement and monitoring of City of Berkeley external fixed video surveillance cameras by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD).

This policy only applies to fixed, overt, marked external video surveillance systems utilized by the BPD. It does not apply to mobile audio/video systems, covert audio/video systems or any other image-capturing devices used by the Department, as authorized by the City Council for use by other City Departments. BPD Personnel shall adhere to the requirements for External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras covered in this policy as well as the corresponding Surveillance Use Policy -1304.
351.2 POLICY
The Berkeley Police Department utilizes a video surveillance system to enhance its anti-crime strategy, to effectively allocate and deploy personnel, and to enhance safety and security in public areas. As specified by this policy, cameras may be placed in strategic locations throughout the City to record, deter, and solve crimes, to help the City safeguard against potential threats to the public, and to help manage emergency response situations during natural and human-made disasters, among other uses specified in Section 351.3.1.

Video surveillance in public areas will be conducted in a legal and ethical manner while recognizing and protecting constitutional standards of privacy.
351.3 OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
Only City Council-approved video surveillance equipment shall be utilized. BPD members authorized to review video surveillance may only record and review public areas and public activities where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists and pursuant to Section 351.3.1. The City Manager shall obtain Council approval of any proposed additional locations for the placement and use of video surveillance technology.
351.3.1 PLACEMENT REVIEW AND MONITORING
Camera placement will only occur in locations approved by the City Council and will be guided by this policy and the underlying purpose or strategy associated with the overall video surveillance plan. As appropriate, the Chief of Police should confer with other affected City departments when evaluating camera placement. Environmental factors, including lighting, location of buildings, presence of vegetation or other obstructions, should also be evaluated when determining placement.

Camera placement includes existing cameras such as those located at San Pablo Park, the Berkeley Marina, and cameras placed in Council identified and approved intersections throughout the City, and potential future camera locations as approved by City Council.

Current City Council approved locations:

Policy
351

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/17, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras - 2
• 6th Street at University Avenue
• San Pablo Avenue at University Avenue
• 7th Street at Dwight Way
• San Pablo Avenue at Dwight Way
• 7th Street at Ashby Avenue
• San Pablo Avenue at Ashby Avenue
• Sacramento Street at Ashby Avenue
• College Avenue at Ashby Avenue
• Claremont Avenue at Ashby Avenue
• 62nd Street at King Street
The cameras shall only record video images and not sound. Recorded images pursuant to Section 351.5 may be accessed, reviewed, and used for specific criminal or BPD administrative investigations and video surveillance may be accessed and reviewed by authorized BPD personnel for the following purposes:
(a) To support specific and active criminal investigations. (b) To support serious traffic-related investigations.
(c) To support police misconduct investigations, and
(d) To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.

Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of video footage is prohibited.
351.3.2 FIXED CAMERA MARKINGS
All public areas monitored by video surveillance equipment shall be marked in a conspicuous manner with unobstructed signs to inform the public that the area is under police surveillance. 351.3.3 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER TECHNOLOGY
The Department is prohibited from integrating or accessing system capabilities of the video surveillance system with other systems, such as gunshot detection, automated license plate recognition, facial recognition and other video-based analytical systems. 351.4 VIDEO SUPERVISION
Access to video surveillance camera data shall be limited to Berkeley Police Department (BPD) personnel utilizing the camera database for uses authorized above, with technical assistance from Public Works Department and Department of Information Technology personnel. Information may be shared in accordance with Sections 351.6 or 1304.9 below. BPD members seeking access to the camera system shall obtain the approval of the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee.

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/17, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras - 3
Supervisors should monitor video surveillance access and usage to ensure BPD members are complying with this policy, other applicable department policy, and applicable laws. Supervisors should ensure such use and access is appropriately documented. 351.4.1 VIDEO LOG
No one without authorization will be allowed to login and view the recordings. Those who are authorized and login should automatically trigger the audit trail function to ensure compliance with the guidelines and policy.
351.4.2 PROHIBITED ACTIVITY
Video surveillance systems will not intentionally be used to invade the privacy of individuals or observe areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

Video surveillance systems shall not be used in an unequal or discriminatory manner and shall not target protected individual characteristics including, but not limited to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

Video surveillance equipment shall not be used to harass, intimidate or discriminate against any individual or group.

Video surveillance systems and recordings are subject to the Berkeley Police Department's Immigration Law Policy, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials.
351.5 STORAGE AND RETENTION OF MEDIA
Video surveillance recordings are not government records pursuant to California Government Code 34090 in and of themselves. Except as otherwise permitted in this section, video surveillance recordings shall be purged within one hundred and eighty (180) days of recording. Recordings of incidents involving use of force by a police officer or involving, detentions, arrests, or recordings relevant to a formal or informal complaint against a sworn police officer shall be retained for a minimum of two years and one month. Recordings relating to court cases and complaints against BPD sworn officers that are being adjudicated will be manually deleted at the same time other evidence associated with the case is purged in line with the Department's evidence retention policy. Any recordings related to a police misconduct investigation shall be maintained until such matter is fully adjudicated, at which time it shall be deleted in line with the Department's evidence retention policy, and any applicable orders from the court.

Any recordings needed as evidence in a criminal or police misconduct proceeding shall be copied to a suitable medium and booked into evidence in accordance with current evidence procedures. 351.5.1 EVIDENTIARY INTEGRITY
All media downloaded and retained pursuant to this Policy shall be treated in the same manner as other evidence. Media shall be accessed, maintained, stored and retrieved in a manner that ensures its integrity as evidence, including strict adherence to chain of custody requirements.

Electronic trails, including encryption, digital masking of innocent or uninvolved individuals to

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/17, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras - 4
preserve anonymity, authenticity certificates and date and time stamping, shall be used as appropriate to preserve individual rights and to ensure the authenticity and maintenance of a secure evidentiary chain of custody.
351.6 RELEASE OF VIDEO IMAGES
Data collected and used in a police report shall be made available to the public in accordance with department policy and applicable state or federal law, also referenced in Policy 1304.8.

Requests for recorded video images from the public or the media shall be processed in the same manner as requests for department public records pursuant to Policy 804, Records Maintenance and Release.

Requests for recorded video from other law enforcement agencies shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee for release in accordance with this policy and must be related to a specific active criminal investigation.

Requests for recorded video from the Office of Director of Police Accountability and Police Accountability Board shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, for release in accordance with Charter Article XVIII, Section 25, Subdivision (20)(a).

Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process. 351.7 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE AUDIT
The video surveillance software generates a site log each time the system is accessed. The site log is broken down by server, device, user or general access. The site log is kept on the server for two years and is exportable for reporting. System audits will be conducted by the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability on a regular basis, at least biennial.

BPD will enforce against prohibited uses of the cameras pursuant to Policy 1010, Personnel Complaints, or other applicable law or policy. The City Manager shall enforce against any prohibited use of cameras and/or access to data by other City of Berkeley personnel.

The audit shall be documented in the form an internal department memorandum to the Chief of Police. The memorandum shall include any data errors found so that such errors can be corrected.

After review by the Chief of Police, the memorandum and any associated documentation shall be published on the City of Berkeley website in an appropriate location, and retained within the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability.
351.8 TRAINING
All department members authorized to operate or access video surveillance systems shall receive appropriate training. Training should include guidance on the use of cameras, associated software, and review of relevant policies and procedures, including this policy, as well as review of relevant City of Berkeley laws and regulations. Training should also address state and federal law related to the use of video surveillance equipment and privacy. All relevant recordings that are utilized

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/17, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras - 5
will be collected pursuant to Policy 802, Property and Evidence, and retained pursuant to Policy 804, Records and Maintenance.
351.9 MAINTENANCE
It shall be the responsibility of the Public Works Director to facilitate and coordinate any updates and required maintenance, with access limited to that detailed in the City Manager's promulgated policies.

Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Video
Surveillance Cameras - 1
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/17, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Video
Surveillance Cameras
1304.1 PURPOSE
This policy provides guidance for the use of City of Berkeley external fixed video surveillance cameras by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD).

This policy only applies to fixed, overt, marked external video surveillance systems utilized by BPD. It does not apply to mobile audio/video systems, covert audio/video systems or any other image-capturing devices used by the Department. Department personnel shall adhere to the requirements for External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras covered in this policy as well as the corresponding Use Policy-351.

This Surveillance Use Policy is legally-enforceable pursuant to BMC 2.99. 1304.2 AUTHORIZED USE
Only BPD members who receive training on this policy, who are then granted access by an administrator may access the data from the video surveillance cameras. This data may only be accessed to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose, as listed in this Policy. Members must follow the necessary logging mechanisms, such as case number and case type when querying the database.

The cameras shall only record video images and not sound. Recorded images pursuant to Section 351.5 may be accessed, reviewed, and used for specific criminal or BPD administrative investigations and video surveillance may be accessed and reviewed by authorized BPD personnel for the following purposes:
(a) To support specific and active criminal investigations. (b) To support serious traffic-related investigations.
(c) To support police misconduct investigations, and
(d) To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.

Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of video footage is

prohibited.

The following are prohibited uses of the video surveillance system:
(a) Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of video footage is prohibited.
(b) Video surveillance systems will not intentionally be used to invade the privacy of individuals or observe areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. (c) Video surveillance systems shall not be used in an unequal or discriminatory manner and shall not target protected individual characteristics including, but not limited to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

Policy
1304

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/17, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Video
Surveillance Cameras - 2
(d) Video surveillance equipment shall not be used to harass, intimidate or discriminate against any individual or group.
(e) Video surveillance systems and recordings are subject to the Berkeley Police Department's Immigration Law Policy, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials.
1304.3 DATA COLLECTION
The cameras will film and store video on City of Berkeley encrypted servers. License plate and facial recognition data hardware is not installed on the cameras and may not be installed or used unless approved by the City council. Audio is a standard feature of the camera, but is deactivated by the system administrator and may not be activated or used unless approved by the City Council.

The cameras and storage devices shall be wholly owned and operated/maintained by the City of Berkeley.
1304.4 DATA ACCESS
Access to video surveillance cameras data shall be limited to BPD personnel utilizing the camera database for uses described above and pursuant to Use Policy 351, with technical assistance from Public Works Department and Department of Information Technology personnel. Information may be shared in accordance with 1304.9 below. BPD members seeking access to the video surveillance system shall obtain the approval of the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee.

Supervisors should monitor camera access and usage to ensure BPD members are complying with this policy, other applicable department policy, and applicable laws. Supervisors should ensure such use and access is appropriately documented. 1304.5 DATA PROTECTION
All data transferred from the cameras and the servers shall be encrypted. Access to the data must be obtained through the Public Works Department according to this policy and published regulations that limit access and use of data by Public Works and other City Departments and personnel. All system access including system log-in, access duration, and data access points is accessible and reportable and shall be documented by the Public Works Department's authorized administrator. All relevant recordings that are utilized will be collected pursuant to Policy 802, Property and Evidence, and retained pursuant to Policy 804 Records and Maintenance. 1304.6 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTION
The Berkeley Police Department is dedicated to the most efficient utilization of its resources and services in its public safety endeavors. The Berkeley Police Department recognizes the need to protect its ownership and control over shared information and to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public, in accordance with federal and state law. Provisions of this policy, including 1304.4 Data Access, 1304.5 Data Protection, 1304.7 Data Retention, 1304.8 Public Access

and 1304.9 Third Party Data Sharing serve to protect against any unauthorized use of video

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/17, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Video
Surveillance Cameras - 3
surveillance camera data. License plate and facial recognition data hardware is not installed on the cameras. Audio is a standard feature of the camera, but is deactivated by the system administrator.

These procedures ensure the data is not used in a way that would violate or infringe upon anyone's civil rights and/or liberties, including but not limited to potentially disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups.
1304.7 DATA RETENTION
Video surveillance recordings are not government records pursuant to California Government Code 34090 in and of themselves. Except as otherwise permitted in this section, video surveillance recordings shall be purged within one hundred and eighty (180) days of recording. Recordings of incidents involving use of force by a police officer or involving detentions, arrests, or recordings relevant to a formal or informal complaint against a police officer shall be retained for a minimum of two years and one month. Recordings relating to court cases and complaints against BPD sworn officers that are being adjudicated will be manually deleted at the same time other evidence associated with the case is purged in line with the Department's evidence retention policy. Any recordings related to BPD administrative proceedings pursuant to this section shall be maintained until such matter is fully adjudicated, at which time it shall be deleted in line with the Department's evidence retention policy, and any applicable orders from the court. All data will automatically delete after the aforementioned retention period by the System Administrator from Public Works.

Any recordings needed as evidence in a criminal or police misconduct proceeding shall be copied to a suitable medium and booked into evidence in accordance with current evidence procedures. 1304.8 PUBLIC ACCESS
Data collected and used in a police report shall be made available to the public in accordance with department policy and applicable state or federal law.

Requests for recorded video images from the public or the media shall be processed in the same manner as requests for department public records pursuant to Policy 804.

Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process. 1304.9 THIRD-PARTY DATA-SHARING
Requests for recorded video from other law enforcement agencies shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee for release in accordance with this policy, and must be related to a specific active criminal investigation.

Data collected from the video surveillance system may be shared with the following:
(a) The District Attorney's Office for use as evidence to aid in prosecution, in accordance with laws governing evidence;
(b) Other law enforcement personnel as part of an active criminal investigation;

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual
Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/03/17, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Video
Surveillance Cameras - 4
(c) Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process Requests for recorded video from the Office of Director of Police Accountability and Police Accountability Board shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, for release in accordance with Charter Article XVIII, Section 125, Subdivision (20)(a). 1304.10 TRAINING
All BPD members authorized to operate or access video surveillance systems shall receive appropriate training. Training should include guidance on the use of cameras, associated software, and review of relevant policies and procedures, including this policy as well as review of relevant City of Berkeley laws and regulations.

Training should also address state and federal law related to the use of video surveillance equipment and privacy. All relevant recordings that are utilized will be collected pursuant to Policy 802 Property and Evidence, and retained pursuant to Policy 804 Records Maintenance. 1304.11 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
The video surveillance software generates a site log each time the system is accessed. The site log is broken down by server, device, user or general access. The site log is kept on the server for two years and is exportable for reporting. Video surveillance system audits will be conducted by the Professional Standards Bureau's Audit and Inspections Sergeant on a regular basis, at least biennial.

BPD will enforce against prohibited uses of this policy pursuant to Policy 1010, Personnel Complaints or other applicable law or policy. The City Manager shall enforce against any prohibited use of the cameras and/or access to data by other City of Berkeley personnel.

The audit shall be documented in the form of an internal department memorandum to the Chief of Police. The memorandum shall include any data errors found so that such errors can be corrected.

After review by the Chief of Police, the memorandum and any associated documentation shall be placed into the annual report filed with the City Council pursuant to BMC Section 2.99.020 2. d., published on the City of Berkeley website in an appropriate location, and retained within the Professional Standards Bureau.
1304.12 MAINTENANCE
It shall be the responsibility of the Public Works Department to facilitate and coordinate any updates and required maintenance with access limited to that detailed in the City Manager's promulgated policies.

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/

INFORMATION CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office Subject: Reimagining Public Safety Status Report

SUMMARY
The Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) initiative is currently in Phase 3 (2024–2026):

Continued Implementation and Expansion. This phase focuses on sustaining key reforms, enhancing service coordination, and transitioning pilot programs into integrated, long-term systems. It builds on earlier efforts to establish an equitable, effective, and community-responsive public safety framework, emphasizing long-range planning, strategic resource allocation, and data-informed decision-making.

This summary provides a high-level overview of recent developments and does not capture the full scope of work underway across departments. A comprehensive update on current efforts, accomplishments, and next steps is included in the Summer 2025 Reimagining Public Safety Status Update and companion appendix. Together, these materials reflect the City’s ongoing commitment to a responsive, inclusive, and well- coordinated approach to safety and well-being in Berkeley.

Since the last update in October 2024, the City has achieved several milestones:
 Gun Violence Prevention: The City continued to expand implementation of the Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Program (GVIPP), a core strategy within the RPS framework. In partnership with Live Free USA and the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR), the City launched the Community Violence Intervention (CVI) Collaborative in December 2024. The Collaborative meets monthly to strengthen implementation, improve coordination, and inform strategy across partners. Staff also joined a regional CVI partnership in February 2025 to align strategies with neighboring jurisdictions. Since launch, GVIPP has served more than 500 individuals through life coaching, crisis response, school- based conflict mediation, and community outreach. Early indicators suggest a decline in gun violence incidents and increased engagement among community stakeholders.
 Mental Health Crisis Response System Planning: The City finalized the Crisis Needs Assessment, which analyzed dispatch data to identify gaps in the

18

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

response to behavioral health and homelessness-related calls. Based on these findings, and in alignment with CalAIM and Medi-Cal reform, the City began the process of sunsetting the Specialized Care Unit (SCU) pilot. Alameda County Behavioral Health is currently building out a Medi-Cal funded mobile crisis response program that will serve Berkeley residents moving forward. An SCU Retrospective Evaluation completed in June 2025 documents key lessons from the pilot and will inform future coordination and strategies.  Dispatch Enhancement Planning: Following completion of the Dispatch Needs Assessment and Validation Study in prior phases The Police and Fire Departments are meeting regularly to coordinate next steps, and the City is working with consultants to develop a phased implementation roadmap that supports both near-term improvements and long-term needs in staffing, triage protocols, and workspace expansion. Phase 3 initiated a plan to strengthen recruitment and retention, implement new technology to assist with diverting non- emergency calls, develop a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), and created and implemented a new call taker position.
 Reaffirming Vision Zero Commitments: The City reaffirmed its goal of eliminating all fatal and serious injury traffic crashes by 2028 through continued investment in the Vision Zero Program. In early 2025, the Vision Zero Program Manager (Senior Planner) was hired, restoring internal capacity to lead this work.

Since then, staff have prioritized grant-funded capital projects along high-injury corridors and resumed interdepartmental coordination with the Police Department, Fire Department, and City Manager’s Office. The program is also advancing consultant-supported design for quick build improvements, and rapid response protocols. While staffing constraints have delayed some initiatives, these coordinated efforts reflect the City’s ongoing commitment to safer, more equitable streets.
 Gender-Based Violence Recommendations: The Health, Housing, and Community Services Department (HHCS) presented a set of non-carceral, survivor-centered policy recommendations to the Commission on the Status of Women. These recommendations were developed through engagement with survivors, service providers, and shelter staff, and outline strategies to strengthen trauma-informed response, expand restorative justice pathways, and improve coordination between City departments and community-based organizations. To support public awareness, the City also developed a gender-based violence resource brochure in collaboration with community stakeholders. The brochure includes information on national, county, and Berkeley-specific resources. It will be available in the City’s top five languages and disseminated through City departments, service providers, and other community access points once finalized.

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

 Fines and Fees Reform: The City completed a preliminary Fines and Fees Assessment in partnership with the Goldman School of Public Policy. Initiated in early 2025, the project identified opportunities to improve equity, communication, and administrative efficiency across the City’s fines and fees system. Short-term, low-cost recommendations include eliminating mandatory bicycle registration, updating disability placard policies, and creating multilingual, plain-language communications. Longer-term reforms—such as expanded installment payment options and modernized administrative systems—will require phased implementation. These efforts align with RPS guiding principles and support the City’s “Care First, Jails Last” policy goals.
 Capacity-Building: In Phase 3, the City has deepened its investment in capacity building to support the sustainability of key RPS reforms. This includes converting Community Service Officer (CSO) positions to permanent roles, continuing technical assistance for projects such as dispatch implementation, and strengthening grant development through external support. Staff are also aligning programs with County infrastructure and state and federal funding opportunities to reduce reliance on the General Fund. In parallel, the City has supported community-based violence prevention organizations with training and technical assistance to reinforce long-term impact.

Phase 3 reflects a collective effort to strengthen Berkeley’s public safety infrastructure while remaining adaptive to community needs, fiscal constraints, and evolving state mandates. Work will continue over the next year to evaluate program performance, implement key recommendations, and advance sustainable models for alternative response, violence prevention, and equitable safety services.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) initiative is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing Berkeley's goal of creating a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

This initiative is being implemented in three distinct phases, focusing on equitable and community-centered public safety transformation:

Phase 1 (2020-2022): Community Process and Research
On July 14, 2020, the City Council adopted an omnibus package to reimagine public safety and policing in Berkeley. This phase focused on planning, analysis, and early program development. Activities included:
 Community/Consultant Engagement: Partnering with experts to develop an equitable, community-focused safety model.
 Specialized Care Unit (SCU) Development: Initiating a pilot program to reassign non-criminal police service calls to a Specialized Care Unit.

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

 Community Crisis Response (CCR) Bridge Services: Providing interim crisis support services while the SCU program was being developed.  Priority Dispatch: Developing dispatch models to route specific calls to alternative responders, including the possibility of transitioning some functions to the Fire Department or other entities.
 City Auditor Review: Conducting an analysis of emergency call data and the police budget.
 Fair and Impartial Policing: Implementing policies to ensure fairness and equity in policing.
 BerkDOT Development: Planning for the creation of a Berkeley Department of Transportation (BerkDOT) to handle traffic enforcement with a focus on racial justice.
 Violence Intervention Program: Expanding violence prevention efforts through targeted programs.

Following the adoption of the omnibus package, a multi-departmental working group was formed to guide implementation, including representatives from the City Manager's Office, Police, Fire, HHCS, Public Works, and the City Attorney’s Office.

In January 2021, the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force was established to gather community input and provide strategic direction. The Task Force played a key role in shaping the transition to Phase 2 by integrating feedback from community members and experts.

Phase 2 (2022-2024): Continued Analysis and Implementation Phase 2 emphasized the development and launch of several recommendations from Phase 1. This included:
 Staffing Investments: Funding positions in HHCS, Police, Public Works, and the City Manager’s Office to support the initiative’s priority recommendations.  Consultant Support: Engaging consultants to evaluate dispatch needs, crisis response models, staffing, beat structures, and BerkDOT development.  Community Investments: Directing resources toward violence prevention, mental health services, and support for individuals affected by gender-based violence.

This phase further advanced interdepartmental collaboration and coordination with community partners. Remaining tasks from Phase 2 were continued into Phase 3.

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

Phase 3 (2024-2026): Continued Implementation and Expansion Phase 3 is centered on embedding reforms into City operations, ensuring long-term sustainability, and strategically pursuing external funding—particularly through state and federal grants—to support continued implementation. This phase builds on prior progress while remaining responsive to changing community needs, fiscal conditions, and evolving policy landscapes. Areas of emphasis include:
 Staffing Investments: Maintaining critical positions that support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); Vision Zero initiatives; alternative crisis response models; and the long-term stability of Community Service Officer (CSO) unit and dispatch services.
 Consultant and Technical Support: Enhancing capacity for grant development, community engagement, and technical analysis related to transportation safety, crisis response systems, and overall program evaluation.  Community Investments: Sustaining and expanding funding for violence prevention, behavioral and mental health services, and community-based initiatives aimed at addressing the root causes of harm.

Phase 3 continues the City’s commitment to building a data-informed, equitable, and care-centered model of public safety. As part of this work, the City is assessing long- term funding strategies, including potential alignment with County systems where appropriate, to reduce reliance on the General Fund and support sustainable service delivery.

BACKGROUND
In 2020, national attention on longstanding inequities in public safety reached a tipping point. The deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others underscored the need to address systemic harm and rebuild trust between communities—particularly marginalized communities—and public institutions. In response, more than 7,000 Berkeley residents marched on June 6, 2020, calling for meaningful change in law enforcement practices.

The City of Berkeley formally launched the Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) initiative in July 2020 to explore and implement structural reforms. Since then, the City has undertaken a series of actions aimed at creating a more equitable, community-centered public safety system. The following timeline summarizes key milestones, with an emphasis on developments since the last status update in October 2024:

On July 14, 2020, the City Council passed Resolution No. 69,501-N.S., initiating a community-driven process to reimagine public safety.

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

On December 15, 2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to contract with the National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) to conduct research, analysis, and develop reports and recommendations for community safety and police reform. This included leading an inclusive and transparent community engagement process to achieve a transformative model of positive, equitable, and community-centered safety for Berkeley.

On January 19, 2021, the City Council adopted revisions to the enabling legislation for the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force. The Task Force's work focused on providing input and making recommendations to NICJR and City staff on a set of proposed programs, structures, and initiatives for a final report and implementation plan to guide future budget decisions.

On March 3, 2022, the City Auditor issued a report titled "Berkeley Police:

Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities," recommending a study of Berkeley Police Department (BPD) staffing.

On March 10, 2022, the culmination of research analysis, and community dialogue was manifested in the comprehensive reports from NICJR, the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, and Resource Development Associates work on the Specialized Care Unit (SCU) design.

On April 21, 2022, the City Manager and Staff presented a report to the City Council detailing the achievements of Phase 1 of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative. This included proposals for transforming Berkeley’s police force, enhancing priority dispatch, developing BerkDOT, and establishing an SCU, alongside budget recommendations for these initiatives.

On May 5, 2022, a special council meeting led to the formal adoption of the Mayor's framework for continuing the Reimagining Public Safety initiative. This framework was the culmination of years of diligent work from community members, officials and staff.

The key decisions made were as follows:

1. Refer up to $5.3 Million to the FY 2023-2024 Budget Process for staff and/or consulting services and community investments to complete the Priority Reimagining Public Safety Initiatives.

2. Direct the City Manager to prioritize over the next two years the programmatic recommendations for Phase 1 of Reimagining Implementation.

3. Direct the City Manager to initiate a design process for an innovative and comprehensive public safety agency or Department of Community Safety within the City of Berkeley administration and return with recommendations to the City Council by May 2024 to align with the FY 25-26 Biennial Budget process.

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

4. Except where resources may allow for expedited implementation, refer additional reforms to the FY 2025-2026 Biennial Budget.

On January 23, 2024, the City Manager and staff provided a detailed status update, outlining progress, leadership coordination, and challenges. Council also reviewed and adopted the Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Program framework.

On May 14, 2024, a second update was delivered by the City Manager and staff, outlining progress on the Reimagining Public Safety initiative. This update also included budget recommendations for the FY 2025-2026 biennial budget process, which were under consideration as part of Phase 3.

On June 25, 2024, the City Council adopted the FY 2025-2026 budget, which included Tier 1, 2, and 3 Reimagining Public Safety items.

On October 29, 2024, the City Manager and staff delivered a third progress update, featuring presentations on the City’s Dispatch Needs Assessment and Berkeley Police Department Staffing and Organizational Workload study.

On December 6, 2024, the City, in partnership with Live Free USA and NICJR, held the first of two community forums to solicit feedback on the Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Program (GVIPP). These forums evolved into a recurring monthly Community Violence Intervention (CVI) Collaborative, fostering cross-sector coordination and ongoing community engagement.

On January 28, 2025, a Goldman School of Public Policy candidate was hired as a policy consultant to conduct an in-depth assessment of the City’s fines and fees structure. This work, guided by the Fines & Fees Steering Committee, aimed to advance fiscal equity and was completed by May 30, 2025.the City of Berkeley hired a Goldman Student of Public Policy to conduct the fines and fees assessment to be completed by May 30, 2025.

On February 13, 2025, representatives from the City Manager’s Office and Berkeley Police Department participated in an inaugural regional partnership meeting on gun violence, bringing together neighboring jurisdictions to enhance coordination, share best practices, and explore opportunities for regional alignment in gun violence prevention strategies.

On March 19, 2025, a representative from HHCS presented gender-based violence policy recommendations to the Commission on the Status of Women. The recommendations propose non-carceral, survivor-centered strategies including trauma- informed crisis response, restorative justice, and improved service coordination.

On March 30, 2025, the Crisis Needs Assessment—based on Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) data analysis—was complete. This report provided insight into call

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

volume, dispatch classifications, and system improvement opportunities related to behavioral health and homelessness crisis response, further information SCU operations.

On April 22, 2025, the City Manager issued an Off-Agenda Memo announcing the planned transition of the Specialized Care Unit (SCU) to Alameda County Behavioral Health. This transition, to be completed by late summer 2025, responds to new state mandates under CalAIM and Medi-Cal mobile crisis reforms. The memo outlines financial sustainability challenges, service delivery gaps, and next steps to support a coordinated and uninterrupted transition of mobile crisis response services to the County.

On May 30, 2025, the City completed a preliminary Fines and Fees Assessment in partnership with the Goldman School of Public Policy. The report identified key challenges related to equity, communication, and administrative efficiency, and provided recommendations to support more transparent, accessible, and sustainable practices aligned with Reimagining Public Safety and Care First, Jails Last goals.

On June 30, 2025, the Specialized Care Unit (SCU) Retrospective Evaluation was completed, offering lessons learned from the pilot implementation and informing the City’s ongoing planning efforts in partnership with Alameda County for long-term service and funding transitions.

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

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Council may consider advancing new or expanded projects aligned with the Reimagining Public Safety initiative in the coming months and years. This could include identifying long-term sustainability solutions, deferring certain efforts based on capacity and funding, or exploring opportunities to transition specific programs to County responsibility where appropriate.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Future Council actions may result in varying fiscal impacts depending on the scope, scale, and funding sources of proposed initiatives. Some projects may require new or reallocated General Fund resources, while others may be supported through time- limited grants or external partnerships. Transitioning select programs to County oversight could reduce long-term costs to the City. Staff will continue to assess fiscal implications and identify options to align funding strategies with Council priorities.

CONTACT PERSON
Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office, 510-981- 7007