Berkeley City Council
July 22, 2025

Summary of Findings

21 Implementation

1. The SCU launched and increased service provision, averaging 339 contacts per quarter between FY24 Q2 and FY25 Q2

2. Survey respondents have basic knowledge of the SCU and how to contact the program

3. For calls answered and receiving an in-person response, the median time for the SCU to arrive on scene after the call was created in 2024 was 18.7 minutes

4. While core components of the SCU model were successfully implemented, the program faced significant barriers that prevented full implementation

5. HHCS program administrators, SCU leadership, and SCU staff adapted the program and processes to mitigate barriers to implementation

6. SCU team members experienced significant challenges that may explain hiring and retention challenges

7. Stakeholders remain unclear about the SCU’s full scope of services, and the program lacks distinct protocols
Summary of Findings

22 Impact

8. When the SCU responded in person, the team was able to provide services in about half of scenarios

9. The SCU provided in-person responses to more unhoused/unsheltered community members than housed community members

10. Incomplete demographic data for the race and/or ethnicity of clients prevents drawing meaningful conclusions

11. The SCU delivered a range of services that represent the core needs the program was designed to meet

12. Callers reached out to the SCU for a variety of scenarios and may have most often called when they were community bystanders

13. Among survey respondents, caller satisfaction and stakeholder perception of service quality varies

14. Police were involved in one in eight in-person responses and many community members expressed disappointment in this level of involvement

15. Only a small fraction of in-person responses resulted in an involuntary hold (5150/5585)

16. In-person responses with police assistance resulted in an involuntary hold (5150/5585) more frequently than responses without police assistance Summary of Findings

23 Stakeholder Suggestions for Improvement
A. Stakeholders want continued and increased investment in the SCU program to promote safety, quality, and
sustainability
B. Community stakeholders, SCU staff, and emergency
responders desire improved clarity and consistency of
communication strategies
C. Community stakeholders, SCU staff, and emergency
responders expressed a need for improved response
coordination
Summary of Findings

Key Findings
How is the SCU being implemented?

25 #1
Slide 1 of 2
Source: Grant Reports
The SCU launched and increased service
provision, averaging 339 contacts per quarter
between FY24 Q2 and FY25 Q2
Total SCU
mobile
teams
Total Staff
field &
administrative
Hours of Operation
FY24 – Q1 2 7 Sun – Wed
6am – 4pm
40 hours/week
Sun – Sat
20 – 24 hours/day
Variable
avg. 152 hours/week
FY24 – Q2 2 10.5
FY24 – Q3 3 20
FY24 – Q4 5 19
FY25 – Q1 5 24
After contracting and
procurement,
program ramp up
was relatively quick.

Staffing and hours of
service availability
steadily increased
over time.

FYs refer to the City of Berkeley’s Fiscal Year calendar

26 The SCU answered
more than 1,700
phone calls and
recorded 584 total
in-person responses
in it’s first 18 months
Source: SCU Program Data
Notes:

FYs refer to the City of Berkeley’s Fiscal Year calendar At the time of this evaluation, complete FY25 Q2 data was not available; FY24 Q1 and FY24 Q2 data does not differentiate between a call only and in-person response.

The SCU launched and increased service
provision, averaging 339 contacts per quarter
between FY24 Q2 and FY25 Q2
143
207 184
29 149
180
154
101
9 234
21 52
77 166
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
FY24 Q1 FY24 Q2 FY24 Q3 FY24 Q4 FY25 Q1 FY25 Q2
Number of Calls and In-person Responses by
Quarter(n=1706)
Phone Call only In-person Response Blank / Not Collected Note: Two weeks of missing data
#1
Slide 2 of 2

27 Survey respondents have basic knowledge of the SCU
and how to contact the program*
23% 52% 25%
How familiar are you with
the services SCU provides
(N=225)?
Very familiar Somewhat familiar Not familiar
Source: Community Survey
54%
82%
12%
4%
35%
14%
Do you know how to
contact the SCU? (N=224)
Have you heard of the SCU?
(N=228)
Yes I'm not sure/I don't know No
The majority of survey
participants have heard of the
SCU (82%, n=186) and slightly
more than half know how to
contact them (54%, n=120)
The majority of survey
participants are either “very
familiar” or ”somewhat
familiar” with the SCU’s scope
of services (75%, n=169)
*Note: The survey sample is not representative nor generalizable to Berkeley community members more broadly and therefore overall community awareness was not able to be evaluated #2
Slide 1 of 1

28 For calls answered and receiving an in-person response, the median time for the SCU to arrive on scene after the call was created in 2024 was 18.7 minutes
Source: SCU Program Data
In 2024+, the median
response time was 18.7
minutes with a low of

12.0 minutes in January
(n=44) and a high of

24.0 minutes in
December (n=28)

12.0 19.2

17.3 13.2

18.6 16.6

18.8 19.3

22.4 21.7

18.4 24.0
Median Response Time* in Minutes (N=600)
Median
Response
Time
(minutes)
*The SCU electronic database automatically creates a time stamp when the call is created and when the SCU team updates their “Status” to “on scene.” RDA calculated the difference between these two times for each data entry #3
Slide 1 of 1
+Inconsistencies in how/whether the mobile teams
updated their “Status” may affect data accuracy.

Response time data should be interpreted with
discretion.

29 • Mobile teams include an EMT, a licensed mental health clinician, and peer support specialist
• Program received 3 vans by Q2 2024
• Program operates an independent 10-digit phone number • Team provides transport for clients
• Staff trained with other crisis programs and completed “Crisis Training Academy”*
o Key topics: Trauma-informed care, crisis response and assessing risk, De-escalation, cultural competency, and harm reduction
While core components of the SCU model were
successfully implemented, the program faced
significant barriers that prevented full implementation Program design components successfully
implemented
Source: Focus Groups, Interviews, and Grant Reports
#4
Slide 1 of 2

30 While core components of the SCU model were
successfully implemented, the program faced
significant barriers that prevented full implementation Program design components
facing barriers to implementation
• 3-person team (licensed mental health clinician, EMT, and peer):
• Hiring delays and turnover over the first 9 months
of service resulted in periods of staffing gaps
• Program data includes many incident records in
which a team responded with only 2 out of 3
team members
• Medical support capabilities:
• Legal and administrative barriers slowed access
to basic medical supplies
• 24/7 service availability:
• Hiring and turnover challenges resulted in a
gradual ramp-up of service availability and
hindered 24/7 in—person and phone availability
Source: Focus Groups, Interviews, and Grant Reports
• Ability to place involuntary holds independently
of other emergency services:
• During periods of staffing gaps for the
clinician role, EMT/Peer teams could not
place holds and needed to involve BPD.
• Ability to transport independently of other
emergency services:
• Legal barriers resulted in a delay in the
SCU’s ability to transport clients
• Integration into 911 Dispatch:
• Unforeseen legal and administrative
barriers made integration infeasible
• The separate 10-digit phone number
remains the only method of contact.
• SCU calls to 911 have equal priority to
general community member calls.to 911
#4
Slide 2 of 2

31 “Having [the Director]
come in was huge. We
didn't have policies and
protocols and now that
[policies and protocols
have] been
implemented, it’s been
pretty smooth.”
– SCU Staff Focus Group
Participant, 2024
“[The fact that SCU] can
transport 5150 patients to a
hospital is a huge deal…it’s a
huge hurdle we overcame. We
got there through
[coordinating
conversations]…we had a
couple of meetings with the
county [for] writing up the
procedure, for when someone
can be a 5150 transport not in
an ambulance.”
- HHCS Program Administrator
Interview Participant, 2024
HHCS program administrators, SCU leadership, and
SCU staff adapted the program and processes to
mitigate barriers to implementation
“In my experience, police
have been pretty good
working with our team.

Sure, there was an
adjustment period…we
are starting to gain more
rapport with [police].”
– SCU Staff Focus Group
Participant, 2024
#5
Slide 1 of 1

32 • Lack of dedicated leadership and established
protocols negatively impacted the team with limited
o Sense of support
o Guidance for ambiguous situations
o Preparation for making ‘judgement calls’ in
scenarios with different needs, services, and
types of calls
• High stress environment was not reflected in
compensation, which created a sense of risk without
recognition
• Pressure and inability to address community calls for non-SCU services (e.g., homelessness services)
• High rates of turnover create a continual process of
training new staff, which results in less experienced
team members in the field
SCU team members experienced significant
challenges that may explain hiring and
retention challenges
“I would say the pay and the
structure. When you start at
any company, you start with
training, a booklet [that
covers] topics…We are running
similar 911 calls without any
training.”
– SCU Staff Focus Group Participant,
2024
#6
Slide 1 of 1

33 Stakeholders remain unclear about the SCU’s full
scope of services, and the program lacks distinct
protocols
Source: Community Survey, Focus Groups, Interviews
“[911 paramedics] need to know what [the
SCU] can respond to, and what kind of
calls…We want more established protocol
and services, a clearly defined mission [from
the SCU].”
– Emergency Responder Focus Group Participant, 2024
“I received conflicting information about
whether the SCU would provide
transportation to a crisis unit or not. It
would be helpful for them to share
information about their services to the
public.”
- Community Survey Participant, 2025
“We don't have a checklist per se [for phone
assessments]…we do ask if there is an
overarching mental health concern…We also
screen for safety. The things we don't
respond to usually [are] physically unsafe
for us or the clients, potentially hazardous,
medical emergency...”
- SCU Staff Focus Group Participant, 2024
“I can't recall their full scope of their
work…setting expectations is
important.”
– Local Service Provider Interview Participant, 2024
#7
Slide 1 of 1

Key Findings
What impact did the SCU have?

35 SCU provided on-site
services for 55% (n=323)
of in-person responses.

When the SCU did not
provide services, this
was most frequently
because the individual
declined (22%, n=130) or
the SCU was unable to
locate them (19%,
n=109).

When the SCU responded in person, the team was able
to provide services in about half of scenarios#8
Slide 1 of 1
Source: SCU Program Data
*Data excludes 563 incidents for which that was a phone call only response; an additional 559 incidents are excluded because there was no Service Disposition recorded.
55%
22%
19%
1% 1% 1% 0%
Percent of In-person Responses by Service Disposition
(n=584*)
Services provided
Individual refused services
Individual not found
Law Enforcement responded
first and declined SCU
participation
Situation resolved in
community prior to SCU arrival
Emergency health responded
first and declined SCU
participation
Other

36 The SCU provided in-person responses to more
unhoused/unsheltered community members than
housed community members
The SCU served 26%
more unhoused
clients (sheltered
and unsheltered,
n=444) compared
to stably housed
clients (n=353).

Source: SCU Program Data
1%
2%
3%
6%
42%
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Client Not Found
Unknown
At Risk of Homelessness
Unhoused, sheltered
Stably housed
Unhoused, unsheltered
Percent of In-Person Responses by Client Housing Status (N=847)
#9
Slide 1 of 1

37 Incomplete demographic data for the race and/or
ethnicity of clients prevents drawing meaningful
conclusions
Source: SCU Program Data, Focus Groups
Out of 1706 calls for
service, Client Race
was listed for one-
third of records
(37%, n= 627).
❖ Collecting demographic data, especially
race/ethnicity data, in a crisis environment
is inherently challenging. In addition to the
SCU, local providers in Emergency and Crisis
Services settings have also reported this
challenge.
❖ Additionally, due to the lack of established
data collection protocols for demographics,
the records with race/ethnicity data are
have limited validity and reliability.
❖ For these reasons, conclusions cannot be
drawn about the meaning of these data.
#10
Slide 1 of 2

38 Incomplete demographic data for the race and/or
ethnicity of clients prevents drawing meaningful
conclusions
Source: SCU Program Data
2%
7%
9%
14%
30%
38%
Another Race (including
"unknown")
Asian or Asian American
Hispanic or Latino/a/x
More than one race
Black/African American
White or Caucasian
Percent of In-person Responses by Client Race
(n=425*)
*Race was collected for a total of 627 incidents. Of those, this chart excludes 202 for which Service Disposition was blank.
❖ A large majority of people that
the SCU engaged identified as
either White (39%, n=246) or
Black/African American (33%,
n=205).
❖ Service data is
disproportionately high for
Black/African American
residents and
disproportionately low for Asian
or Asian American residents
compared to Berkeley’s Census
data.
#10
Slide 1 of 2

39 Among in-person
responses, the most
frequent services
provided included
5150/5585 assessments
(19%, n=62), welfare
checks (18%, n=58), and
transportation (16%,
n=53). These varied
service offerings align
to different
specializations.

The SCU delivered a range of services that represent
the core needs the program was designed to meet
Source: SCU Program Data
19%
18%
17%
11% 10% 10%
4% 3% 3%
2%
1% 1%
Percent of In-person Responses by Primary Service
(n=320*)
5150/5585 assessment
Welfare check
Transportation
Clinical Assessment by MH
professional
Crisis and safety planning
De-escalation, conflict resolution
Referral to outpatient behavioral
health services
Peer support services
Referral to medical services
*This chart includes only in-person responses where services were delivered.

Of those, 3 records were excluded because they did not record a Primary Service.
#11
Slide 1 of 3

40 The SCU delivered a range of services that represent the core needs the program was designed to meet
Source: Community survey
Which of the following services were provided in person [select all that apply] (N=97)*?
23%
15%
15%
13%
10%
9%
5%
4%
2%
1%
1%
0%
Mental health counseling
Transport: medical or psychiatric hospital, etc.

I don’t know
Medical or vitals check
Referral: to mental health or substance use…
Another service
Referral: social services
Substance use counseling
Transport to a housing shelter
Naloxone/Narcan/overdose intervention
Transport: different public location
Transport: private residence
Survey respondents reported
that the SCU most frequently
provided mental health
counseling (23%, n=22),
transport to a medical or
psychiatric hospital (15%,
n=15) , or a medical check or
vitals check (13%, n=13).

Survey respondents also
commonly did not know which
on-scene services were
provided (15%, n=15)
*Only survey respondents who answered “Yes” to the question “Did the Specialized Care Unit send a team to respond in person?” could answer this question #11
Slide 2 of 3

41 The SCU delivered a range of services that represent the core needs the program was designed to meet
Source: Community survey and SCU staff Focus Groups
“From a clinical background
[the team structure is] super
helpful…For example, with
someone for a panic attack,
my EMT will be able to
decipher between a panic
attack and heart attack and
then I can help with coping
skills and breathing skills, and
then the Peer can come in and
say “I have had one too,
you're going to be okay”.
- SCU team member, 2024
#11
Slide 3 of 3
“The SCU is great for people
with SMI who are triggered
by police. My son has had
many, many negative
experiences with police. So
having a crisis response
team without police is
easier and less
traumatizing for the person
with SMI.”
- Community Survey Participant,
2025
“I'm a local business owner and
on a few occasions I called
[The SCU] for homeless people
that were causing
disturbances...SCU was
immediately helpful and soon
arrived and engaged the
people in need in a positive
professional way and took
them in the van to help them
further….”
- Community Survey Participant, 2025

42 Callers reached out to the SCU for a variety of
scenarios and may have most often called when they
were community bystanders
Source: SCU Program Data
According to SCU
program data, most
callers were
community members
(57%, n=824), which
includes calls for
oneself or as a
bystander. Fewer
callers were friend or
family (17%) or service
providers (14%)
2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
14%
17%
57%
911
N/A On View Call
Unknown
Crisis line, suicide hotline or 988
Law Enforcement
Behavioral health, homeless, or
other service provider
Friend/family
Community member
Percent of Calls by Caller Type
(n=1447*)
*this chart excludes 259 incidents for which no Caller Type was recorded, the majority of which (246) occurred prior to this indicator being added to data collection in January 2024
#12
Slide 1 of 2

43 Callers reached out to the SCU for a variety of
scenarios and may have most often called when they
were community bystanders
Source: SCU Program Data
Among survey
respondents, a
minority reached out
to the SCU for support
for themselves or a
friend or family
member.

This suggests that
many callers reached
out for support as a
bystander.

Survey respondents most often called the SCU when:
■ Worried about someone experiencing a mental health
challenge ( 26%, n=48)
■ Someone experiencing homelessness may have needed
assistance or social services (19%, n=36)
■ Someone was causing a disturbance in the community
(19%, n=35)
Survey respondents less frequently called the SCU when:
■ Needing help with a mental health issue for self, a friend, or a family member (13%, n=25)
■ An individual was threatening or violent (11%, n=20)
Survey respondents rarely called the SCU when:
■ They were referred to the SCU (5%, n=10)
■ Needing help with a substance use issue for self, a friend, or a family member (3%, n=6)
#12
Slide 2 of 2

44 Among survey respondents, caller satisfaction and
stakeholder perception of service quality varies
Source: Community Survey
Very
Satisfied
26%
Somewhat
Satisfied
22%
Somewhat
Unsatisfied
13%
Very
Unsatisfied
39%
How satisfied were you with your
response over the phone (N=85)? ❖ Having a phone call or voicemail unanswered is strongly correlated with
“Very Unsatisfied” survey responses. On
the other hand, “Very Satisfied” survey
responses are strongly correlated with
having a phone call answered. Survey
data indicates limited phone service
availability may contribute to
dissatisfaction.
❖ Nearly two-thirds of survey respondents
spoke with someone over the phone,
though they reported a range of
satisfaction levels, indicating mixed
experiences with the phone line.
#13
Slide 1 of 3

45 Among survey respondents, caller satisfaction and
stakeholder perception of service quality varies
Source: Community Survey
Very
Satisfied
38%
Somewhat
Satisfied
21%
Somewhat
Unsatisfied
15%
Very
Unsatisfied
26%
How satisfied were you with your
response in person? (N=47)
More than half of survey
respondents were very or
somewhat satisfied with
the SCU’s in-person
response (60%, n=28)
#13
Slide 2 of 3

46 Among survey respondents, caller satisfaction and
stakeholder perception of service quality varies
Source: Community Survey
Positive Experiences
“The team was very responsive, attentive and thorough
when I've called for my clients experiencing mental health crisis…Much needed specialists”
– Community Survey Respondent, 2025
“I called because a man took up residence on the lower
stoop of the steps to my apartment. The [SCU] team arrived about 15 minutes later…They treated the man with kindness and respect, gave him [information], and resolved the
immediate situation.”
– Community Survey Respondent, 2025
“I’m a local business owner and on a few occasions, I called [the SCU]… they were immediately helpful and soon arrived and engaged the people in need in a positive and
professional way…I can't say enough how invaluable their help was...”
- Community Survey Respondent, 2025
Negative Experiences
“SCU is extremely difficult to reach, and they are unable to respond to calls in a timely manner.”
– Community Survey Respondent, 2025
“Some staff members were more helpful and
knowledgeable, and others weren't helpful or told me
that I should only call when my family member is
experiencing severe mental health symptoms.”
- Community Survey Respondent, 2025
“On one occasion, the SCU refused to provide
assistance on a subject and advised a subject was
"uncooperative" because he was covered in feces. When
SCU believes they can't help someone (which is often),
they call police and then leave the scene. SCU is not
equipped to handle mental health situations.”
- Community Survey Respondent, 2025
#13
Slide 3 of 3

47 Police were involved in one in eight in-person
responses and many community members expressed
disappointment in this level of involvement
Source: SCU Program Data
Police were involved in
13% of in-person
responses overall (n=105),
ranging from 8% to 17% per
quarter
This is a binary indicator*,
therefore data does not
include context for why or
how police were involved
92%
83% 90% 83% 83%
8% 17% 10% 17% 17%
FY24 Q2 FY24 Q3 FY24 Q4 FY25 Q1 FY25 Q2
Percentage of Incidents with Police Assistance (yes/no) by Quarter
(n=801*)
Yes
No
*This chart excludes 563 calls for which no dispatch was required and 333 additional calls for which Police Assistance was blank or not collected Note: In FY24 Q2, incidents are not differentiated by phone call only vs in-person response; however, for remaining time periods, data shown is in-person response only.
*Data is entered as a “yes” or “no” or blank
#14
Slide 1 of 2

48 “They were courteous and capable and kind and able
to diffuse my brother's reactivity, not trigger his
paranoia. It helped that they are not
uniformed/badged. [They helped him] get through
his catatonia to help him voluntarily access care for
himself.”
- Community Survey Respondent, 2025
Survey respondents highly value the
SCU framework as a mental health &
substance use crisis response team
without the involvement of police
“I'm so glad to have a service to call that is not 911 for people on the street who appear to be in trouble but
not necessarily an immediate threat to themselves or
others.”
- Community Survey Respondent, 2025
“SCU staff are unable to handle the majority of calls
that are given to them. [They] route the calls to the
police department because they are "unable or
unwilling" to respond without police."
- Community Survey Respondent, 2025
Many community members
expected that the program would
never or almost never interact with
police and were disappointed that
police were sometimes on the scene
“I've found that the SCU is consistently requesting a
police presence or assistance for calls they are
receiving. While requesting police services I have
found that SCU is not well prepared with the
information necessary.
- Community Survey Respondent, 2025
Source: Community Survey
Police were involved in 13% of total in-person
responses and many community members expressed
disappointment in this level of involvement
#14
Slide 2 of 2

49 Only a small fraction of in-person responses resulted in an involuntary hold (5150/5585)
For in-person
responses, 6%
resulted in an
involuntary hold
Source: SCU Program Data
58%
37%
5%
1%
% of Calls by Hold Type
(n=1146*)
No Hold Placed
(blank)
5150 Involuntary Hold for
Adult
5585 Involuntary Hold for
Minor
*This chart excludes 560 calls that did not result in an in-person response.
#15
Slide 1 of 1
Blank / Not Collected

50 Involuntary holds
(5150/5585) were placed
in one-third (66%, n=35)
of in-person responses
with police assistance.

This could be partially
attributed to
inconsistency in SCU
staffing and the
inability, at times, of SCU
teams to place holds
independently
In-person responses with police assistance resulted
in an involuntary hold (5150/5585) more frequently
than responses without police assistance
Source: SCU Program Data
95%
64%
4%
33%
1% 3%
Without Police Assistance (n=594) With Police Assistance (n=98) Percent of In-person Responses that resulted in a Hold, Without Police Assistance and With Police Assistance (n=692*)
No Hold Placed
5150 Involuntary
Hold for Adult
5585 Involuntary
Hold for Minor
*This chart excludes 566 calls that did not result in a dispatch, 252 calls for which Hold Type is blank or not collected, and 199 calls for which Police Assistance was not collected
#16
Slide 1 of 1

Key Findings
Stakeholder Suggestions

52 Stakeholders want continued and increased
investment in the SCU program to promote
safety, quality, and sustainability
“Having radios would be huge. Most crisis
teams that are connected to dispatch are
connected through radios…There are
situations where things can turn
dangerous…”
– SCU Staff Focus Group Participant, 2024
“We are trained but not getting hazard
pay, [but] pay would be huge…We can’t
provide quality care if I’m worried for my
safety.”
– SCU Staff Focus Group Participant, 2024
“Staff need to be compensated fairly and
have the resources and support they need
to meet the expectations set. In my
experience, programs like this are under
funded and under resourced. I'd like to see
a real commitment and investment in
programs like this.”
-Community Survey Respondent, 2024
“I think programs and services like this
need time, good funding, and care to
develop.”
- Community Survey Respondent, 2024
A.

Stakeholders and SCU
staff alike want to see:
❖ Increased pay
❖ Shift differentials &
hazard pay
❖ Training and
professional
development
opportunities
❖ Radios and other field
resources
Source: Community Survey, Focus Groups, Interviews

53 Community stakeholders, SCU staff, and emergency
responders desire improved clarity and consistency of
communication strategies
Stakeholders are
aligned in wanting the
SCU to define a clear
mission and scope of
services so they know
when and how to work
with the SCU
Stakeholders expressed public outreach could
provide important information for
stakeholders and want to see the SCU:
❖ Continue building community awareness
about the SCU as a crisis response option
❖ Communicate and publicize the purpose
and roles of the SCU, including for which
types of emergencies they will respond
❖ Publicly share program data, including
number of calls, response times, services
provided
B.

Source: Community Survey, Focus Groups, Interviews

54 Community stakeholders, SCU staff, and emergency
responders expressed a need for improved response
coordination
“[The SCU needs] more operator training,
better coordination between SCU and other
emergency services, and community
outreach to better communicate what the
service currently offers and to hear what the
community is still looking for in the service.”
-Community Survey Respondent, 2024
“On the basic level, the SCU has a valid
purpose, but it was designed to be completely
stand alone from the BPD…The frustration is
designing a process that excludes us but
can't operate without us…Having it designed
so separate creates more unknowns.”
– Emergency Responder Focus Group
Participant, 2024
Stakeholders suggested:
❖ Improve SCU’s coordination and
relationship with other emergency
responders such as 911, Berkeley
Police, and Berkeley Fire
❖ Establish clear protocols for when
SCU responds, refers to other
emergency responders, and
places involuntary holds
(5150/5585)
C.

Source: Community Survey, Focus Groups, Interviews

Conclusions

56 Summary of Conclusions

1. The SCU provided meaningful phone and in-person services to Berkeley community members

2. Program adaptations successfully addressed many challenging legal and administrative barriers.

3. Barriers to hiring, training, and retaining key personnel have been at the root of many implementation challenges and negative stakeholder experiences

4. Lack of clarity about the SCU’s scope of services and lack of documented protocols limited the program’s ability to most effectively respond to scenarios intended for the SCU.

5. Underestimation of the need for SCU to engage other emergency response services prevented effective coordination of care

6. Insufficient structural investment and inadequate time for the pilot contributed to incomplete implementation

57 ❖ The SCU provided services aligned with the program model’s focus on mental health and substance use crisis services, including involuntary holds (5150/5585) and clinical assessments, welfare checks, crisis and safety planning, and de-escalation (among others).
❖ In-person response time was relatively short, an essential implementation outcome for a mobile crisis response program. ❖ Phone services were important for community survey respondents, many of whom reported satisfaction when their call to the SCU was answered.
❖ The program steadily increased the number of mobile teams and hours of operation across the first 12 months of implementation, effectively expanding service availability to reach more community members. Despite barriers, service increases demonstrate promise for sustainable service delivery.

The SCU provided meaningful phone and in-person
services to Berkeley community members
1 1 of 1

58 ❖ Early delays in procuring vans for mobile teams did not delay overall service delivery. Eventually, collaboration between HHCS and the Public Works Department led to van procurement in Q4-FY24.
❖ Although staffing barriers constrained phone service availability, the team adapted to setup a voicemail and return calls within their operating hours.
❖ Organizational leadership across HHCS Program Administrator, the SCU administrator, and several other City of Berkeley Departments, collaborated closely in the early months of the program to address legal requirements that prevented the SCU teams from providing transport and placing 5150/5585 holds.
❖ Collaboration proved effective as when the SCU teams were staffed with the required licensed personnel, they could provide transport and conduct 5150/5585 assessments. 5150/5585 assessments and transport were two of the three most frequent services offered, available to roughly 1 in 5 clients, and were commonly reported by survey respondents.

Program adaptations successfully addressed many
challenging legal and administrative barriers.
2 1 of 1

59 Barriers to hiring, training, and retaining key personnel have been at the root of many implementation challenges and
negative stakeholder experiences
❖ Turnover of key personnel within the City of Berkeley and Bonita House created inconsistent leadership and limited support for coordination, which could have improved essential structural conditions benefitting the SCU pilot program.
❖ The unfilled role of the Program Manager presented a gap in capacity for creating protocols and addressing the types of support that field staff needed. ❖ Inconsistent staffing of the SCU service delivery teams across the first year of service resulted in periods where teams were operating without one of the three key roles (i.e. operating without an EMT, Clinician, or Peer Support Specialist at different periods of time), preventing the team from transporting clients, conducting 5150 assessments, or other key services. ❖ High rates of turnover required constant training of new staff, resulting in teams being insufficiently trained before providing field-based services. ❖ Cumulatively, these challenges created an environment that felt unsupportive at times and may have contributed to burnout, overall creating a cyclical and compounding effect on retention and training challenges. ❖ These challenges directly affected in-person and phone service delivery, which contributed to community stakeholders’ negative experiences and perceptions of the SCU program.
3 1 of 1

60 Community Members: The lack of documented protocols as well as external factors (e.g., community members’ individual desires) together influenced community members’ confusion about the SCU’s scope of services. This confusion likely contributed significantly to many outcomes noted in findings, such as calls for scenarios not appropriate for an SCU response.

Community Service Providers: Behavioral health professionals and other local service providers often expressed that they did not have clear expectations for SCU services and, therefore, chose not to refer community members to the SCU, limiting potential response opportunities.

Emergency Responders: The lack of protocols and lack of coordination with other departments and agencies, especially emergency responders, created an inconsistent service experience and exacerbated confusion about the SCU’s scope and service delivery model. This especially impacted whether and how BPD responded and the public perception of the SCU model.

Lack of clarity about the SCU’s scope of services* and lack of documented protocols limited the program’s ability to most effectively respond to scenarios intended for the SCU.
*Throughout the evaluation’s qualitative data collection, community survey respondents, local service providers, and emergency responders expressed a similar lack of understanding and confusion about the SCU’s intended scope of services.

The SCU pilot program as a whole
(including SCU leadership and HHCS
program administrators)
experienced implementation
barriers that effectively shifted the
program’s scope of services either
temporarily or permanently, such
as whether the team could transport
independently or place involuntary
holds (5150/5585).

These shifting requirements created
an inconsistent service experience
that contributed to stakeholder
confusion and made establishing
and following protocols even more
challenging.
4 1 of 2

61 Lack of clarity about the SCU’s scope of services* and lack of documented protocols limited the program’s ability to most effectively respond to scenarios intended for the SCU.
❖ Clear, written protocols are not sufficient to provide guidance to SCU team members to effectively navigate a variety of in-person and phone scenarios, thereby affecting appropriateness and quality of services.
❖ As a result of having insufficient protocols for call taking and in-person service delivery, the SCU staff experienced incidents that felt risky or beyond their scope. ❖ The SCU team model includes an EMT, a Peer, and a Clinician so that the program can address a variety of client needs during a behavioral health crisis. Without sufficient staffing or training, the full complement of services could not always be provided, which also may have affected the appropriateness and quality of care in some incidents, including use of involuntary holds (5150/5585) or calling for BPD assistance.
❖ The SCU team did not have clear guidance on how and where to divert and refer callers and clients to receive more appropriate resources.
❖ Callers and stakeholders experienced inconsistencieswhen they called the program and either could not reach a live call taker or were told that the scenario did not warrant an SCU response. ❖ Stakeholders perceived that SCU’s engagement of BPD was inconsistent. 4 1 of 2
*Throughout the evaluation’s qualitative data collection, community survey respondents, local service providers, and emergency responders expressed a similar lack of understanding and confusion about the SCU’s intended scope of services.

62 ❖ Stakeholders across the board (SCU staff, community survey respondents, local service providers, and emergency responders) expressed a common perception that, based on the design of the SCU, BPD would never be involved in SCU responses.
❖ There were many circumstances that required coordination or collaboration with BPD. However, SCU staff and other emergency responders did not have established relationships and did not form shared protocols for collaboration and communication, especially when multiple teams arrived in-person.
❖ The lack of coordination and challenging engagement during in- person responses has weakened trust between 911 emergency responders and SCU teams.
❖ Community survey respondents expressed disappointment in the involvement of BPD and other social service providers expressed confusion and distrust about whether and to what extent the SCU might involve BPD.

Underestimation of the need for SCU to engage other
emergency response services prevented effective coordination of care
5 1 of 1

63 Delivering Behavioral Health crisis services without the involvement of law enforcement is a relatively new model of care in the United States and is entirely new to the City of Berkeley. Significant resources (in time, money, and personnel) are required to shift long-held cultural beliefs as well as infrastructure required to effectively operate in a crisis environment.

Unanticipated challenges slowed down the ramp up of services, and in some cases entirely preventing implementation of anticipated service components, including:
❖ 24/7 phone service availability
❖ 24/7 in-person mobile service availability
❖ 3-person teams
❖ 911 Dispatch or 988 Dispatch
Additionally, the program did not have sufficient resources to scale to a size that would have improved the program’s capacity to provide care. The limited capacity to provide crisis response services negatively impacted efforts to build community trust and awareness.

Furthermore, the ability to evaluate the SCU pilot is limited by the short timeframe of implementation. The pilot would have benefited from additional time to improve implementation and improve data collection practices so that the evaluation could more accurately understand service delivery and client outcomes.

Insufficient structural investment and inadequate time for the pilot contributed to incomplete implementation
6 1 of 1

Recommendations

65 Summary of Recommendations
❖ Address the program’s staffing needs
❖ Develop and communicate protocols for service delivery ❖ Improve relationship building efforts across the emergency and behavioral health continuum of care
❖ Improve data collection practices for improved data quality ❖ Increase public awareness efforts to address barriers to service utilization
❖ Address financial and structural needs to implement
recommendations and expand the program
❖ Provide sufficient system-level investment to transition the SCU from a pilot to a long-term program

66 Address the program’s staffing needs
❖ Hire a program manager to
provide critical program
development, oversight, and
training to support field-based
teams
❖ Review and improve training,
integrating past staff feedback, to
ensure teams are prepared to
deliver consistent, quality services
❖ Develop and implement a detailed,
consistent assessment and triage
tool for phone calls
❖ Review and improve
compensation structure (e.g.
hazard pay)
❖ Increase the number of field-
based teams to provide 24/7
services and the ability to
respond to more simultaneous
calls
❖ Increase capacity for 24/7 phone
response and telephonic service
delivery
Addressing the program’s needs around hiring, training, and retention of key personnel is necessary for implementing other recommendations resulting from the evaluation.

67 Develop and communicate protocols
for service delivery
❖Phone intake and assessment process and
assigned roles
❖Decision-making criteria for sending an in-person
response and determining response priority
❖Decision-making criteria and processes for
referring a caller to other emergency or social
services
❖Coordinating care with other emergency
responders who are also on scene
Develop and communicate clear, consistent protocols
for service delivery that address the challenges raised by the SCU team and other stakeholders.

68 Improve relationship building efforts across the
emergency and behavioral health continuum of care
Address existing challenges in coordination of care with emergency response teams including 911, BPD, Fire, and EMS:
❖ Resume regular collaborative meetings with all emergency response providers to ensure consistent communication
❖ Collaboratively develop protocols and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to coordination of care in on-scene responses
❖ Seek opportunities for collaborative training, such as having SCU EMTs complete training with the Fire Department
Address existing challenges in collaboration with other local behavioral health and social service providers:
❖ Host a forum for local providers to hear from the SCU about program updates and development and answer questions
❖ Conduct (or continue) resource mapping to establish a working list of providers who may refer clients to the SCU, or to whom SCU may refer
❖ Develop a newsletter, webpage, or other communication tool for sharing updates with providers

69 Improve data collection practices for
improved data quality
Establish clear definitions for data indicators where they are lacking, based on documented protocols.
❖ Distinguish between response priority categories and establish goal response times for each priority level ❖ Determine a data collection process for client demographics (i.e. self reported or observed) Add data indicators and/or fields that will improve continuous quality improvement and evaluation of program impact:
❖ Add Caller Type that distinguishes callers who are seeking support for themselves ❖ In addition to ‘primary service’, add multiple choice for all services provided per contact ❖ Add an indicator for when the SCU responds to a voicemail ❖ Clarify dispositions for ‘phone call only’ to include reasons if no response is required (such as ‘not within scope’) or successful de-escalation telephonic services were provided ❖ Add multiple indicators for police assistance to differentiate if SCU called BPD, both arrived on scene separately, or if BPD called SCU
Improve data collection practices to reduce missing information, especially for key indicators.

The following indicators had high frequencies of “blanks”:
❖ Phone call only, in person responses
❖ Hold type
❖ Assignment status, updated status
❖ Transport destination
❖ Transport reasons

70 Increase public awareness efforts to address
barriers to service utilization
❖ Existing misperceptions about the role of the SCU, including the types of scenarios best suited for an SCU response
❖ Confusion and expectations regarding capacity and service availability (i.e. clarify when and how community members can reach the SCU and what they can expect from a
response or voicemail)
❖ Concerns or lack of awareness regarding the program’s sustainability if/when the program structure and
operational/administration structure changes over time
Expand and augment community outreach and communications plans to address common misperceptions that pose barriers to accessing SCU services. Public awareness efforts could improve the SCU’s ability to provide program-aligned services, by addressing:

71 Address financial and structural needs to implement
recommendations and expand the program
Together, findings from the retrospective evaluation and the preceding recommendations indicate a substantial need for expanding program infrastructure if the pilot is to be sustained long-term. Such expansions will require increased funding and a sustained funding source for the foreseeable future. These investments would not only increase program capacity but overall address the root of implementation challenges to effectively deliver consistent, appropriate, and quality services.
❖ Exhausted one-time grant funding: The current SCU funding sources—the Crisis Care Mobile Units (CCMU) program and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)—were one-time grant programs. These funds have now been fully exhausted, leaving the SCU program without a dedicated funding source beyond June 30, 2025.
❖ Limited future grant funding: Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funding has been used in many localities to pilot similar mobile crisis programs; however, MHSA will be
discontinued and will transition to BHSA, which likely will not provide funding for SCU-like programs.
❖ City of Berkeley budget: City leaders have assessed the City’s budget projections and anticipated deficits, determining it cannot reasonably sustain the SCU services or provide the system-level program investments for expanding program
infrastructure.
❖ New statewide funding & integration opportunities: The Department of Healthcare Services (DHCS) has invested in improving community access to mental health crisis services through a new Medi-Cal benefit that requires behavioral health delivery systems to establish mobile crisis teams similar to the SCU’s pilot model. The benefit would not only generate program revenue through billing Medi-Cal for services but also requires system-level investments that would address many structural barriers experienced by the SCU pilot.

Financial & Structural Considerations for Sustainability

72 Provide sufficient system-level investment to
transition the SCU from a pilot to a long-term program
Expanding program infrastructure requires not only increased funding for service delivery but also investments that address structural barriers beyond the service delivery level. Findings from the retrospective evaluation indicate that the pilot period was insufficient to develop the SCU model into an integrated component of the city-wide ecosystem of crisis services and continuum of care.

However, leveraging the DHCS opportunity to implementing the SCU as a Medi-Cal entitlement is likely the most effective option for transitioning the pilot to a sustainable, long-term program. In addition to funding considerations, implementation is underway across behavioral health systems across CA counties, including in Alameda County. The City of Berkeley would benefit from leveraging the efforts and investments already underway in Alameda County.

Alameda County will be developing and enhancing
infrastructure to address requirements of BHIN* 23-025, requirements that may address many of the barriers
that have proved most challenging for the City of
Berkeley to overcome during the SCU pilot, including
(but not limited to):
❖ Coordination with 988 and 911
❖ Prioritization of a crisis response option that does
not rely on law enforcement
❖ Provision of 24/7 crisis hotline services
❖ Utilizing a multidisciplinary team
❖ Ensuring 72-hour follow-up
The following sustainability options were also considered but were deemed to be less effective possibilities. In
general, the following two funding options used by other jurisdictions would likely not address the pilot’s structural challenges identified to date:

1. Funding the SCU through a new sales tax

2. Implementing the SCU through the City of Berkeley
Mental Health Division (MHD)
*The Behavioral Health Information Notice (BHIN) No. 23-025 can be found by clicking this hyperlink

Evaluation Team Background
RDA Consulting
73

74 About RDA
Established in Oakland, CA in 1984
Employee-owned social purpose corporation

75 Evaluation Team
Ali Fitch
Student Intern

76 Evaluation Phases

EVALUATION
PLAN
July 2024
–
September 2024
DATA

COLLECTION
September 2024
-
March 2025
DATA

ANALYSIS
November 2024
-
March 2025

REPORTING
March 2025
-
June 2025

77 RDA has provided a variety of consulting services to Berkeley Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS) since the Reimagining Public Safety initiative was launched. These services focused on the city’s crisis behavioral health response. Specifically, with the SCU, the continuity of RDA’s involvement has provided evaluators familiarity with the program and context but also may shape researchers’ biases. The evaluation team offers this overview in a spirit of transparency, as well as to provide interested stakeholders a central point of access to this collection of related, yet distinct, reports.

Researcher Statement
SCU Landscape Assessment & Program Design
911 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Assessment
SCU Pilot Retrospective Evaluation
SCU Sustainability Planning

78 SCU Landscape
Assessment &
Program Design
2020 - 2021
As part of the larger effort to Reimagine Public Safety, the City of Berkeley contracted with RDA to conduct a feasibility study for a Specialized Care Unit (SCU), an alternative mental health and substance use crisis response model that does not involve law enforcement.

This effort included robust engagement with City of Berkeley staff and a community SCU Stakeholder Committee in addition to a landscape assessment of similar programs and broad community engagement with Berkeley residents. RDA produced a final report with 25 recommendations for the City of Berkeley.
• Crisis Response Models Report (publicly available)
• Mental Health Crisis Response Services and Stakeholder Perspective Report (publicly available)
• Specialized Care Unit Crisis Response Recommendations (publicly available) 911 Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD)
Assessment
2023 - 2025
The City of Berkeley contracted with RDA to conduct an analysis of the City’s 911 CAD data to build upon the City Auditor’s 2021 data analysis. The City provided direction for RDA to review CAD data for standardized data collection and assess responses and outcomes of police engagement in mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness-related calls.

In this effort RDA engaged key City of Berkeley personnel across HHCS, the 911 Communications Center, Berkeley Police Department, and the Auditor’s Office. RDA produced a final report with key findings and recommendations related to CAD data and assessing behavioral health emergencies in Berkeley.

Note: This assessment is not directly related to the SCU; SCU data was not a component of the analysis nor was the efficacy of BPD/SCU coordination assessed. While RDA’s work with the SCU has focused on models for behavioral health crisis response without the use of law enforcement, this effort was specifically focused on law enforcement’s response to behavioral health crises.
• Not yet publicly available (will be made available on the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force webpage)

79 SCU
Retrospective
Evaluation
2024 - 2025
The City of Berkeley HHCS contracted with RDA to conduct a retrospective evaluation of the first 14 months of the SCU pilot program, adapting a mixed-methods appraoch best suited to the pilot’s stage of implementation. The evaluation aimed to understand the overall strengths and opportunities for improvement based on program implementation and client outcomes by collecting and analyzing primary and secondary data. These evaluation activities supported RDA and HHCS to collaboratively identify recommendations for future expansion and sustainability of the SCU.
• Will be made available on the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force webpage SCU Financial &
Sustainability
Planning
2025
The City of Berkeley HHCS contracted with RDA to assess the feasibility of and options for SCU expansion and sustainability based on learnings from the retrospective evaluation.

RDA conducted secondary research and benchmarking interviews to identify and assess potential funding opportunities.

Since the initial launch of SCU services in 2023, the California policy landscape for mental health and behavioral health mobile crisis programs has shifted significantly. RDA identified three main opportunities for sustaining the SCU, with the two most promising opportunities taking advantage of the statewide CalAIM initiative (California Advancing & Innovating Medi-Cal) and Proposition 1 Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), including a new Medi- Cal benefit that requires behavioral health delivery systems to establish mobile crisis teams with similar scopes as the SCU. Information about the landscape of mental health crisis funding and relevant financing opportunities were presented in a memo to HHCS. • Not publicly available: RDA’s financial memo to City of Berkeley leadership • City Manager’s memo to City Council

Appendix

81 Evaluation Plan: SCU Program Data
Application Matrix
As part of the evaluation planning process, RDA reviewed the data elements available in the SCU electronic database. These data elements were reviewed for applicability to the evaluation questions. Once program data was received, RDA used the application matrix to prioritize analysis based on data availability and quality.

Individual data (Call Intake Screen - Phone)
Data being collected Data use/analysis options
Caller Name
Caller Type #/% of callers by caller type
crosstab: primary reason for call
crosstab: is the client suicidal?
crosstab: dispatch (yes/no)
Zip Code
#/% of zip codes within COB
represented
zip codes represented mapped
crosstab: response times
What is the primary reason for the
call? # of calls by primary reason
crosstab: response times
What is the caller reporting? qualitative analysis (narrative field) Is the client suicidal? #/% of callers by suicidality
crosstab: primary service
crosstab: service disposition
crosstab: response times
crosstab: holds placed
Response Priority #/% of calls by priority level
crosstab: response times
Data entered for team - (Assign Unit to Call)
Data being collected Data use/analysis options
Unit No
Clinician Assigned
EMT Assigned
Peer Support Assigned
Assignment Status
Update Status (button)
Individual data collected or verified ON SCENE (Call Documentation form) Data being collected Data use/analysis options
Client Name
Does the client have an alternate
contact such as family or friends where
they could be reached?
Patient DOB # of calls by client age
# of dispatched responses by client age
Race # of calls by client race
# of dispatched responses by client race
Gender # of calls by client gender
# of dispatched responses by client gender
Was the evaluation conducted at a K-12
school?
#/% of evaluations conducted at K-12
school
Did Police assist with this call? #/% of calls with Police assistance Is the Client Homeless? #/% of clients by housing status Client Street Address (# of repeat contacts by Address) Client Apt or Unit No (# of repeat contacts by Address) Are you transporting the client
anywhere?
Why are you transporting the client?
Where are you transporting the client?
(drop-down selection)
Where are you transporting the client?
(narrative description)
Hold Type # of holds by hold type
Previous Behavioral Health
Please describe (pervious Behavioral
Health…services?)
Service Disposition #/% of contacts by service disposition Primary Service #/% of contacts by primary service
Please describe the events that
occurred on the scene
Time-stamped data captured
Data being collected Data use/analysis options
Status
avg response time (time between En Route
to On Scene)
Data collected for an "On Scene Call"
Data being collected Data use/analysis options
Unit Number (Service delivery by unit)
Clinician (Service delivery by Clinician)
EMT (Service delivery by EMT)
Peer Support (Service delivery by PSS)

82 Program Data Indicators: Descriptions and
Limitations (slide 1 of 4)
Indicator Date added Description Notes & Limitations
Incident
Number
Sept 1, 2023 Unique ID number for each incident (this includes all recorded SCU responses, whether phone call only, phone call + in-person response, or in-person response only) Created
(timestamp)
Sept 1, 2023 Date and time when the call record was generated for each call; RDA grouped calls by quarter using this indicator.

Caller Type Jan 14, 2024 Categorical indicator to describe the caller. Categories include:
•911
•Behavioral health, homeless, or other service provider •Community Member
•Crisis line, suicide hotline, or 988
•Friend/family
•Law Enforcement
•N/A On View Call
•Unknown
Police
Assisted
Sept 1, 2023 Categorical indicator for whether BPD was involved in a response. Categories include:
•Yes
•No
•No Response Required (automatically applied if the call did not lead to an in-person response)
•Not Collected
We do not have context regarding why BPD
may have been involved in various incidents.

We are unable to distinguish between events
in which the SCU team may have contacted
BPD for support from events in which BPD and
SCU both independently arrived on scene (or
any other circumstance).

83 Indicator Date added Description Notes & Limitations Service
Disposition
Jan 14, 2024 Categorical indicator for whether in-person services for delivered. Categories include:
•Emergency health responded first and declined SCU participation •Individual not found
•Individual refused services
•Law Enforcement responded first and declined SCU participation •No Response Required (automatically applied if the call did not lead to an in-person response)
•Not collected
•Other
•Services provided
•Situation resolved in community prior to SCU arrival
The category of “No Response Required”
includes all incidents that resulted in a
phone call only. We do not have context
regarding why an in-person response
did not occur. These incidents may
include, for instance, both calls that
were successfully de-escalated over the
phone, and calls that were outside of
the scope of SCU services and referred
to other emergency responders or
service providers.

Primary
Service
Jan 14, 2024 Categorical indicator providing the type of service that was delivered in person (can only select one). Categories include:
•5150/5585 Assessment
•Clinical assessment by MH professional
•Crisis and safety planning
•De-escalation, conflict resolution
•No Response Required (automatically applied if the call did not lead to an in-person response)
•Not Collected
•Other
•Peer support services
•Referral to medical services
•Referral to outpatient behavioral health services
•Support for family/friends
•Transportation
•Triage/screening onsite
•Welfare check
Given that this field only allows for one
selection, we are unable to identify all
services delivered for each encounter.

Analysis for specific services provided is
therefore a likely underestimate and
only captures the service the team
selected as “primary”.

Program Data Indicators: Descriptions and
Limitations (slide 2 of 4)

84 Indicator Date added Description Notes & Limitations Transport Jan 14, 2024 Categorical indicator for whether the SCU or another emergency responder transported the client. Categories include:
•Not transported
•Transported by Berkeley Fire
•Transported by Berkeley PD
•Transported by EMS
•Transported by SCU
•Yes
Prior to Jan 2024, this indicator only allowed
for “Yes” or “No”. “No” responses were
combined with “Not transported” for analysis,
while “Yes” responses were retained
separately.

Hold Type Sept 1, 2023 Categorical indicator for whether an involuntary hold (5150/5585) was placed. Categories include:
•5150 Involuntary Hold for Adult
•5585 Involuntary Hold for Minor
•No Hold Placed
•No Response Required (automatically applied if the call did not lead to an in-person response)
Housing
Status
Sept 1, 2023 Categorical indicator for the client’s current housing status. Categories include:
•At Risk of Homelessness
•Client Not Found
•No Response Required (automatically applied if the call did not lead to an in-person response)
•Not Collected
•Stably Housed
•Unhoused, sheltered
•Unhoused, unsheltered
•Unknown
Program Data Indicators: Descriptions and
Limitations (slide 3 of 4)

85 Program Data Indicators: Descriptions and
Limitations (slide 4 of 4)
Indicator Date added Description Notes & Limitations
Gender Sept 1, 2023 Categorical indicator for the gender of the client. Categories include:
•Female
•Male
•No Response Required (automatically applied if the call did not lead to an in-person response)
•Non-binary
•Not Collected
•Other
It is not known how client gender was
determined for data collection purposes, as
the SCU did not at the time of evaluation
have data collection protocols. We are
therefore unable to assume the accuracy of
this indicator.

Race Sept 1, 2023 Categorical indicator for the race of the client. RDA grouped some categories with small numbers of incidents to mask data for privacy reasons. Categories include:
•Another Race (including “unknown”)
•Asian or Asian American
•Black/African American
•Hispanic or Latino/a/x
•More than one race
•No Contact
•No Response Required (automatically applied if the call did not lead to an in-person response)
•(automatically applied if the call did not lead to an in-person response) •Not Collected
•White or Caucasian
It is not known how client race was
determined for data collection purposes, as
the SCU did not at the time of evaluation
have data collection protocols. We are
therefore unable to assume the accuracy of
this indicator.

Acknowledgements

87 Thank you to the SCU Steering
Committee, service providers,
community partners, and all community
members that participated in this
evaluation. Your feedback and insight
were invaluable!

CAD Assessment
Mental Health and Homelessness
Emergency Response in Berkeley

CAD Assessment
Mental Health and Homelessness Response
in Berkeley

This report was developed by RDA Consulting
under contract with the City of Berkeley
RDA Consulting, 2023 - 2025

Executive Summary
In 2023, the City of Berkeley contracted with RDA to conduct an analysis of the City’s 911 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) data to build upon the City Auditor’s 2021 data analysis.1 The City provided direction for RDA to assess CAD data for standardized narrative language and behavioral health protocols during call taking, as well as assessing responses and outcomes of police engagement in mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness-related calls.

Based on the data available in CAD, RDA identified four guiding questions:

1. How often do Berkeley police officers engage with incidents related to mental health and/or homelessness?

2. What are the characteristics and results of mental health and/or homelessness incidents and police interactions?

3. To what extent do current Berkeley Police Department (BPD) responses to mental health and/or homelessness incidents meet the needs of the Berkeley community?

4. What characteristics of mental health and/or homelessness incidents in CAD can inform SCU operations?
Based on events entered in CAD, RDA’s methodology uses call types and narrative key terms to define categories of Homelessness Incidents and Mental Health Incidents. Our methodology also uses two categories of dispositions to compare the results of events that may have mental health characteristics and/or conclude with formal legal documentation.

There are several limitations of CAD that limit the analysis of the data for mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness-related calls; these limitations are in large part due to the purpose for which CAD is designed (to assess and document potential penal code violations, crimes, and/or risks to public safety) and the inherent challenges of documentation in a crisis response environment.

Despite these limitations, RDA highlights a variety of data that may illuminate the characteristics of BPD’s response to mental health and/or homelessness-related emergencies. RDA also presents conclusions and recommendations to inform the City’s planning of behavioral health and homelessness services that meet the needs of community members without relying on law enforcement to address social and health needs . 1Berkeley City Auditor. (2021, April 22). Data analysis of the City of Berkeley’s police response. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05- 11%20Item%2029%20Audit%20Report%20%20Data%20Analysis.pdf

Conclusions related to the nature of CAD & data shared with RDA

 CAD is insufficient to fully assess the outcomes of BPD’s response to behavioral health and homelessness-related crises and the resulting impacts on community members.  CAD is not designed to assess or document needs and outcomes related to mental he
alth, substance use, and/or homelessness. CAD, primarily, is set up to assess for and dispatch in response to criminal activity.
 CAD does not document the use of behavioral health procedures, protocols, or de - escalation techniques used during call taking or dispatched response.  CAD data is insufficient to assess for structural police, fire, and/or EMS issues that disproportionately impact vulnerable, diverse, and structurally oppressed peoples. 2  CAD data cannot be used to assess the reduction in risks of injury and death by police .

Conclusions related to the guiding evaluation questions

 On average, community members called 911 for approximately 2,000 Mental Health or Homelessness-related crisis events annually throughout 2015-2023, demonstrating a consistent and predictable volume of requests for service.  The BPD Communications Center categorizes more mental health-r elated calls under
penal code violation call types and as Welfare Checks than as Mental Illness or Suicide and assigns high rates of Paper Dispositions for Mental Health Incidents, suggesting that
people experiencing mental health crises may be responded to as a criminal concern rather than mental health concern.
 People living in or near encampments may be differentially affected by 911 calls for service and BPD responses.
 There is insufficient data available in CAD to identify impacts on specific identity groups or on substance users, which prevents assessment for equity of service provision.
 The vast majority of Mental Health Incidents are responded to without a mental health specialist.
 BPD response times for Mental Health Incidents have been increasing in recent years.

2 The scope of RDA’s analysis was limited to Police response and did not include Fire or EMS issues.

 M
ental Health Incidents seem to be distinct from Homelessness Incidents. The frequency and consistency of unique as well as co-occurring Mental Health and Homelessness Incidents allows for informed predictions for the allocation of resources to meet these needs.
 An analysis of Mental Health Incidents and Mental Health Dispositions by day of week and hour of day may be useful to inform mental health crisis response programs and planning.

Recommendations

1. Use mental health services and crisis response data – not CAD - when assessing the volume and characteristics of mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness needs.

2. Use the presented data on frequency and consistency of Mental Health Incidents in CA
D as a baseline when planning for resource provision and capacity of mental health specialists, planning for increased volume of these services over time.

3. Address homelessness-related crisis needs through homeless service specialists rather than law enforcement.

4. Identify opportunities to improve coordination between emergency responders, community-based behavioral health providers, and emergency behavioral health specialists.

Table of Contents
Introduction & Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 7 Data Sources & Methodology ................................................................................................................. 9 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 9 CAD Processes & Components .......................................................................................................... 10 CAD Data: Inclusion Criteria ............................................................................................................... 13 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................. 15 Analytical Framework ........................................................................................................................... 16 Interpretation and Considerations ................................................................................................... 17 I. Volume of Mental Health and Homelessness Incidents in Berkeley 911 CAD ......................... 20 Key Takeaways ..................................................................................................................................... 22 II. Characteristics of Mental Health and Homelessness Incidents .............................................. 23 Key Takeaways ..................................................................................................................................... 25 III. Co-Response Rates & Response Times ........................................................................................ 26 Key Takeaways ..................................................................................................................................... 29 IV. Outcomes of Police Interactions with Mental Health and Homelessness Incidents ........ 30 Key Takeaways ..................................................................................................................................... 34 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 36 A. Conclusions related to the nature of CAD & data shared with RDA ..................................................... 37 B. Conclusions related to the guiding evaluation questions ........................................................ 40 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 46 Appendix .................................................................................................................................................. 50

Introduction & Project Objectives
Origins of the Reimagining Public Safety Initiative
The Berkeley City Council launched the Reimagining Public Safety Initiative in May 2020, a wide- reaching process to reimagine safety in the City of Berkeley. This initiative was brought about, in part, by elected officials in response to the murder of George Floyd and growing local and national public attention to police violence, racial disparities in policing, and other public health concerns in the criminal justice system at large. The Reimagining Public Safety Final Report and Implementation Plan 3 additionally outlines history of police violence and mistreatment of communities of color, individuals experiencing mental illness, and other marginalized communities within the City of Berkeley specifically. Both the Reimagining Public Safety Final Report and Implementation Plan and the George Floyd Community Safety Act, 4 approved by City Council in July 2020 , directed the City Manager to pursue reforms to limit the Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) scope of work to “primarily violent and criminal matters,” in part by investing in alternative programs to respond to other community needs.

The George Floyd Community Safety Act also called for the City Auditor to perform an analysis of the City’s 911 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to understand calls for service and police responses to emergency events. The Auditor’s Report indicated there is not sufficient data to quantify the number of events that involved homelessness and/or mental health and thereby could not fully describe how, when, and to what extent BPD interacts with the community in these instances.5
CAD Analysis: Scope & Guiding Questions
In 2023, the City of Berkeley contracted with RDA to build upon the Auditor’s work and conduct an analysis of the City’s 911 CAD data to assess calls for service, dispatch, and on -scene response for incidents involving mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness. The City 3City of Berkeley. 2022, March 3. Reimagining Public Safety: Final Report and Implementation Plan. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BerkeleyReport_030722.pdf 4Bartlett, Ben, Councilmember District 3, City of Berkeley. 2020, June 16. Safety for all: The George Floyd Community Safety Act – Budget request to hire a consultant to perform police call and response data analysis. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020-07- 14%20Item%2018a%20Safety%20for%20All%20The%20George%20Floyd.pdf 5 Berkeley City Auditor. (2021, April 22). Data analysis of the City of Berkeley’s police response. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05- 11%20Item%2029%20Audit%20Report%20%20Data%20Analysis.pdf

Co
uncil’s budget referral6 identified several key areas of inquiry for the CAD analysis that could support the City in identifying opportunities to reduce BPD’s scope to primarily violent and criminal matters:
 Standardization of language in narrative descriptions 7  Use of behavioral health procedures, protocols, and mental health crisis de- escalation techniques during call taking8
 Ability of the dispatched first responders to provide appropriate levels of care  Structural police, fire, and/or EMS issues that disproportionately impact diverse and structurally oppressed people
 Reduction in risks of injury and death by police by diverting calls away from police and towards alternative, specialized behavioral health and homelessness crisis responders
Following an initial review of CAD data, we determined which data were available to best contribute to Council’s key areas of inquiry and which were not feasible. After conversations with the Communications Center, a review of the Auditor’s Report, and a review of the literature regarding policing and mental health, we identified guiding questions that can shed further light on opportunities for reimagining public safety:

1. How often do Berkeley police officers engage with incidents related to mental health and/or homelessness?

2. What are the characteristics and results of mental health and/or homelessness incidents and police interactions?

3. To what extent do current BPD responses to mental health and/or homelessness incidents meet the needs of the Berkeley community?

4. What characteristics of mental health and/or homelessness incidents in CAD can inform SCU operations?
6Kate Harrison, Vice Mayor, City of Berkeley. 2024, May 24. Budget Referral: Fund Behavioral Health, Crisis Response, and Crisis-related Services Needs and Capacity Assessments. https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/AUkeXomzIQAVf7Uc9IUq4QA7qIJhipNqGV RbjOoBLPpLke42Q8%C3%81Jzb5pZX8F5wbWY2hD5o857R83ET%C3%81z5eWDaks%3D/ 7 RDA did not have access to raw narrative data and therefore could not assess the general use, and specifically the standardization of, narrative language. 8 The scope of RDA’s analysis did not include a review of procedures and protocols used during call taking.

This would reasonably require extensive observations and documentation review by trained clinicians.

W
hile we identified additional guiding questions during preliminary phases of the project, CAD did not have sufficient data to respond to every area of possible inquiry. The questions included above are only those which could be explored using available data.

Of note, the City Council’s budget referral requests a CAD analysis on for “incidents involving mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness,” however, due to data limitations, RDA was not able to reliably identify data in CAD that could indicate substance use . Therefore, we refer to mental health and/or homelessness and not to substance use or ‘behavioral health’ when discussing the analyses and data in this report.

Data Sources & Methodology
Data Collection
BPD uses multiple data systems and makes some of this data publicly available on the Police Transparency Hub.9 RDA consulted with the Berkeley Health, Housing, and Community Services Department as well as BPD to identify the sources most appropriate for our CAD analysis. We provide here the qualitative and quantitative data sources and elements considered and the process for obtaining the final data included in our analysis:

City of Berkeley Open Data: RDA submitted data requests to BPD on July 31, 2023 and was directed to use the CAD Open Data Portal. From July 2023 – November 2023, RDA reviewed and conducted preliminary analyses on several sets of available data in the City of Berkeley Open Data Portal10 and Police Transparency Hub,11 including Calls for Service, RIPA 12 Stop Data, Use of Force, and Monthly Arrests. During this time, RDA had regular communication with BPD about the codebook, interpretations, and data limitations.

Meetings and Observations with Key Informants: In November 2023 through January 2024 RDA sought additional context and information about the CAD system and BPD’s data collection processes. RDA met with the City’s Auditor about the previous methodology and to 9 Berkeley Police Department. (n.d.). Berkeley Police Transparency Hub. https://bpd-transparency-initiative- berkeleypd.hub.arcgis.com/
10 City of Berkeley. (2024). City of Berkeley Open Data. https://data.cityofberkeley.info/ 11 Berkeley Police Department. (n.d.). Berkeley Police Transparency Hub. https://bpd-transparency- initiative-berkeleypd.hub.arcgis.com/
12 Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA)

addr
ess CAD -specific questions . RDA also conducted on-site observations in the Communications Center, interviewed call takers and d ispatchers, and participat ed in a ride- along with BPD.

Aggregated CAD Data Reports: RDA and the Berkeley Health, Housing, and Community Services Department determined that the data provided through the CAD Open Data Portal was insufficient to build upon the Auditor’s Report and complete the objectives of the City Council’s budget referral. From February 2024 through May 2024, RDA and BPD went through an itera tive process of sharing and refining CAD data analyses. This process included the following:
● RDA requested raw CAD data. BPD determined that risks for Personally Identifiable Information (PII) were too high to share data without redactions and that it would not be feasible to systematically redact all PII before sharing raw data. Therefore, RDA an d BPD agreed that BPD would produce data reports rather than provide raw data. ● RDA collaborated with BPD to obtain aggregate statistics for unduplicated events from the emergency and non-emergency lines routed to BPD (but not Fire or EMS). RDA’s data request included instructions on the fields and inclusion/exclusion criteria for preparing the raw data to share. RDA based these inclusion/exclusion criteria on the Auditor’s Methodology, such as relevant call types and narrative key terms. BPD analysts aggregated the data and provided RDA with the tables from the data request. ● The CAD data variables presented in this report include : year and quarter for summed events; a selection of events with predetermined mental health and homelessness criteria; events with Mental Health Dispositions, Paper Dispositions, and a predetermined ‘other’ category; events with dispatched officers and dispatched MCT; 25 th, 50th, and 75 th percentile dispatch times for calls; census block groups for events with predetermined mental health and homelessness criteria; days of the week and hours of the day for responses to events with predetermined mental health and homelessness criteria.

CAD Processes & Components
Based on our meetings and observations during data collection, the Berkeley Communications Center and CAD processes have not had substantive changes from 2021 to 2023 , so we rely generally on the 2021 Auditor’s Report for procedural descriptions of CAD.

The Auditor’s Report provides a detailed organizational description and chart for the Berkeley Police Department and Communications Center, process for responding to calls, and descriptions of CAD components, such as call type classifications. The Report identifies several

d
ifferent sources from which calls are initiated: the Non-Emergency Line, Officer-Initiated Calls, Emergency Line, and an "Other" category inclusive of alarms, Voice Over Internet Protocol, and other less common sources . From 2015-2019, approximately 67% of Mental Health or Medical Related Calls were from the Non-Emergency Line. Another 30% of the Medical or Mental Health calls came through the Emergency Line and 3% percent were Officer-Initiated.13 CAD Process Description
After a call is made, the Call Taker creates an event, collects information from the source, assigns a call type, and sends the call to the dispatcher. The dispatcher assigns a call priority and dispatches personnel to the scene. Notably, dispatch and officers can contact the Mobile Crisis Team (MCT) at the point of dispatch or once officers have arrived on scene if dispatchers or officers identify a need for mental health support . 14 While officers are engaged with the
incident, t he dispatcher continues updating the record based on communication with the primary officer assigned, which takes the form of a narrative or transcript -like entry.

Alternatively, officers may update the narrative record themselves in the event that there are multiple incidents occurring simultaneously and the dispatcher is recording notes for another call. After the incident has concluded, officers and dispatch must assign event dispositions to close the call record ; more than one disposition can be assigne d for a single event . Event dispositions refer to the way an event concluded. Though there are up to 21 potential dispositions, the dispositions most commonly used are: Paper Disposition, MDT 15 Narrative Only,
Mental Health Disposition, and Homelessness Disposition. Of note, neither Mental Health nor Homelessness Dispositions describe or refer to specific actions taken by police on the scene.

Instead, they reflect the officer’s assessment of the nature of events that led to the call and, subsequently, the interaction with BPD. This process is summarized in Figure 1, below.

13 Berkeley City Auditor. (2021, April 22). Data analysis of the City of Berkeley’s police response. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05- 11%20Item%2029%20Audit%20Report%20%20Data%20Analysis.pdf 14 MCT is Mental Health Division program within the City’s Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services. It is designed to provide mental health support for calls including (but not limited to) evaluation for psychiatric hospitalization and mental health support after a death. MCT is only deployed after other emergency services (i.e. fire or police) have ensured safety at the scene. 15 MDT stands for Mobile Data Terminal

Figure 1: CAD Process Overview of Incoming Calls with Dispatched Officers

One of the primary purposes of CAD is to direct police response; as such, most call types are based on penal codes, used to signify a potential crime related to the call. This orientation toward criminal activity becomes a limitation for analyses of CAD data intended for purposes for which CAD was not designed, such as assessing for mental health needs, assessing the quality of service provision, or making recommendations for the delivery of social services.

Similarly, CAD was not designed as a tool for public transparency. This is essential context when reviewing CAD data to answer questions about mental health needs or to make recommendations about data collection protocols, as CAD must fulfill its penal purpose.

Call comes in to 911
or the Non-
Emergency Line
Call taker creates an
'event' in CAD
Call taker assigns a
Call Type with
related Priority Level
Call is transferred to
a dispatcher
Dispatcher assigns
resources and
dispatches officer
Officer(s) arrive on
scene, stay in
communication with
dispatcher, as
available
Officer assigns a
Disposition(s) to close
the event
Officer writes
report(s) for the
event
Optional: Officer(s)
request MCT co-
repose
Call intake and assignment
Call dispatch and on-scene

CAD Data: Inclusion Criteria
To assess mental health-related 911 calls, RDA created inclusion criteria to identify events that are potentially related to mental health and/or homelessness crises . The inclusion criteria are aligned with much of the methodology in the Auditor’s Report.

Call Type
RDA used the Auditor’s recommended procedure of aggregating 3 call types into a category called “Mental Health Call Types”. These call types are assigned by the Call T aker during the ‘pre-scene’ period. Only one call type can be assigned to a call. Throughout this report, when we refer to “Mental Health Call Types” we are referring to:
● Suicide
● Mental Illness
● Welfare Check
Narrative Key Terms
Additionally, throughout the pre -scene and on -scene periods of the response process, the dispatcher may make notes about the unfolding incident and conversation with police officers.

It is important to note that dispatchers can only record notes if they are in contact with an on- scene officer and/or are not assigned to another call , and that dispatchers do not hear or record what officers communicate to each other on their radios. As a result, narrative notes are inconsistently recorded and with a highly variable degree of detail. For this analysis, the notes or transcripts were analyzed using a Key Terms search. RDA used the Auditor’s key terms to create two categories:
● “Mental Health”, including key terms such as “crazy,” “mania,” and “psych*” 16 ● “Homelessness”, including key terms such as “encampment,” “unhoused,” and “vagrant”
17 Disposition
One or more dispositions are assigned to close an event. For this analysis, we used the following dispositions and categories:
● Mental Health: An existing category in CAD that BPD uses to capture a subjective determination of mental health need, a psychiatric evaluation, or an involuntary 16 Please see Appendix A for complete list of mental health narrative key terms 17 Please see Appendix A for complete list of homelessness narrative key terms

ps
ychiatric hold (i.e. “5150); we use this as an indicator of a relevant mental health event.
● Homelessness: A recently adopted category in CAD, with usage beginning in the second quarter of 2021; due to the low rates of utilization of this disposition code , it is generally not used in this analysis.
● Paper:18 An existing category in CAD that indicates the incident ends with a formally documented Case Report, which could include an infraction, a citation, or an arrest, among others; RDA understands this disposition to represent a formal legal documentation that may pose the risk of criminalizing the involved individual(s).19 ● Other: We consolidated the remaining dispositions into this category.20 Key Terminology for CAD Analysis
Throughout this report, we will use the following phrases to clarify how a CAD event is categorized based on our methodology:
• Event: An entry in CAD, which includes all data input from call taker, dispatcher, on-scene officer, and automatically generated data (e.g., dispatch time) • Homelessness Incident: An event that includes a Homelessness Key Term, regardless of whether the event also includes mental health data elements • Mental Health Call Type: An event that has one of the call types in our Mental Health Call Type category
• Mental Health Incident:21 An event that has a Mental Health Call Type and/or Mental Health Key Terms
• Mental Health Disposition: An event that has been assigned a Mental Health Disposition, regardless of other disposition(s) assigned 18 RDA was not provided access to these documents, and therefore the additional details about paper dispositions cannot be determined.
19 The Auditor’s Report provided an example, on page 23, that speaks to how even a case report without a formal infraction, citation, or arrest can still have a legal system impact on the individual: “An event like a robbery, for example, could result in no arrest during the event, but lead to an arrest several days later. That arrest would be recorded in the Law Enforcement Records Management System,” not CAD. 20 Of the remaining 18 dispositions, “MDT Narrative Only” was the most commonly used, and it is a disposition that indicates no formal documentation or paperwork took place, such as if an officer was not able to find the person or determined that no crime was committed. The other 17 dispositions were rarely used and are not relevant to the primary goals of this study. 21 Note that RDA’s definition for the purposes of this report is slightly different from the Auditor’s Report definition, which also included any event to which MCT was dispatched. RDA did not have access to MCT dispatch data and therefore excluded that criterion.

Limitations
Although our study had a variety of areas of inquiry, the full scope of what RDA could assess was limited based on 1) the type of data that CAD captures and how the data fields are structured, 2) differences in the type of data collected between CAD, RIPA/Stop data, and Law Enforcement Records Management System (LERMS), and 3) data that was or was not made available to RDA. Overall, t hese data limitations hampered our ability to draw conclusions about the details of CAD events.

Limitations due to the structure of CAD
After conversations with BPD and other subject matter experts, RDA concluded that the structure of CAD, understandably, limits BPD’s ability to consistently or reliably capture all the characteristics of an event, which poses limitations to RDA’s ability to fully and accurate ly interpret that event. The following limitations of CAD are relevant to the purpose of this study:
• Call types are assigned largely based on the subjective interpretation of events of both the caller (in terms of their description of the purpose of their call) and the call taker before officers arrive on scene.
• Call types are assigned at the beginning of an incident . However, incidents frequently evolve but call types do not capture shifts in the nature or understanding of the incident over time (nor is there another mechanism to capture these updates). • Narrative details are not always captured, and when captured, are inconsistent. There are not currently standards for the use of specific terms in order to appropriately group or categorize call records that contain similar narrative content. • Dispositions are very broad and provide limited information regarding the outcomes of an incident.

Limitations across BPD datasets
Additionally, there are many characteristics and descriptions that stakeholders want but CAD does not have fields for collecting. For example , the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) requires data to be collected on a suspected person’s race or gender, presence of a weapon, actions taken (e.g., handcuffed, curbside detention, search of person), or result of a stop (e.g., citation, involuntary psychiatric hold, custodial arrest without a warrant). BPD collects these data for officer -initiated stop data in a dataset known as “RIPA/Stop.” Moreover, although a primary intent of the Council’s budget referral for this analysis including assessing the outcomes of interactions between police and community members after mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness -related crises, CAD outcomes/disposition data is minimal. Notably, once a case report documented as a Paper Disposition in CAD is verified, it is

doc
umented in the LERMS database. Neither RIPA/Stop data nor LERMS data are linked to events in CAD and therefore could not be included in our analysis.

Limitations of available data
Finally, the study faces limitations based on the CAD data provided to RDA , which did not include raw narrative data,22 whether the incident was initiated by an officer, whether a caller was calling for themselves or for a third party, or details on outcomes for events.

Analytical Framework
RDA builds on the Auditor Report’s methodology to measure the volume of potential mental health or homeless crisis events that could be diverted to behavioral health and homelessness specialists. Our analytical framework, as described in this section, was intended to develop a nuanced picture of the interaction between BPD and community members during mental health and homelessness crises to explore our guiding questions. Our analytical framework also helps us to understand the methodological limitations of this analysis, highlighting where current emergency response procedures do not — and cannot— collect the necessary data to understand the demand for urgent mental health services in Berkeley.

The methodology used by RDA and the Auditor categorized events in CAD as “ Mental Health Incidents” based on the call type assignment, the key terms in the narrative, and the disposition. These three criteria are highly influenced by the language used by multiple different parties interacting with a crisis event at different points in time. Specifically:
● Call type assignment is determined, in part, by the language used by the call source as well as the interpretation and assessment of the call taker. The call type assignment also requires that the call taker determine s whether there is a crime taking place; if so, a penal code violation would supersede a mental health categorization. ● The key terms used within the narrative notes are indicative of the language used by the caller, the interpretations made by the call taker or dispatcher, and/or the dispatched officers’ description of events taking place. The use of notetaking is also highly dependent on a dispatcher’s capacity at the time of the incident as they may be managing multiple incidents at one time and not able to record notes for each event. ● The use of “Mental Health D isposition” or “Homelessness Disposition” also indicates whether an officer on scene assesses the characteristics of the event to be related to 22 Due to the sensitive nature of CAD events, including events that may have open investigations, the City of Berkeley determined these data should not be provided to RDA.

m
ental health or homelessness. Because multiple dispositions can be assigned to one event, an officer can assign a Mental Health or Homelessness Disposition to events that also have a Paper Disposition (i.e., a case report) or an “MDT Narrative Only” Disposition (i.e., no formalized documentation or outcome) . In our analytical framework, we understand a Paper Disposition indicates formal legal documentation upon conclusion of an incident and may potentially have a criminalizing effect resulting from the encounter.

Each of these opportunities for categorizing a call in CAD acts as filters for whether it is included in our analysis based on how each event is categorized in real time and based on which feature is an inclusion criterion (call type, key terms, and/or disposition).

Interpretation and Considerations
Our framework is influenced by the available literature that depicts the public health problems known to arise in the context of interactions between police and individuals experiencing mental illness or homelessness. In particular, we acknowledge that res earch has shown that , at a national leve l, individuals with mental illness experience violence and are killed by police at higher rates than those without mental illness.
23 Additionally, public health literature
documents dramatic racial disparities at the national level, including that Black Americans are five times as likely to be severely injured or killed by a police officer than White Americans. 24 While data regarding outcomes of police interactions with mental illness is limited , the literature outlines patterns of institutionalization and escalation of crises that are counter to models of appropriate care. 25 Additionally, the common practice of calling 911 for “wellness checks” for individuals with mental illness has been questioned for its appropriateness and ethics.26 As we examine CAD data with these systemic trends in mind, we distinguish between outcomes without formal legal documentation (“MDT Narrative” and/or “Mental Health” Dispositions without other dispositions) and those with formal legal documentation (“Paper” Disposition) that may have legal consequences for the individual(s) engaged by police. 23 Saleh, A.Z., Appelbaum, P.S., Liu, X., Stroup, T.S., Wall, M. (2018, April 21). Deaths of People with mental illness during interactions with law enforcement.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252717301954 24 Spolum, M.M., Lopez, W.D., Watkins, D.C., Fleming, P.J. (2023, January 25). Police Violence: Reducing the harms of policing through public health-informed alternative response programs. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307107 25 ibid.
26 Vitiello, E., Moseley, D.D. (2021, April 23). Navigating Care from afar: Ethical considerations for police welfare checks. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.202000732

I
t is possible that some events are categorized in ways that seem contradictory, such as an event that has a Mental Health Call Type categorization and the use of Mental Health Key Terms but no Mental Health Disposition, or vice versa. This type of data in consistency is expected, to an extent, in crisis service delivery.

Ultimately, the interpretation of events in CAD can vary significantly, especially given the infinite number of different scenarios that could underly any CAD event. For example, bystanders, especially those who are not mental health professionals, may use a variety of inaccurate terms when describing a distressing situation. Alternatively, someone may call 911 in an effort to assert control over public space about what is deemed ‘socially acceptable’ behavior. Or, a caller may use mental health language wh ile effectively downplaying the gravity of an event taking place. Each of these scenarios would be filtered into our analysis based on an assigned Mental Health Call Type or use of Mental Health or Homelessness Key Terms. However, if officers arrive on scene and assess someone’s behavior as threatening or violent, they may not record the disposition as Mental Health Disposition; if they document a case report, they would assign a Paper Disposition. Other times, the officer may determine there were mental health characteristics at play and assign a Ment al Health Disposition , even if it was not assigned a Call Type at the outset. Each of these scenarios would also affect whether the event would be filtered into our analysis based on assigned disposition.

Researchers and readers may individually hold different beliefs on who has the most appropriate gauge of the potential for an incident to be related to mental health (the caller, the call taker, the dispatcher, the dispatched police officers, or external researchers).

Ultimately, the data used throughout this report reflect subjective impressions from community members, call takers, dispatchers, and police officers and these impressions may reflect a wide variety of views about mental health, homelessness, and emergency response systems.

Although the events may be filtered into the analysis based on shared categories , a definitive conclusion cannot be made about the true nature of the events.

Given these considerations, we present a selection of CAD data that we deemed most informative for understanding the landscape of police response to mental health and homelessness crises. We understand these data may be helpful in describing trends of how community members and BPD interact with mental health and homelessness as well as some characteristics of BPD’s response to mental health crises. While we believe that mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness-related crises deserve care from a specialized provider, we cannot definitively conclude which s ervice provider is best equipped to respond to each event in the presented data. Finally, we do not conclude that these estimates represent the totality of mental health, substance use, or homelessness crisis events in Berkeley.

Findings

I. Volume of Mental Health and Homelessness
Incidents in Berkeley 911 CAD
II. Characteristics of Mental Health and
Homelessness Incidents
III. Co-Response Rates & Response Times
IV. Outcomes of Police Interactions with Mental Health
and Homelessness Incidents

I. Volume of Mental Health and Homelessness
Incidents in Berkeley 911 CAD
While t his report focuses on CAD events that indicate a mental health or homelessness component, it is important to consider these events in the broader context of CAD. Mental Health or Homelessness Incidents are a small fraction of the total calls made to the non - emergency and 911 lines to which police respond . Figure 2 provides a high-level overview of volume in CAD for emergency and non- emergency events routed to BPD from 2015 – 2023 as well as the proportion of these calls that are specifically Mental Health or Homelessness Incidents.

Figure 2: Mental Health or Homelessness Incidents* as a Proportion of Total Call Volume (CAD, 2015-2023)
0 5000
1000
0 15000
20000
25000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
All Calls Mental Health or Homelessness Incidents*
*Mental Health or Homelessness Incidents include an event that has any feature from our categories of interest: Mental Health Call Type, Mental Health Key Terms, and/or Homelessness Key Terms

Data Highlights
All Calls
• Average: 17,636 calls
• Lowest call volume: 14,129
(Jan-Mar 2020)
• Highest call volume: 21,868
(July-Se pt 2017)
• Substantial drop in call volume since
the onset of shelter-in-place in 2020
(average 19% decrease)
Mental Health or Homelessness
Incidents
• Average: 1,986 calls
• Lowest call volume: 1,741
(Jan-Mar 2020)
• Highest call volume: 2,476
(July-Sept 2017)
• Slight drop in call volume since the
onset of shelter-in-place in 2020
(average 11% decrease)
As demonstrated in Figure 2 , despite total call volume fluctuating over time, the volume of Mental Health and Homelessness Incidents (combined) remain relatively consistent.

Specifically, at the onset of the COVID -19 pandemic in 2020, while overall call volume decreased substantially, Mental Health or Homelessness Incidents decreased only slightly. From 2015 -2019 Mental Health or Homelessness Incidents ranged from 9% to 12% of total call volume whereas from 2020-2023 Mental Health or Homelessness Incidents ranged from 10% to 13% of total call volume.

Key Takeaways
While a quarterly average of almost 2,000 calls demonstrates substantial community need for crisis services for Mental Health and Homelessness Incidents, these calls represent a relatively small proportion of the total calls for service received by BPD. Figure 3 suggests that many Mental Health Incidents may not be identified by call takers as mental health related , but rather, are identified by officers once they arrive on the scene (indicated by the use of key terms). This makes sense given the structure of CAD and the focus on identifying penal code violations or suspicion of crimes, which emphasizes why CAD is not an effective system for capturing communitywide mental health need or appropriateness of the 911 response .

Ultimately, our methodology has identified thousands of Mental Health Incidents that are not identifiable based on CAD call types alone, suggestin g that the overall community need is likely higher than the numbers presented . Notably, the volume of Mental Health or Homelessness Incidents is consistent and predictable and should inform the City’s decisions for allocating necessary resources for behavioral health and homelessness emergency response without the involvement of law enforcement.

As shown in Figure 3,
there were more “Other
Call Types” (those with a
penal code call type and
Mental Health key terms)
than Mental Health Call
Types.

Data Highlights
*Mental Health Incidents include any event that has a Mental Health Call Type and/or Mental Health Key Terms
286
871
28 10
3491
Suicide
Mental Illness
Welfare Check
Other Call Type
Figure 3: Mental Health Incidents* by Call Type
(CAD, 2023)

Ho
ld for image and graphic transition

II. Characteristics of Mental Health and
Homelessness Incidents
Now, we consider the characteristics of the events that make up the Mental Health or Homelessness Incidents previously displayed in Figure 2. To do so, we must consider the degree to which mental health calls and homelessness calls are interrelated or distinct. As demonstrated in Figure 2, the volume of combined Mental Health or Homelessness Incident s has remained consistent over time. We examined whether this trend was true for Mental Health Incidents alone (i.e. that did not include Homelessness Key Terms) and Homelessness Incidents alone (i.e. that did not include a Mental Health Call Type or Mental Health Key Terms) and found that the volume of Mental Health Incidents and Homelessness Incidents each are also consistent throughout 2015-2023. As such, we will use a simple average as a reliable example to explore the relationships between these two types of calls.

6472,
87%
986, 13%
No
Homelessness
Disposition
Homelessness
Disposition
Mental
Health
Homeless-
ness
1,645
707
233
Both
Figure 5: Quarterly Averages of Mental
Health Incidents and Homelessness
Incidents* (CAD, 2023)
Figure 4
Only 13% of Mental Health Incidents result in a Homelessness Disposition.

Figure 5
From 2021-2023, there were more incidents primarily concerned with mental health (1,645, 64%) than incidents primarily concerned with homelessness (707, 27%). The overlap of incidents concerning both homelessness and mental health is small (233, 9%). Note that 88% of Mental Health Incidents have only mental health indicators, while 12% of Mental Health Incidents have both mental health and homelessness indicators. Meanwhile, 75% percent of Homelessness Incidents have only homelessness indicators while a substantial proportion of Homelessness Incidents include both mental health and homelessness indicators (25%) .

Data Highlights
*Mental Health Incidents (in blue circle) include any event that has a Mental Health Call Type and/or Mental Health Key Terms . Homelessness Incidents (in orange circle)
include any event with a H omelessness Key Term,
regardless of whether it includes mental health data
elements.

Figure 4. Dispositions of Mental
Health Incidents* (CAD, 2023)
*Mental Health Incidents include any event that has
a Mental Health Call Type and/or Mental Health Key
Terms

Key Takeaways
The overlap between Homelessness Incidents and Mental Health Incidents is relatively small (Figure 4) and few Mental Health Incidents result in Homelessness Dispositions (Figure 5).

Therefore, w e conclude that often, mental health crises do not include homelessness characteristics. Rather, there may be distinct mental health crisis events, homelessness - related crisis events, and events that have both mental health and homelessness components.

Considering the consistency of these unique events , it is important that the emergency response framework can provide service s tailored to each type of crisis. The predictability of mental health, homelessness, and overlapping crisis calls should allow the City of Berkeley to plan how to allocate resources to provide resources for each of these unique needs within Berkeley.

III. Co-Response Rates & Response Times
Berkeley’s Mobile Crisis Team ( MCT) is a co -response model that pairs a licensed mental health clinician with a BPD officer to provide services in the event of a mental health crisis. As such, we anticipate that in the event of an identified mental health crisis, dispatchers would call for a co -response from MCT whenever possible. However, primarily due to staffing shortages, in the past six quarters MCT has been dispatched to fewer than 5% of Mental Health Incidents, a substantial decrease since its peak of being dispatched to 16% of Mental Health Incidents.

To further understand the characteristics of BPD response to Mental Health Incidents, we examined both MCT response rates as well as the response time 27 between when an event is created and BPD arrives on scene. We examined response times for all Mental Health Incidents, both with and without MCT co-response. We also discuss how call-typing may affect response times for Mental Health Incidents.

It is important to note that we did not have access to all CAD data and therefore could not assess BPD response time for all calls. Instead, our analysis only presents responses times for Mental Health Incidents. The Berkeley Police Department Annual Report provides data from not only CAD but also stop data , use of force data, and data on response times across priority levels.28
27 RDA did not have access to data on dispatch time, which is the length of time between when a call is received and when a call is assigned to officers for dispatch. Instead, RDA had access to response time data, which is relevant in describing the experience of responses to crisis events for callers. 28 Berkeley Police Department. (2024, March 12). 2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03- 12%20Item%2001%20WORKSESSION%20%202023%20Berkeley%20Police%20Department%20Annual%20Report .pdf

0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
10 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Response Time (minutes)
25th/75th Percentile of All Mental Health Incident Responses Median response time for all Mental Health Incidents
Median Response Time for Mental Health Incidents with MCT *Mental Health Incidents include an event that have a Mental Health Call Type and/or Mental Health Key Terms

Figure 6: Median Response Times for Mental Health Incidents*, by Quarter (CAD, 2015-2023)
Figure 6
Response time varies throughout the year for Mental Health Incidents. T he interquartile range, in blue, shows the response times for the middle half (25th-75th percentile) of all calls; it also shows that one-quarter of all calls fall below that range and one -quarter of calls fall above it.

Since 2015, the median response times (after call is assigned to officers) for Mental Health Incidents has been increasing, for Incidents with or without MCT (also shown in Table 1), which may be due to staffing levels in the City.

The 25th percentile of response times for Mental Health Incidents are relatively consistent across quarters while the 75th percentile of response times are more variable across quarters.

Data Highlights

.

Table 1: 25th, 50th, and 75th Quartile Response Times for Mental Health Incidents*, by Quarter (CAD 2015, 2019, 2023)
Year and
Quarter
25th Percentile Response
Time (min)
Median Response Time
(min)
75th Percentile Response
Time (min)
All MCT All MCT All MCT
2015 Q1 8 12 17 22 48 56
2019 Q1 9 9 20 21 56 53
2023 Q1 13 20 32 35 91 66
Table 1
From January-March of 2023, half of all calls were responded to within 13-91 minutes, as shown in the 25th to 75th percentile range shown in Table 1 and the blue interquartile range in Figure 6. In that same three-month period, one quarter of calls during the first quarter of 2023 had a response time of less than 13 minutes and one quarter of calls had a response time of more than 91 minutes. Response times are longer than quarter 1 of 2019 and those response times are longer than quarter 1 of 2015, demonstrating an increasing trend of longer response times.

Data Highlights
*Mental Health Incidents include an event that have a Mental Health Call Type and/or Mental Health Key Terms

Key Takeaways
Together, these data demonstrate two clear points : 1) M CT, a co-response team of mental health specialists, is rarely dispatched ; and 2) T he response time when BPD responds to Mental Health Incidents is increasing over time.

Furthermore, we conducted a regression analysis to estimate the impact of short -term call volume fluctuations on median response time for Mental Health Incidents while controlling for seasonal effects, location, and historical response times.29 We do not find evidence that short- term fluctuations in total call volume produce longer median response times for BPD responses to Mental Health Incidents with and without MCT. This should not be interpreted as finding statistically significant evidence that short -term increases in call volume are not related to median response times for Mental Health Incidents.

Based on BPD protocols, Priority Level 1 calls must be prioritized over Priority Level 2 calls. It is also important, therefore, to understand that the assigned call type for an event affects the assigned priority level, which affects the expected dispatch time , which in turn affects the response time of a dispatched officer(s). According to CAD data, 70% Mental Health Call Types (Welfare Check, Mental Illness, and Suicide) are assigned Priority Level 2. Additionally, a substantial number of mental health-related incidents are assigned “Other” Call Types (Figure 2). Events that are deemed to not pose a risk of violence or urgent need for BPD response and instead are assigned a non-Mental Health Call of Priority Level 2 or higher will consequently have a longer response time than Priority Level 1 call types.30 As a result, events where mental health characteristics are present during a low -priority penal code violation are at risk of receiving a longer response time than may be appropriate for a mental health crisis.

Given that the volume of Mental Health Incidents is consistent over time ( Figure 2), it appears that resources have not been allocated to provide mental health specialists to co -respond with BPD during Mental Health Incidents. While BPD’s priority level structure may lead to more violent or dangerous calls receiving the highest priority , it is important that mental health related crisis events are identified and dispatched in a way that also allows for a timely response by the specialists best equipped to provide quality care. 29 We also do not evaluate the relationship between response times for mental health related events in CAD and other types of calls for service.
30 In the 2023 Annual Report, BPD reported a median response time of 7 minutes for Priority Level 1 calls and 18 minutes for Priority Level 2 calls.

IV. Outcomes of Police Interactions with Mental
Health and Homelessness Incidents
When an incident is closed in the CAD system, at least one disposition must be entered to document the outcome of the event. Dispositions are determined by the officer on scene and entered by either the officer or the dispatcher. For a Mental Health Disposition, we do not know whether the event resulted in an involuntary psychiatric hold (“5150”), de -escalation, referral to mental health services, or some other outcome. Additionally, we are unable to know the type of documentation for any given event with a Paper Disposition, such as whether there was a citation, an arrest, or other form of case report.

We assume in this analysis that if appropriate mental health services are delivered in the event of a mental health crisis ( e.g. suicidality de-escalation and referral to services) , Paper Dispositions would be rare, and Mental Health Dispositions or “MDT Narrative Only” dispositions would be most common.

Table 2, below, presents a ratio of the frequency with which Mental Health Incidents result in a Paper Disposition with the frequency with which they result in a M ental Health Disposition to compare these occurrences . Incidents are presented by the individual call type to further explore the relationship between call type and disposition, including Welfare Check, Mental Illness, Suicide, and “Other” Call Type (an incident that had a non-Mental Health Call Type but had a Mental Health Key Term(s)).

Following these comparisons, two maps are presented to further explore the relationship between call type and disposition by geography. Geography is one way to understand characteristics of where incidents occur as well as to consider potentially disparate impacts on specific neighborhoods and/or public spaces.

Table 2: Ratios of Paper Dispositions to Mental Health Dispositions (X:1) for Mental Health Incidents*, by Call Type (CAD, 2023) Call Type Ratio of Paper to
Mental Health
Dispositions
Paper Dispositions Mental Health
Dispositions
Welfare Check 4.71:1 2484 527
Other Call Type 2.44:1 2489 1022
Mentally Ill 1.96:1 724 370
Suicide .83:1 164 197

Table 2
Ratios of dispositions help to compare the relative frequency of each disposition for a specific call type. Three of four categories of Mental Health Incidents are more likely to result in Paper Dispositions than Mental Health Dispositions. For Mental Health Incidents that were assigned the Welfare Check call type in 2023, a Paper Disposition was assigned almost five times as frequently as the Mental Health Disposition (ratio of 4.71 to 1). This means that when a request for service was called in to 911 and the call taker assigned the Welfare Check call type, it ended in formal legal documentation five times as often as not. Similarly, for “Other Call Types” (identified through the key term search), a Paper Disposition was assigned almost two-and-a-half times as often as a Mental Health Disposition (ratio of 2.44 to 1) .

Even Mental Health Incidents with the call type “Mental Illness” receive d a Paper Disposition twice as frequently as a Mental Health Disposition (ratio of 1.96 to 1). Only those Mental Health Incidents assigned the Suicide call type receive d a Paper Disposition less frequently than a Mental Health Disposition, though the frequency is nearly equal.

Data Highlights
*Mental Health Incidents include an event that have a Mental Health Call Type and/or Mental Health Key Terms

Map 1: Rates of Mental Health Call Types by Census Block Group (CAD, 2023)

Map 1
Map 1 and Map 2 (below) show aggregate coordinates of events in census block groups; census block groups are commonly used geographical statistical units that can contain anywhere from 600 to 3,000 people.

Map 1 shows the average rates of Mental Health Call Types for 2023. According to Map 1 , Mental Health Call Types are concentrated in public spheres (darker orange), such as along Interstate 580 and industrial areas of West Berkeley, the Berkeley Marina and Cesar Chavez Park, University Avenue, and Shattuck Avenue and Downtown Berkeley.

Data Highlights
See Appendix C for a high-resolution image of Map 1

Map 2: Proportion of Mental Health Dispositions for Mental Health Call Types by Census Block Group (CAD, 2023)

Map 2
Map 2 also shows aggregate coordinates of events in census block groups; census block groups are commonly used geographical statistical units that can contain anywhere from 600 to 3,000 people.

Map 2 shows the proportion of Mental Health Call Types that also have a Mental Health Disposition. Considering both maps, there are many block groups with high rates of Mental Health Incidents (Map 1, dark orange) but a low proportion of Mental Health Dispositions (Map 2, light blue).

Data Highlights
See Appendix C for a high-resolution image of Map 1

Key Takeaways
The limitations of CAD data pose challenges to interpreting the characteristics and/or results of BPD interactions during Mental Health Incidents. First, it cannot be definitively concluded the extent to which calls are accurately identified as mental health -related. It also cannot be determined using CAD data how each event unfolded after the call type was assigned, which prevents us from understanding the context that led to the assigned disposition(s) or results (s) for BPD’s response. We understand that e vents, generally, vary greatly in whether or how they can be safely de-escalated without law enforcement. Moreover, because the disposition categories are broad and do not describe health outcomes for each event, CAD does not allow for assessing service delivery. Without additional information about the outcomes within any given Mental Health Disposition or the specific reports written for any given Paper Disposition, we cannot assess whether individuals are disproportionately impacted by legal outcomes. Overall, w ith the type of data that CAD is designed to collect during an initial call throughout the duration of the event and the ultimate disposition, we cannot know the extent of the legal impact on individuals resulting from interactions with BPD during potential mental health-related emergencies.

Despite the limitations and uncertainties, the data do illuminate a variety of characteristics of the outcomes of police interactions during potentially mental health or homelessness-related crises. For one, the rate of frequency with which Paper Dispositions are assigned shows that even calls not associated with penal codes (i.e., those assigned a Mental Health Call Type) are resulting in formal documentation (i.e., case reports ) more often than they are being categorized as a m ental health event at the point an officer assigns the disposition(s) . It is possible that some of the documented Mental Health Incidents also involved a threat to public safety or a potential crime, and therefore, police response assigning a Paper Disposition for an arrest or citation was appropriate. However, it seems unlikely that 89% of Welfare Checks and 83% of Mental Illness call types required formal legal documentation (e.g., for arrests, citations, or for deceased persons), especially given that 71% of “Other” Call Types (i.e., with a prioritized penal code violation) that included a Mental Health Key Term required formal legal documentation. Overall, t he number of paper dispositions across documented Mental Health Incidents demonstrate some risk (though the exact level of that risk is uncertain)

t
hat individuals experienc ing a mental health emergency may become involved in the criminal legal system, which research shows is detrimental to mental health.31 Together, Table 2, Map 1, and Map 2 may indicate differences in how different parties involved in CAD data collection interpret and describe incidents (the caller, call taker, dispatcher, and/or on-scene officer). This difference across parties may contribute to whether an event is categorized with one of our Mental Health Call Types and/or assigned a Mental Health Disposition. For this reason, the data pose challenges to drawing definitive conclusions about the nature and experiences of a call and BPD response.

The fact that Mental Health Dispositions are often not concentrated where Mental Health Call Types are concentrated geographically also emphasizes the potential difference in how parties interpret and respond to events as well as CAD’s limitations . In Map 1 , some of the locations with high Mental Health Incidents are, anecdotally, areas with high concentrations of unhoused community members or encampments. Yet, recall that only 12% of Mental Health Incidents also use Homelessness Key Terms (Figure 5). Meanwhile, these regions in Map 2 have low proportions of Mental Health Dispositions . If someone calls 911 reporting a mental health concern, which is then assigned a Mental Health Call Type by the call taker, but the responding officer does not assign a Mental Health Disposition, then we may conclude that the caller incorrectly identified a mental health need or that the police officer incorrectly did not identify a mental health need. Consider ing these two scenarios, these data provide some indication that unhoused people may be differentially affected by people calling 911 and by BPD’s response.
31 Quant, K.R., and Jones, A. (2021, May 13). Research roundup: Incarceration can cause lasting damage to mental health. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/05/13/mentalhealthimpacts/

Conclusions

A. Conclusions related to the nature of CAD & data shared with RDA
B. Conclusions related to the guiding evaluation questions

A. Conclusions related to the nature of CAD & data
shared with RDA
CAD is an important tool used by the Berkeley Communications Center and BPD to respond to calls that come into 911 or the non-emergency phone number and is not a tool designed for behavioral health response and service delivery. However, the scope of this analysis and the areas of inquiry32 directed RDA to use CAD data specifically for assessing mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness related incidents within CAD. Therefore, the limitations of CAD described throughout this report are in large part due to the intended focus of this analysis.
32 As defined in the City Council’s budget referral, the assessment was intended to explore narrative notetaking, dispatch procedures and protocols, and several individual-level outcomes. However, the way CAD is structured does not allow for exploration of most of these indicators or data.

CAD is insufficient to fully assess the outcomes of BPD’s response to behavioral health and homelessness -related crises and the resulting impacts on community members.

CAD is not designed to assess or document needs and outcomes related to mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness. CAD, primarily, is set up to assess for and dispatch in response to criminal activity. This creates a structure in which Mental Health Incidents may be responded to in a manner that risks escalation or produce responses that risk criminalizing mental health needs . Additionally, the structure of CAD may pose a risk for Mental Health Incidents being assigned Priority Levels that receive longer response times. As CAD is currently structured, dispositions only reliably document the presence of a case report (“ Paper Disposition”) without any additional information on the type of case report. Meanwhile, even if the officer(s) used the Mental Health Disposition, this disposition does not distinguish between officers initiating involuntary psychiatric holds (“5150” ) versus generally assessing the presence of mental health need, nor does it document provision of mental health services or resources. Without a substantial restructuring of the CAD system, it is unlikely that BPD will be able to assess for and respond to mental health crises or to monitor quality of service delivery.

Moreover, CAD is not equipped to document the nature or outcomes of responses to these types of crises. As a result, there is no way to utilize CAD data to fully or reliably assess the impact BPD had on an individual during a mental health or homelessness-related crisis event.

CAD does not document the use of behavioral health procedures, protocols, or de - escalation techniques used during call taking or dispatched response . Although these protocols may exist, it is not feasible to assess call -taking procedures using CAD . Assessing call-routing and response procedures would require extensive observations and documentation review by trained clinicians; even then, CAD does not collect substantial narrative data. For this reason, an analysis of CAD data is not a sufficient method for identifying calls that could go to a behavioral health response team nor to plan call -routing procedures for integrating a new team into 911.

CAD data is insufficient to assess for structural police, fire, and/or EMS issues that disproportionately impact vulnerable, diverse, and structurally oppressed people s. 33 CAD
data is insufficient for assessing disparate impacts because it does not reliably capture data 33 The scope of RDA’s analysis was limited to Police response and did not include Fire or EMS issues.

on
individuals’ demographics, such as race/ethnicity or gender presentation, nor does CAD capture individuals’ housing status . Therefore, it is not possible to utilize CAD for assessing inequitable impacts of police response in the community.

CAD data cannot be used to assess the reduction in risks of injury and death by police . CAD data does not capture injury or death that occur during interactions between BPD and community members. The Paper Disposition does not provide detail about the different forms of documentation that result from dispatched responses, whether they include det ainment in handcuffs, use of physical force by police , drawing or exhibiting a police firearm, or other outcomes that characterize risks of “injury or death.” BPD does, however, publish data on the Berkeley Police Transparency website,34 including Use of Force35 and RIPA/Stop data.36

34 https://bpd-transparency-initiative-berkeleypd.hub.arcgis.com/ 35 https://bpd-transparency-initiative-berkeleypd.hub.arcgis.com/pages/use-of-force 36 https://bpd-transparency-initiative-berkeleypd.hub.arcgis.com/pages/stop-data

B. Conclusions related to the guiding evaluation
questions
Despite limitations, CAD data illuminate a variety of details that can inform program and service planning for alternative response programs aimed at meeting community needs for mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness -related crisis events . The conclusions that follow are structured according to our guiding questions , exploring how the data and key takeaways offer insight and perspectives about the characteristics of interactions with the BPD Communications Center and police officers in the context of mental health and homelessness-related crises.

It is important to keep in the mind that “Mental Health Incidents” is a category we created to analyze CAD data for this analysis and is subject to the limitations described throughout this report and the conclusions detailed in section A, above.

1. How often do Berkeley police officers engage with incidents related to mental health and/or homelessness?
On average, community members called 911 for approximately 2,000 Mental Health or Homelessness-related crisis events annually throughout 2015- 2023, demonstrating a consistent and predictable volume of requests for service.

Although we believe CAD data provides an underestimate of the extent of behavioral health and homelessness needs of community members, the volume of CAD Mental Health Incidents is consistent across time, despite overall CAD call volume decreasing after 2020. From 2015 - 2023, community members called 911 for an average of 1,986 Mental Health Incidents, ranging from a high of 2,476 calls in Quarter 3 of 2017 and a low of 1,741 calls in Quarter 1 of 2020.

2. What are the characteristics and results of mental health and/or homelessness incidents and police interactions?
The BPD Communications Center categorizes more mental health-related calls under penal code violation call types and as Welfare Checks than as Mental Illness or Suicide and assigns high rates of Paper Dispositions for Mental Health Incidents, suggesting that people experiencing mental health crises may be responded to as a criminal concern rather than mental health concern.

In 2023, the BPD Communications Center assigned call types related to penal code violations to at least 3,491 events that included narrative notes aligned to Mental Health Key Terms; in our analysis, these events were classified as “Other” Call Type s. The BPD Communications Center also assigned Welfare Checks to 2,810 events. Among these two categories of Call Types, Paper Dispositions were assigned 2.4 times more frequently than Mental Health Dispositions for the “Other” Call Types and 4.7 times more frequently for Welfare Checks. Given that a) CAD is structured to prioritize penal code violations, b) in most cases, Mental Health Incidents are not initially categorized as such by 911 call takers (who are interpreting the information provided by callers) , and c) the high proportion of Paper Dispositions assigned to Mental health Incidents, the data suggests that M ental Health Incidents may often be treated as legal or criminal matters.

The patterns of Mental Health Call Type assignment, use of Mental Health Key Terms, and Mental Health Disposition assignment may indicate differences how community members, call takers, dispatchers, and police officers interpret mental health needs (both as distinct groups but also as individuals within those groups).

O
verall, the challenges inherent in identifying mental health crises during 911 calls and the frequency of legal documentation for individuals during mental health crises underscore the need for mental health crisis de-escalation before and after dispatch as well as a response by mental health specialists during potentially mental-health related crises.

People living in or near encampments may be differentially affected by 911 calls for service and BPD responses.

Although Mental Health Call Types are highly concentrated in areas where encampments may commonly be established, Mental Health Dispositions are not concentrated in those areas. This could indicate that community members calling 911 are not accurately identifying a mental health need in these areas or that the responding police officer s are not correctly identifying mental health need. Regardless, people living in or near these areas may be experiencing increased police engagement as a result of 911 calls.

There is insufficient data available in CAD to identify impacts on specific identity groups or on substance users, which prevents assessment for equity of service provision.

CAD does not collect information on the identities of individuals calling into 911 or being responded to by BPD, such as race/ethnicity, language, LGBTQIA+, gender presentation, housing status, or other demographic characteristics of communities disproportionately impacted by police violence or incarceration .
37 Collecting data on demographics is a
challenge in most, if not all, crisis response contexts, and is not unique to BPD. Moreover, there is no way to reliably use CAD data to identify volume of substance use -related crises, neither to assess the characteristics of such calls or resulting dispositions. As a result, we were unable to explore whether there are disparate impacts of police response on structurally marginalized people in the context of mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness related crises.

37 Note: While we mapped data to census geographical units, the patterns demonstrated by the maps alongside conversations with Berkeley Police Department showed that large public spaces and commercial areas could be an important source of CAD crisis events. Because census data relies on residential data collection, we did not relate any call characteristics to census demographics. There is reason to believe callers may not reside in the Block Groups calls are originating from.

3. To what extent do current BPD responses to mental health and/or homelessness incidents meet the needs of the Berkeley
community?
The vast majority of Mental Health Incidents are responded to without a mental health specialist.

MCT does not have the staffing levels to be regularly included for a co-response for the majority of events assigned a Mental Health Call Type , which does not meet community needs for a mental health specialist response during mental health emergencies.

BPD response times for Mental Health Incidents have been increasing in recent years.

The median response time to Mental Health Incidents in January-March of 2023 was 32 minutes, with half of all calls receiving a response time within 13 -91 minutes in that same quarter. This pattern persists despite most Mental Health Call Types occurring in public areas.

4. What characteristics of mental health and/or homelessness incidents in CAD can inform mental health emergency response operations?
Mental Health Incidents seem to be distinct from Homelessness Incidents . The frequency and consistency of unique as well as co -occurring Mental Health and Homelessness Incidents allows for informed predictions for the allocation of resources to meet these needs.

Considering that the volume of Mental Health Incidents and Homelessness Incidents are each relatively consistent throughout 2015 -2023, the data can inform an approximate baseline of the resources required to sustain and expand mental health and homelessness services. Given the alarming rates at which individuals with mental illness are incarcerated in the United States, a public health approach would aim to limit incarceration and legal system involvement as much as possible for community members experiencing mental health crises.

It is therefore worthwhile to continue investing in alternative models that utilize evidence- based practices for de-escalation of suicidality and other mental health emergencies, as well as for assessment and treatment crises related to both mental health and/or homelessness.

A
n analysis of Mental Health Incidents and Mental Health Dispositions by day of week and hour of day may be useful to inform mental health crisis response programs and planning.

Mental Health Incidents are more common from Monday through Friday compared to the weekends. On the other hand, Mental Health Dispositions have a more consistent daily volume, though they are slightly more common Friday through Sunday compared to the rest of the week. These data may represent different patterns of caller behaviors on weekdays versus weekends, different patterns of officer behaviors on weekdays versus weekends , or different patterns of crisis events between weekdays and weekends. Bearing in mind the potential different interpretations of mental health related crises and the limitations of CAD , the data presented in Appendix B may be useful to planning mental health crisis response services.

Recommendations

Recommendations
The data presented in this report may help the City of Berkeley provide behavioral health and homelessness services that meet the needs of community members without relying on law enforcement to address social service and health needs . These recommendations were derived from the conclusions by identifying key areas of intersection and overlap and were discussed with City staff from multiple departments to identify the utility and feasibility of recommendations.

Use mental health services and crisis response data – not CAD - when assessing the volume and characteristics of mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness needs.

There are substantial limitations to the data collected in CAD that preclude it from being the sole source of information to assess the community’s mental health needs. These limitations, exacerbated by the nature of the quickly evolving crisis response environment, mean that there are too many potential interpretations of CAD data to be able to use CAD for a behavioral health landscape assessment . Nor are specific behavioral health characteristics identifiable through CAD data.

Improving CAD to a degree that would make such an assessment feasible with this system alone ( e.g., updates to call type s and call type assignment practices, narrative note taking protocols, disposition assignment), would require substantial City resources. Additionally, once those improvements were made, it would take time – likely several years – before those changes would be reflected in the data. Moreover, some limitations cannot be addressed, such as different interpretations between callers, dispatchers, and police officers of what constitutes a mental health related event.

Additionally, if changes were made to Dispatch’s call -taking or call -routing procedures but police were still the only available response team for those calls, then the adoption of new protocols would likely be low and/or inconsistent. CAD was designed for dispatching police and documenting potential penal code violations and is serving that purpose, so there is limited utility in changing call -taking procedures if there is not a different response option for those calls (e.g. a behavioral health crisis specialist). In contrast, service data from behavioral health specialists could likely provide more details on the characteristics of behavioral health events with the opportunity to continuously refine data collection and service provision according to evidence-based behavioral health and crisis response practices.

Recommendation #1

Use the presented CAD data on frequency and consistency of Mental Health Incidents as a baseline when planning for resource provision and capacity of mental health specialists, while anticipating an increase in volume of these services over time.

Berkeley community members call 911 for mental health and homelessness-related crises at a relatively consistent volume year after year. However, more mental health- related calls are categorized and responded to as penal code violations rather than Welfare Checks, Mental Illness, or Suicide. Furthermore, Mental Health Incidents experience long response times and high rates of formal legal documentation, which, statistically speaking, presents risk of police violence, mistreatment, and criminalization of structurally marginalized groups and individuals, including those experiencing mental illness.

The relative consistency in call volume provides some predictability for planning alternative response programs, at least as a baseline level of predictable service volume. The City of Berkeley can use the following estimates to plan for mental health emergency services :
 Annual average of 1,986 calls, approximately 5 calls per day  Annual call volume ranging from 1,741 to 2,476 calls, approximately 4-7 calls per day  Provide daily services given there is no noticeable trend by day of the week  Provide 24-hour service with potentially fewer teams from 1:00-6:00am when call volume trends lower
Planning around this initial baseline for services and planning to sustain such services over time may provide a more reliable way to meet City Council’s goals of providing mental health, substance use, and homelessness specialists during emergencies without the use of law enforcement.

Recommendation #2

Address homelessness -related crisis needs through homeless service specialists rather than law enforcement.

The overlap between Homelessness Incidents and Mental Health Incidents appears relatively limited, suggesting that mental health crises do not often include homelessness characteristics. Instead, to address the needs of unhoused community members, the City of Berkeley should ensure sufficient homelessness -related services are available. This would support emergency responders and behavioral health specialists to focus their response on mental health and substance use crises.

Identify opportunities to improve coordination between emergency responders, community -based behavioral health providers, and emergency behavioral health specialists.

The findings of this CAD analysis suggest a need for a clear and consistent process to provide coordinated care by behavioral health specialists for behavioral health-related crises. There is sufficient CAD data to indicate formal legal documentation is a frequent and predominant outcome for Mental Health Incidents. Relatedly, MCT are rarely dispatched for a co- response with BPD and there is no existing mechanism to dispatch other behavioral health specialists to 911 calls without law enforcement.

Incidents that are low-priority penal code violations and have characteristics of mental health crises are at risk of receiving a lower response time than the crisis may require. Given that BPD has finite resources to respond to high -priority calls, it is important that dedicated mental health and substance use specialists are available to respond to mental health crisis calls where a penal code violation is not, or should not be, the primary concern.

In addition to formal and informal Standard Operating Procedures within BPD, there continues to be a need for addressing the mental health and behavioral health needs for community members who are high utilizers of emergency services. Such coordination may contribute to reducing the disparate impacts of law enforcement engagement on mental health consumers.

Recommendation #3
Recommendation #4

Appendix

V. Appendix A: Narrative Key Terms
VI. Appendix B: Data to Inform Emergency Response
Operations
VII. Appendix C: High Resolution Map 1 & Map 2

Appendix A: Narrative Key Terms
RDA used the same list of key terms for the narrative search as the Auditor’s Report.38 Mental Health Key Terms Homelessness Key Terms
1056
5150
sees things
antipsychotic
anxiety
bacs
bipolar
bmh
bonita house
breakdown
case manager
counsel
crazy
crisis
deliri
deluded
delusion
dementia
depress
disorder
dissociat
dual diagnosis
first break
hallucinat
hear voices
hearing voices
hears voices
ideation
john george
Mania
manic
mct
medication meds
mental
mh
mobile crisis
nervous
breakdown
paranoi
peer support
pharmacist
psych
ptsd
residential care
schizo
seeing things
self harm
self talk
social worker
suicid
talking to self
talk to self
therap
trauma
treatment
unable to talk
warm line
warmline
bacs
bfhp
camped out
person down
berkeley covid
respite
berkeley drop in
center
berkeley community
resource center
women’s daytime
drop-in center
fred finch turning
point
berkeley food and
housing project
dorothy day
encamp
encampment
harrison house
homeless
homeless outreach
housing status
living on the street
nomad
obstructing sidewalk
shelter
sleeper
street outreach
tent
transitional housing
unhoused
pathways
vagrant
no address
no residence
undomicilized
coordinated entry
38 Berkeley City Auditor. (2021, April 22). Data analysis of the City of Berkeley’s police response. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05- 11%20Item%2029%20Audit%20Report%20%20Data%20Analysis.pdf

Appendix B: Data to inform emergency
response operations
One of the guiding questions for the CAD analysis was to assess characteristics of mental health, substance use, and/or homelessness incidents in CAD that could be useful for informing behavioral health emergency services . Such an assessment of CAD data could contribute to the Reimagining Public Safety Initiative’s goal of reducing BPD’s scope of work to “primarily violent and criminal matters.”
In this appendix, we present the frequency of Mental Health Incidents by day of week ( Figure 7), Mental Health Dispositions by day of week (Figure 8), Mental Health Incidents by hours (Figure 9), and Mental Health Dispositions by hour (Figure 10).

Figure 7: Mental Health Incidents* by Day of Week (CAD, 2021 -2023)

Figure 8: Mental Health Dispositions by Day of Week (CAD, 2021 -2023)

3224
3318
3407
330 2 3326
3100
2895
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
1095 1117 1173 1121
1337 1337 1300
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
*Mental Health Incidents include an event that have a Mental Health Call Type and/or Mental Health Key Terms

Figure 9: Mental Health Incidents* by Hour of Day (CAD, 2021 -2023)

Figure 10: Mental Health Dispositions by Hour of Day (CAD, 2021 -2023)

523
435422
33229025
7 398
686
941
1180
1326
1426
1517
1539
1452
1466
1414
1285
1191
11271092
910
770
593
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 221 200 181
147 141
118
183
305
397
448459
499
548
480481468
490
439425413
439
409
332
257
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 *Mental Health Incidents include an event that have a Mental Health Call Type and/or Mental Health Key Terms

Appendix C: High Resolution Map 1 & Map 2

APPENDIX E
Mental Health & Wellbeing Coordinator Impact Report

Mental Health & Wellbeing Coordinator
The City of Berkeley’s $350,000, two year investment, in student mental health and wellbeing has provided Berkeley High School (BHS) with an essential administrator that made the concept of a Wellness Center at Berkeley High School a viable option. BHS opened a Wellness Center in December of 2023.

This role enables BHS, to fulfill a common goal with the City of Berkeley, to reduce the stigma and barriers associated with student access to mental health support. We know that if students have access to on campus support, they are more likely to connect to staff, providers, and services that can help.

The MHW Coordinator is housed in the Wellness Center. This role works in concert with the site administration and other stakeholders to implement infrastructure for students to access a continuum of support for socio- emotional and mental health needs. Students and staff previously navigated these dimensions of wellness alone, without a school based hub that connected them to an accessible system of care.

The MHW Coordinator implements processes and practices that make supports and resources accessible for any/all 3200 Berkeley High School students. Students with 504 plans or Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) represent 36% of student visitors (Fall ’24 monthly average). Our drop-in data indicates that focal groups of underrepresented students are accessing the Wellness Center. Fall semester, 53.5% of visitors identified a Black or Latino.

Areas of Focus

Psycho Education
Counselor Training
Parent Education
Prof. Dev. Sessions
Tiered Support
Care Response
Safety Plans
Coord. of Services Team

Student Services
Universal Drop-In
MH Peer Educators
Brief Interventions
Health Center Referrals
Tier 2 Group SpaceLOWER AFFECTIVE FILTER
1 IMPROVE SELF AWARENESS,

MANAGEMENT , CONNECTION
2 INCREASE STUDENTS’

WELLNESS EDUCATION
3 IMPACT REPORT MARCH 2, 2025
Mental Health & Wellbeing Coordinator

PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY

Response to
Student Need
Quick Facts
’24-’25
28 Care Responses
August-February
8 Family/Student
Re-Entries
following mental
health hospitalization
54 student referrals
to tiered supports for
4+ times visitors
• Brief Intervention
w/School Counselor
• SSTs, COST, 504s,
• Niroga Mindfulness
• Health Center
• Rest. Justice
• IEP
Wellness Center priorities keep us centered on
intended student outcomes. We want students
to develop healthy coping strategies to deal
with stress, anxiety, life altering events, and
to navigate interpersonal relationships.

Implementation Plan

% Activity
Selected Student Selected Activity Type Who or What (Fall ’24)

50.6% Sit & Calm Self-regulate, take break, that could be sitting calmly or utilizing the various quiet corners and cubbies

34.3% Check-In w/Staff Restorative Justice Staff, Wellness Counselor, School Counselors, Niroga

6.5% Journal, coloring Ind. student books, community coloring table

4.5% Arts/Crafts/Sensory Activity theraputty, kinetic sand, etc.

4.2% Peer Check-In Mental Health Peer Educator
Student Drop-In Data
Student Screener Captures Reason for Drop-In Visit
Spring ’24: 1st Semester WC Open Drop-In # STU
Total Student Contacts: Jan. - May 2024 1120
Unduplicated Contacts: Jan. - May 2024 380
Fall ’24: 2nd Semester WC Open Drop-In # STU
Total Student Contacts: Aug. - Dec. 2024 1395
Unduplicated Contacts: Aug. - Dec. 2024 425
Hours: 8:40am - 3:25pm
Monday-Friday

BHS MENTAL HEALTH PEER EDUCATORS
COHORT 1, 2023-24
Acknowledgments
The work of the Mental Health & Wellbeing Coordinator is only possible thanks to the tenacity and advocacy of a group of students, now Class of 2022 alumni (Ginger, Lily, Eva, Haley, and Mary) who rallied support among the City of Berkeley city council members to address the unmet mental health needs among students.

The city’s substantial investment was entrusted to BUSD to implement infrastructure, tiered & differentiated supports, and mental health crisis prevention at Berkeley High School. We work to provide all students with access to trained, caring adults and safe spaces. Special thanks to leaders in Berkeley Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS), and our Health Center partners.

CURRENT

WELLNESS CENTER STAFF
New Accessible
Resources
Counseling &
Wellness Webpage
Monthly Parent Ed
Topics
Connecting Beyond
Conflict: Effective
Communication
Strategies
Understanding
Attachment Theory:

Building Stronger
Connections w/Your
Child
Peer Mental Health
Educators
Wellness
Wednesdays
46 Classroom
Presentations = 1k
students w/Mental
Health education
Suicide Prevention
Videos
#1:Black Mental Health
#2: Breaking the
Silence (2nd place )
#3: Echoes of Hope: A
Journey Through
Darkness
(Honorable Mention)

BERKELEY HIGH ALUM
WELLNESS CTR.

DESIGN TEAM
The Mental Health & Wellbeing
Coordinator works across teams and
with all stakeholders to establish a
systemwide Community of Care.

APPENDIX F
Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence Draft Recommendations

AGENDA
Mayor Adena Ishii: Rashi Kersarwani: Terry Taplin:

Vacant Vacant Vacant
Ben Bartlett: Igor Tregub S
hoshana O’Keefe
Kameka Goodwin Shirley Posey Kera Binns
Brent Blackaby: Cecilia Lunaparra: M
ark Humbert
Chair-Carole Marasovic K eyanna Ortiz-Cedeno Vacant
All items are for discussion and possible action.

1. Roll Call.

2. Reading of Land Acknowledgment.

3. Public Comments for Items not on the Agenda.

4. Approval of the Agenda. Discussion and Possible Action.

5. Approval of the November 20, 2024 minutes. Discussion and Possible Action.

6. Review and Approval of 2025 Calendar for Commission on the Status of Women Meetings.

Discussion and Possible Action.

7. Chair Report. Discussion Only.

8. In-depth Discussion of Domestic Violence/Gender-Based Violence Recommendations.

Discussion and Pos
sible Action.

9. Further development of work plan. Discussion and possible action.

10. Adjourn
ADA Disclaimer “Thi
s meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services Specialist at 981-6418 (V) or 981-6347 (TDD) at least five

business days before the meeting date. Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.”

Communications Disclaimer
Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees 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 a City board, commission or committee, 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 secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. 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 secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information.

SB 343 Disclaimer
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the City Manager’s Office located at 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor.

Commission Contact Information
Okeya Vance-Dozier, Secretary
Commission on the Status of Women
2180 Milvia Street, 5
th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704
510/981-7239 (Office)
510/529-5376 (Cell)
[email protected] (email)

Commission on the Status of Women
Regular Mee ting – November 20, 2024

DRAFT- MINUTES
The meeting convened at 7:03pm
with Chairperson Marasovic presiding.

ROLL CALL

Present: Posey, Binns, Marasovic

Absent:

Leave of Absence: Goodwin, Ortiz-Ce
deno
/////////////////
Comments from the Public
 Public attendance: 0
 Public comments: 0
/////////////////
Action Items:

Item # 1:

Approval of Agenda. Discussion and Possible Action.

M/S/C: Binns, Marasovic
Aye
s: Posey, Binns, Marasovic

Absent: Ortiz-Cedeno, Goodwin
Leave of Absence:
/////////////////
Item # 2:

Approval of the Minutes from September 18, 2024 COSOW Meeting. Discussion and Possible Action.

M/S/C: Binns, Posey
Aye
s: Posey, Binns, Marasovic

Absent: Ortiz-Cedeno, Goodwin
Abstain:

Leave of Absence:

/////////////////
Item # 3:

Empowering East Bay Girls: Trends, Needs, and Opportunities for Partnership Presentation from Julayne Virgil, CEO of Girls Inc of Alameda County. Discussion, no action taken.

M/S/C:

Ayes:

A
bsent:

Leave of Absence:
/////////////////
Item # 4:

Tour of Bridget House
Tour Date: December 5, 2024 @ 1pm.

M/S/C:

Ayes:

A
bsent:

Leave of Absence:
/////////////////
Item # 5:

Discussion and Possible Letter to Council on Staff Recommendation on Domestic Violence/Gender-Based Violence. Discussion and Possible Action.

Motion to submit a letter to Council regarding the staff recommendations on DV and gender-based violence.

M/S/C: Binns, Posey
Ayes: Po sey, Binns, Marasovic

Absent: Ortiz-Ced
eno, Goodwin
Leave of Absence:
/////////////////
Item # 6:

Vice-Chair Election. Discussion and Possible Action.

Motion made by Commissioner Marasovic to Elect Commissioner Binns as Vice-Chair for the Commission on the Status of Women which was seconded by Commissioner Posey.

M/S/C: Marasovic, Posey
Ayes: Po sey, Binns, Marasovic

Absent: Ortiz-Ced
eno, Goodwin

Leave of Absence:

Item # 5:

Work Plan. Discussion and Possible Action.

No Action Taken.

M/S/C:

Ayes:

A
bsent:

Leave of Absence:
/////////////////
The meeting was adjourned at 9:04pm
Respectfully Submitted,
Okeya Vance-D
ozier, Secretary
Commission on the Status of Women

Commission on the Status of Women
Draft 2025 Meeting Schedule

1. Wednesday , January 15, 2025 a
t 7pm- Special Meeting

2. Wednesday, February 19 , 202 5 a
t 7pm

3. Wednesday , March 19, 2025 at 7pm

4. Wednesday , April 16, 2025 at 7pm

5. Wednesday , May 21, 2025 at 7pm

6. Wednesday , June 18, 2025 at 7pm

7. Wednesday , July 16, 2025 at 7pm

8. Wednesday , September 17, 2025 at 7pm

9. Wednesday , October 15, 2025 at 7pm

10. Wednesday , November 19, 2025 at 7pm

City of Berkeley | Department of Health, Housing and Community Services October 2024 Status Update: Domestic, Intimate Partner and Gender-Based Violence Thid document provides an informational progress report for the Commission on the Status of Women, with regard to the City of Berkeley’s Domestic, Intimate Partner and Gender-Based Violence work. This status update serves as a follow-up item to the Department of Health House and Community Service’s presentation in April. The recommendations below reflect the feedback shared in the context of that April COSOW meeting, and other follow-up conversations. Sasha Gayle-Schneider, a representative from the HHCS Office of the Director team, would welcome hearing from you to set up a one-on-one conversation for more in-depth feedback and recommendation review.

The Department of Health Housing and Community Services is conducting a rigorous process to engage community members, clients, and service providers on priority policy areas in line with a “care-first” model of social service provision. Stakeholder input and feedback is collected through continued community-based surveying, one-on-one meetings with community leaders, community field outreach at encampments, shelters and service centers as well as via commission and community forum information reports. Additionally, HHCS conducted a review of best practices in the field of non-carceral social policy, building upon the work and legacy of working groups nation-wide who have sought to implement similar Care First Jails Last initiatives. HHCS then used evaluative criteria to measure the efficacy and feasibility of various interventions. Criteria include:
1) Harm Reduction: Does this recommendation reduce the number of people who cycle through crisis & carceral systems? Does this recommendation reduce the harm and trauma caused by those systems, to the individual?
2) Transformation: Does this recommendation reinforce the status quo, or would its implementation meaningfully create new pathways/investments in public safety (crisis diversion & stabilization)? Does this recommendation support the healing and long-term positive change for everyone involved in an incidence of violence?
3) Political Feasibility: Is this recommendation responsive to the needs and priorities of the Berkeley community?
4) Financial Feasibility: Is the implementation of this recommendation financially possible, given budgetary constraints?
HHCS has completed a rigorous best practice research review, will continue to gather crucial community feedback, and has identified the following interventions:
• Recommendation 1: Restorative Justice & Circle Work
• Recommendation 2: Financial Stabilization & Independence • Recommendation 3: Language Access for Survivors of Violence • Recommendation 4: Support for Emergency Shelter Beds for Survivors of Violence • Recommendation 5: Young People’s Involvement in Community Violence Survey • Recommendation 6: Trauma-Informed, Non-Carceral Crisis Response • Recommendation 7: Law Enforcement Protocol Responding to Occupational Survival Crimes

Recommendation 1: Restorative Justice & Circle Work
Needs Assessment
In the City of Berkeley, survivors of violence have few pathways to seek justice, most of which currently involve the court system or other carceral means. The Alameda County Court System offers survivors of inter-personal violence can access a public defender and a court-appointed representative from the Victim & Witness Services Division. This representative can provide the survivor with restitution support, crisis intervention, court escort, employer intervention and witness relocation. They cannot, however, facilitate a healing or justice-seeking process outside of a court or carceral system.

The Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS) are surveying members of the public who self-identify as having survived incidence of violence, on their social service support system experiences, needs, preferences and priorities.

HHCS has also conducted a review of Restorative Justice best practices, utilized by other municipalities. Studies show that incarceration does not produce behavioral transformation amongst those who have perpetrated acts of harm, nor does it support long-term safety, security and justice for the survivor. Restorative Justice (RJ) circles offer a different pathway forward – one in which the person(s) who have survived the harm and the person(s) who have committed an act of violence are both cared for, healing and seeking justice in the context of their community setting.

Project Proposal
Establish an effective restorative justice program, crisis mediation and violence prevention program to mediate within a community, multiple individuals, or family system. The City of Berkeley hopes to secure funding for a two-year pilot, sub-contracting with a local Community Based Organization (CBO) to deliver Restorative Justice services to COB residents. The drafted scope of work for this project includes:
• 2 FTE for a 2-year pilot contract. Peer educators with a Transformative Justice background and/or social workers who will be trained on the job. RJ Practitioners are not case managers, clinicians, therapists or court advocates.
• RJ Practitioners facilitate a conflict mediation process outside of the court system and can refer to others who can support the survivor in getting other safety/financial need met. • RJ practitioners will work closely with Berkeley Mental Health, the Specialized Care Unit, Berkeley Police Department and Community-Based Organizations across the city to triage referrals.
• All survivors of inter-personal, domestic, intimate partner, or gender-based violence can connect with an RJ practitioner through referral process and request a circle/mediation process. • Mediation circles can be facilitated instead of or in addition to a simultaneous court process – should the survivor also wish to pursue legal action in response to the harm.

Current Progress and Next Steps
The City Manager’s Office and HHCS are exploring State and Federal grant opportunities with contracted partner, California Consultants, which is providing support with all projects related to the Reimagining Public Safety initiative.

Recommendation 2: Financial Stabilization & Independence Needs Assessment
Through conversations with front-line service providers, Case Managers at local Community- Based Organizations, the Commission on the Status of Women, and HHCS leadership, stakeholders concur that there is a need for greater coordinated care across the City of Berkeley. Job training programs are among the areas most in-need of further coordination, as many residents are under- employed or unable to get connected to adequate opportunities that would support long-term financial security. When community members receive job training and connection to meaningful, community- based employment opportunities, one’s access to greater financial security, housing opportunity and other social securities grow in abundance.

Project Proposal
HHCS proposes coordinating services amongst pre-existing and funded employment programs, case management services, and build relationship with employment programs for people who identify as survivors of domestic, intimate partner or gender-based violence – specifically LGBQ+, TGI and/or cisgender women. Social service agencies will utilize tax credits, stipends, vouchers (housing, transit or otherwise), motel conversions and/or cash benefit programs to address the costs incurred when cisgender women, LGBQ+ people and TGI people seeking safety away from abusive or violent relationships.

Current Progress and Next Steps
HHCS currently supports a number of under-utilized job training programs. Additionally, HHCS is developing a social service directory to better connect Berkeley residents to service providers, case managers, and relevant City of Berkeley resources. This directory, anticipated completion in early 2025, will list organizations phone numbers, website, where to access services in-person, and a brief description of the services offered. The social service directory categories include but are not limited to the following:
• Case Management & Support Navigating Benefits/Social Services • Crisis Response
• Disability Rights & Advocacy
• Domestic, Gender-Based and Intimate Partner Violence Resources • Job Training & Financial Stabilization Programs
• Harm Reduction & Substance Use
• Housing & Shelter
• Legal & Advocacy Assistance
• Immigration, Identification Documents & Translation Services • LGBTQ+ Services
• Medical & Dental
• Mental Health
• Police Misconduct
• Shelter & Housing
• Youth & Family Services

Recommendation 3: Language Access for Survivors of Violence Needs Assessment
In Phase 2 of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, the City Council allocated $15,000 to support the publication of resources for survivors of violence in plain language and multiple languages, both in print and digital formats. This funding is aimed at enhancing accessibility, ensuring that critical information and support services are available to all community members, including those with limited English proficiency and low literacy levels. This effort is in line with the recommendations from the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force Report and informed by Census Data analyzed by an Epidemiologist from the Public Health Officer’s Unit.

Project Proposal
HHCS and the City Manager’s Office are working in tandem to produce a comprehensive public resource document for survivors of domestic, intimate partner and gender-based violence. The resource document will be published in the top five most popular languages used by monolingual residents of the City of Berkeley and will be available in a variety of public spaces (libraries, social service centers, etc.).

Current Progress and Next Steps
The team aims to complete the translation and publication of victim resources by the end of the calendar year. As the initiative enters Phase 3, the DEI Officer will explore further projects to enhance language equity. This will support the expansion of resource translation, focusing on critical areas identified for sustainable and inclusive growth.

Recommendation 4: Support for Emergency Shelters
Needs Assessment
This intervention was made by Berkeley’s Commission on the Status of Women (COSOW), requesting a rigorous needs assessment and review of the current emergency shelter services available for women, families, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people. COSOW members noted the need for increased bed capacity and accessible non-congregate shelters for Berkeley residence. HHCS partners with local shelters, whose staff and client base are comprised of survivors of violence and/or regularly support survivors in navigated domestic violence-specific resources.

Project Proposal
Phase 1: Conduct qualitative review of current service offerings and needs assessment of shelter quality of care, non-congregate bed capacity for survivors of domestic, intimate partner and gender- based violence.

Phase 2: Report on community survey learnings and integrate feedback into Berkeley’s pre- existing 24/7 shelter programs, emphasizing short/medium term housing stabilization options, for survivors of domestic violence.

Current Progress and Next Steps
HHCS will continue to work with key community stakeholders including but not limited to Community Based Organizations leading the provision of Berkeley’s shelter services, members of the Commission on the Status of Women, the Housing and Community Services division, as well as other community leaders in service provider settings, to establish a project scope and survey format.

Recommendation 5: Young People’s Involvement in Community Violence Survey Needs Assessment
Various organizational representatives and members of the Commission on the Status of Women identified a clear need to include young people (Transition Aged Youth 18-25 & high school aged Berkeley residents).

Project Proposal
The Office of the Director is working with a variety of Community-Based Organizations to scope a rigorous and thoughtful survey focused on domestic, intimate partner and gender-based violence related experiences people aged 14-18, and 18-25 may have in their lives and homes.

Current Progress and Next Steps
The City of Berkeley is building relationship with leadership from the UC Berkeley Tang Center Behavioral Health division and Berkeley High School’s Mental Health Services program. These relationships, in addition to those with community leaders, will inform the project scope, feasibility and survey format and questions.

Recommendation 6: Trauma-Informed Non-Carceral Crisis Response Needs Assessment
In their original recommendation reports for the Specialized Care Unit pilot project, Resource Development Associates identified the need for a non-police mobile response team to respond to selective, non-violent domestic disturbance calls for service. In tandem, Leadership from Berkeley Police Department, the Specialized Care Unit and the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services have identified a need to solidify such a policy, which already functions as standard operating protocol within BPD.

Project Proposal
This exploratory recommendation follows the best practice recommendations authored by the Los Angeles County Alternatives to Incarceration working group. Solidify pre-existing standard operating protocol within BPD: when BPD responds to a domestic disturbance call for service, and officers on site have determined their law enforcement presence is no longer needed, BPD can contact the Specialized Care Unit to support all parties on site in accessing post-crisis care. In doing so, the Berkeley’s crisis response service network expands, diversifies and strengthens the City’s ability to respond to low-level calls for service with appropriate, trauma-informed resources.

Current Progress and Next Steps
Leaders from the Specialized Care Unit (SCU) and Berkeley Police Department are standardizing a decision tree and protocol to responding to low-level, non-violence domestic disturbance calls. The Department of Health, Housing and Community Services will provide additional crisis scene management training to frontline SCU staff, as a part of the City’s commitment to community safety and continuous improvements to quality of care.

Recommendation 7: Law Enforcement Protocol Responding
to Occupational Survival Crimes
Needs Assessment
Sex work is currently criminalized and highly stigmatized in the United States. Individuals who engage in sex work as a means of survival are exposed to high levels of harassment, isolation, violence, housing and financial instability. "Sex worker" is a term to refer to people who work in all aspects of the sex trades, indoor and street-based, legal and criminalized, and can include people who trade sex for money as well as safety, drugs, hormones, and other survival needs such as food, shelter, clothing, or immigration status/documentation. Existing laws that criminalize sex work often prevent workers from reporting violence, rather than understand this work to be among many areas of survival-based professions – with participating workers deserving of protection and trauma-informed social services. (Excerpts from INCITE! website)
Project Proposal
Reassess law enforcement practices and policies on arrests/bookings for sex work, especially given the racial disparities with respect to Black women. Prioritize pre-arrest diversion of cisgender women, LGBQ+ people and TGI people engaged in sex work with connection to job training and placement programs and peer outreach workers who can offer voluntary harm reduction services. This exploratory recommendation follows the best practice recommendations authored by the Los Angeles County Alternatives to Incarceration working group.

Current Progress and Next Steps
BPD and HHCS will collaborate, drafting updated protocols for consideration, to support a Care- First approach to sex work-related interactions with law enforcement officers.

APPENDIX G
Fair & Impartial Policing (FIP) Update Supporting Materials

From: Chief Jen Louis, Berkeley Police Department
Co-signed by: Chair Josh Cayetano, Police Accountability Board Date: May 5, 2025
To: Berkeley City Council Public Safety Policy Committee Subject: Fair & Impartial Policing (FIP) — Final Status and Recommendation The work of Mayor Arreguin’s Fair and Impartial Policing (FIP) Task Force represents a significant commitment by the City of Berkeley to foster greater trust, equity, and accountability in policing within our community. In 2021, following the foundational work of FIP Task Force, the Berkeley City Council approved a comprehensive package encompassing 14 key recommendations designed to achieve these goals. We are pleased to report that over the past four years the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) has implemented the council-approved FIP recommendations. This process involved regular quarterly updates from BPD and concluded with a thorough review by the Police Accountability Board (PAB).

Furthermore, all related datasets now appear on the Transparency Hub, giving the PAB, Council, and the community continuous access to data for effective oversight.

Qualified Positive Recommendation
BPD and PAB jointly request the Public Safety Policy Committee make a qualified positive recommendation of the PAB’s item for the following policy areas already incorporated into day-to-day operations:

PAB Recommendation Refined Action

1. Three-prong
approach
Maintain the current traffic safety approach, which has led to a measurable decline in equipment-based stops and improved equity in stop outcomes across demographic groups

2. Evidence-based stops Require evidence-based stops that meet reasonable-suspicion standards and rely on precision-policing data.

3. Enhanced implicit
bias training
Continue to prioritize ABLE, KIND and CIT training for departmental personnel.

4. Early Intervention
System (EIS)
Finish deploying the Benchmark Analytics Early Intervention System within the calendar year and prioritize revising BPD Policy 1041, Early Warning System.

8. Business cards Continue issuing business cards that list commendation and complaint options.

9. Resources on police-
civilian encounters
Continue to post links to ACLU guidance on police-civilian interactions through existing city webpages.
(To council)

3. Require BPD to report
biannually
Include in BPD’s Annual Report a data-driven analysis of traffic enforcement, including moving and equipment violations. This analysis will support departmental reporting on collision data and serve as a measure of effectiveness, in line with BPD’s commitment to ensuring our enforcement efforts are fair and impartial.

Additional Points
• Transparency is permanent. Stop and search metrics refresh daily online via the Department’s Transparency Hub without staff intervention, providing timely transparency. As such, additional written updates through this process are no longer necessary. • Enforcement focus: Guided by Fair and Impartial Policing principles and data analysis, BPD's enforcement efforts increasingly prioritize actions directly addressing public safety needs. The PAB's charter-defined oversight responsibilities play a key role in ensuring this focus remains consistent and equitable.
• Collaboration continues. BPD and PAB maintain regular communication and operate within the collaborative framework established by the City Charter. Either party may initiate dialogue on emerging or ongoing issues. With the conclusion of the FIP implementation reporting, no additional standing reporting cycle is proposed at this time; however, routine collaboration between the parties will continue as part of standard practice.

Closing the FIP Task-Force Item
The core principles of fair and impartial policing have been fundamentally integrated into the Department’s ongoing policies, training, and operational practices. These practices reflect a sustained, department-wide commitment to equity and accountability. Given this progress, and in recognition of the collaborative work already achieved, we jointly recommend that the PSPC make a qualified positive recommendation on the PAB-endorsed items, issue negative recommendations on the remaining proposals, and advise the City Council to formally close the FIP item as a concluded policy initiative.

Thank you for the opportunity to streamline this material for Council review and consideration.

Respectfully
Chief Jennifer Louis
Berkeley Police Department
Joshua Cayetano, Chair
Police Accountability Board

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

SPECIAL MEETING MI NUTES
Thursday, May 8, 2025
12:30 PM
Cypress Room – 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Committee Members:

Councilmembers Rashi Kesarwani, Shoshana O’Keefe, and Brent Blackaby Alternate: Mayor Adena Ishii
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in- person attendance and virtual participation. All Committee meetings are recorded.

Use this URL https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1612176798 t o access the meeting remotely. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom. To join by phone: Dial 1- 669-254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and Enter Meeting ID: 161 217 6798. To provide public comment, press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. To submit a written communication for the Committee ’s consideration and inclusion in the public record, email [email protected].

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

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

California Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act) Parties to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use are required to disclose if they made contributions over $500 within the prior 12 months to any City employee or officer. Parties and participants with a financial interest are prohibited from making more than $500 in contributions to a decisionmaker for the 12 months after the final decision is rendered on the proceeding. The above contribution disclosures and restrictions do not apply when the proceeding is competitively bid, or involves a personnel or labor contract. For more information, see Government Code Section 84308.

MINUTES
Roll Call 12:3
1 p.m.

Present: Kesarwani, O’Keefe, Blackaby

Absent: None
Minutes for Approval
Draft minutes for the Committee's consideration and approval.

1. Minutes - March 24, 2025
Action: M/S/C (Kesarwani/Blackaby) to approve the March 24, 2025 minutes.

Vote: All Ayes.

Committee Action Items
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. The Chair will determine the number of persons interested in speaking on each item. Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Chair may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes.

Following review and discussion of the items listed below, the Committee may continue an item to a future committee meeting, or refer the item to the City Council.

2. Police Accountability Board Report: Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation (Item contains supplemental material)
From: Police Accountability Board
Referred: January 27, 2025
Du
e: June 16, 2025
Recommendation: Approve the following recommendations and instruct the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) and Police Accountability Board (PAB) to proceed with their implementation:

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.
d. Community Caretaking: This prong needs more specificity, 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 eliminating stops for low-level offenses— a primary focus of the Council directive—in a manner that supports an overall assessment and an understanding of the approach’s impact 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 precision-based policing, feedback loops, and accountability measures referenced in BPD FIP implementation updates relate to this recommendation and addresses the directive to establish an evidence-based definition for stopping criminal suspects.

3. Enhanced implicit bias training: Per the Council's directive, ensure that BPD personnel receive intensive annual training dedicated to implicit bias.

4. EIS: Pending the deployment of a new Early 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 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 the council should include the number of consent searches conducted per reporting period and their effect on racial disparities in searches, compared 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 searches and arrests of people on probation and parole and the racial disparities in them.

7. Profiling by proxy: Future BPD updates should specify what instructions dispatchers are given on profiling by proxy, and any impact the instruction and corresponding Communications Manual amendments have had on racial disparities 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.

2. Crisis Intervention Team (CIT): The 2021 Council item refers to the PAB accelerating CIT activity. This will be discussed in future PAB meetings.

Recommendations to the Berkeley City Council

1. Establish metrics to assess the success of implementing 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.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Hansel Aguilar, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-4950

Action: 1 speaker. M/S/C (Blackaby/Kesarwani) to send item to City Council with a qualified positive recommendation highlighting the refined actions agreed upon by PAB and BPD as captured in their joint letter, and to close the Fair and Impartial Policing (FIP) Task Force referral from the February 23, 2021 City Council meeting, with the understanding that the specific recommendations in that referral have been completed, although work on fair and impartial policing will continue.

Vote: All Ayes.

Unscheduled Items
These items are not scheduled for discussion or action at this meeting. The Committee may schedule these items to the Action Calendar of a future Committee meeting.

3. Discussion Item: Update on the Five-Year Infrastructure Plan and how it factors in with reduction of traffic violence
From: Councilmember Tregub
Contact: Igor Tregub, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140

Items for Future Agendas
• Discussion Item: Potential funding mechanisms for financing EMBER program implementation
Action: M/S/C (Blackaby/O’Keefe) to add future agenda item Vote: All Ayes

Adjournment
Action: M/S/C (Kesarwani /O’Keefe) to adjourn the meeting Vote: All Ayes

Adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct record of the Public Safety Committee meeting held on May 8, 2025.

_______________________________
Wendy Sorensen, Assistant City Clerk

Communications
Communications submitted to City Council Policy Committees are on file in the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley, CA, and are available upon request by contacting the City Clerk Department at (510) 981-6908 or [email protected].

APPENDIX H
Translated Domestic Violence Brochure Samples

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: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Restaurant Inspection Audit Status Report

INTRODUCTION
On July 10, 2024, the City Auditor submitted an audit report1 on the status of Restaurant Inspections to the City Council, including recommendations to improve the overall delivery of services for the food safety inspection program. This is the second status report updating the City Council on the implementation of those recommendations.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The audit included nine recommendations. As of the writing of this report:
 One recommendation has been fully implemented.
 Six recommendations are partly implemented.
 One recommendation has not yet been started.
 One recommendation has been changed from started to not yet started based on the Auditor’s assessment of the removal of the Open Data Portal.

Recommendations currently tracked as "partly implemented" require further development and implementation of revised policies and procedures, integration of new staff hires, and the implementation of technological solutions, such as the planned upgrade to the Accela database.

The Environmental Health Division (EHD) experienced significant backlogs in meeting inspection frequencies during the COVID-19 Pandemic. EHD has been working hard to fill vacancies and is now approaching pre-pandemic staffing levels, with four food inspectors and a supervisor who started in February 2025. This will enable EHD to perform required inspections in a timely manner.
1 Berkeley Restaurant Inspections: Chronically Understaffed Program Did Not Meet Targets https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley_Restaurant_Inspections_- _Chronically_Understaffed_Program_Did_Not_Meet_Targets.pdf

19

Restaurant Inspection Audit Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

For a detailed table of audit report recommendations, corrective action plans, and implementation progress, please see Attachment 1. The next status report to Council is anticipated in Fall 2026.

BACKGROUND
Local Health Jurisdictions are responsible for determining the frequency of inspections based on the needs of the community and available resources. In 2015, EHD transitioned to a risk-based food inspection process, following the guidelines established by the Federal Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards. This program categorizes permitted food facilities (restaurants, grocery markets, schools, bars, etc.) based on the complexity of food handling and populations served, assigning them to one of four "Risk Categories" (RC-1 to RC-4). Each RC designation dictates the minimum number of annual inspections a facility receives. During the early stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic EHD staff were reassigned to assist with the pandemic. In addition, EHD faced staffing shortages due to promotions to other departments, prolonged staff illnesses, and hiring freezes in FY2021 and FY2022. Once the hiring freeze was lifted, EHD experienced additional budgetary challenges and a limited pool of qualified applicants for vacant supervisor and inspector positions, a statewide issue for jurisdictions providing environmental health services. Unfortunately, during this time the City’s food inspection policies were not adjusted resulting in audit findings of delinquent inspections.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects associated with the subject of this report.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
On September 24, 2024, the Council made a budget referral to the November 2024 budget process of $100,000 for the City Manager to engage an independent consultant to conduct an analysis of the current structure of the Environmental Health Food Inspection Program and provide recommendations for alternative models, staffing levels, and increased use of technology to improve customer service. To date, this referral has not been included in final budget proposals.

In addition, EHD is currently undergoing a division-wide fee study, as fees have not been analyzed in over ten years. This study will also evaluate current staffing needs to determine adequacy for the food safety inspection program and other departmental responsibilities, including vector control, noise complaints, stormwater inspections, swimming pools and spas, retail tobacco, and body art. Fee recommendations will be brought to Council Fall 2025.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
HHCS is in the final stages of completing a comprehensive fee study for the Environmental Health Division. Once the study is complete, a recommendation will be brought to Council for consideration.

Restaurant Inspection Audit Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services (510) 981-5400 Attachments:
1: Audit Findings, Recommendations and Status Updates

Finding Department Last period: status Current status update Partly implemented. The Division set up revenue and
expenditure codes for the food inspection program. They will begin to be in use on July 1, 2025. We will assess the
implementation of this recommendation during the next
follow up cycle, or when a report is available.

The Division did not track spending and
left critical positions vacant.

2.4 Work with the Department of Information Technology (IT) to develop list of database functionalities and/or data points needed to help meet the Division’s targets and produce reports.

If the current database cannot provide this functionality, document the limitations of the current database and include these requirements in the future request for proposals for a new database.

HHCS Started. Partly implemented. The Division issued an RFP for a third- party vendor to facilitate and manage the transition of data from the old database to a new database. To implement this recommendation, we will assess whether the new database contains data points needed to help meet the Division’s targets and produce reports.

The Division did not track spending and
left critical positions vacant.

2.1 Work with the Budget Office to track how the food inspection program revenues are used. HHCS Partly implemented.

Partly implemented. Partly implemented. The Division has added a risk designation for all food facilities in the Envision database.

The Division issued an RFP for a third-party vendor to
facilitate and manage the transition of data from the old database to a new database, which according to the Division will improve data accuracy. To implement this
recommendation, we would like to see evidence that the
new database can produce an accurate list of facilities prioritized by the last inspection date. We would also like to see a written procedure that details how the Division will ensure that the database is complete with all food facilities that should be permitted and inspected.

The Division did not track spending and
left critical positions vacant.

2.2 Take the following steps to fill positions and assess program staffing: (a) Open recruitment for the supervisor position. (b) If the recruitments for the supervisor and food inspector positions do not yield qualified candidates, work with the Human Resources Department (HR) to develop targeted recruitments for the inspector and supervisor roles. This may include conducting an analysis of compensation or other factors that affect recruitment. (c) Develop a trainee program to build a pipeline into the Division’s inspector positions. (d) Work with HR as needed to identify staffing resources needed to meet inspection targets.

HHCS Partly implemented. Partly implemented. The Division hired an inspector in October 2024 and a supervisor in February 2025. The
Division plans to pursue a training program in the future once staffing levels are stable. To implement this
recommendation, we would like an update on the staffing resources needed to meet inspection targets and plans to develop a training program.

Partly implemented. The Division has updated its internal policies to include guidance for responding to complaints of alleged foodborne illness in districts assigned to vacant positions. To mark the recommendation implemented, we
would like to see a more detailed plan that explains how the Division will ensure complaints are inspected in a timely fashion.

Started. The Division was significantly behind on
inspections in 2023, increasing health
risk.

1.2 Develop a plan to ensure timely response to complaints involving alleged foodborne illness, which may require the Division to prioritize health and safety duties over other responsibilities.

HHCS
The Division did not track spending and
left critical positions vacant.

2.3 Make the following updates to the inspection data: (a) Add a risk designation to all food facilities in the Envision database. (b) Correct the date of last inspection in the Envision software that inspectors use during inspections, or develop a workaround to ensure inspectors have an accurate list of facilities prioritized by last inspection date. (c) Develop a process to regularly verify that the Envision database includes all food facilities that should be permitted and inspected.

HHCS
Audit Title: Berkeley Restaurant Inspections: Chronically Understaffed Program Did Not Meet Targets Issue Date: July 10, 2024
Recommendation
The Division was significantly behind on
inspections in 2023, increasing health
risk.

1.1 Develop a plan to improve coverage of routine inspections throughout the City, which may require the Division to prioritize health and safety duties over other responsibilities. As part of this process: (a) Evaluate inspection targets to determine if current inspection frequencies are achievable, or establish different temporary targets to adapt to periods of understaffing. (b) Establish a baseline of inspection coverage for all permitted food facilities in the City and prioritize inspection of facilities with high risk and very high risk designations that were not inspected in 2023.

HHCS Implemented. The Division developed new policies that include revised inspection targets for periods of short staffing and a baseline of at least one inspection per year.

According to the Division, all high and very high risk facilities that were not inspected in 2023 have now been inspected.

Started.

The Division did not track spending and
left critical positions vacant.

2.5 Identify performance metrics and report them to the public at least annually. HHCS Started. Partly implemented. The Division is undergoing Results Based Accountability training and is in the process of
developing and identifying performance metrics for the Food Safety and Inspection program. These performance metrics have not yet been finalized or reported publicly.

Public information about food safety
was limited.

3.2 Develop a plan to implement placarding in Berkeley once staffing levels are stable. As part of this process: (a) Assess resources needed to implement placarding. (b) Consider adding elements such as community engagement for designing and implementing evidence-based, equitable placarding.

HHCS Not started. Not Started.

Public information about food safety
was limited.

3.1 Work with Department of Information Technology (IT) to update the online system for sharing information on food inspections. As part of this process: (a) Develop internal guidance informed by state code that details what information the Division will share with the public online and defines responsibility for managing the data. (b) Make inspection history available online for all permitted food facilities in Berkeley. This could include sharing a copy of the most recent inspection report.

HHCS Not started. The Division removed the information about food inspections that was previously provided on the City’s Open Data Portal. The Division will be upgrading its database system and plans to incorporate online features for easy public access to food facility inspection results, including state requirements for voluntary online posting of inspection results.

Started.

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 2009 Tenth Street/#LMSAP2025-0003

INTRODUCTION
The attached Landmarks Preservation Commission Notice of Decision (NOD) is presented to the Mayor and City Council pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code/Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (BMC/LPO) Section 3.24.240.A, which requires that “a copy of the Notice of Decision shall be filed with the City Clerk and the City Clerk shall present said copy to the City Council at its next regular meeting.”

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC/Commission) has approved a Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) for the subject Structure of Merit property. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period, which began on July 8, 2025, the day after the notice was mailed.

BACKGROUND
BMC/LPO Section 3.24.300 allows City Council to review any action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission in granting or denying a Structural Alteration Permit. For Council to review the decision on its merits, Council must appeal the Notice of Decision.

To do so, a Council member must move this Information Item to Action and then move to set the matter for hearing on its own. Such action must be taken within 15 days of the mailing of the Notice of Decision, or by July 22, 2025. Such certification to Council shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal.

If the Council chooses to appeal the action of the Commission, then a public hearing will be set. The Council must then rule on the designation within 30 days of closing the hearing, otherwise the decision of the Commission is automatically deemed affirmed.

Unless the Council wishes to review the determination of the Commission and make its own decision, the attached NOD is deemed received and filed.

20

Notice of Decision: 2009 Tenth Street/#LMSAP2025-0003 INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE IMPACTS
Landmark designation and discretionary alteration reviews by staff and LPC provide opportunities for the adaptive re-use and rehabilitation of historic resources within the City. The rehabilitation of these resources, rather than their removal, achieves construction and demolition waste diversion, and promotes investment in existing urban centers.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Council may choose to appeal the decision, in which case it would conduct a public hearing at a future date.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no known fiscal impacts associated with this action.

CONTACT PERSON
Boshi Fu, Assistant Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7544 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMSAP2025-0003/2009 Tenth Street

Attachment 1, Part 1

L A N D M A R K S

P R E S E R V A T I O N

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: June 5, 2025
DATE NOTICE MAILED: July 7, 2025
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: July 22, 2025
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): July 23, 20251 2009 Tenth Street – The West Berkeley YMCA
Structural Alteration Permit #LMSAP2025-0003 to replace windows, remove and replace deteriorated exterior stucco, and replace existing awnings in- kind, at the south portion of a Structure of Merit property.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the Structural Alteration Permit request.  Applicant Claire Jung & Vadim Mishchuk, Sidell Pakravan Architects 2445 Sixth Street
Berkeley, CA
 Property Owner Young Men’s Christian Association of the East Bay 2330 Broadway
Oakland, CA
ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple-Family Residential District (R-3) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation.

The application materials for this project is available online at:
1 Pursuant to BMC Chapter 3.24, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, which has the same effect as an appeal. In most cases, the Council must certify the LPC decision during the 14-day appeal period. However, pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if any portion of the appeal period falls within a Council recess, the deadline for Council certification is suspended until the first Council meeting after the recess, plus the number of days of the appeal period that occurred during the recess, minus one day. If there is no appeal or certification, the Use Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-0003
2009 Tenth Street
Mailed: July 7, 2025

https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/zoning-projects or https://permits.cityofberkeley.info/CitizenAccess/Default.aspx

FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPROVED PLANS ARE ATTACHED

TO THIS NOTICE
COMMISSION VOTE: 7-0-0-1
YES: ENCHILL, FINACOM, LEUSCHNER, HALL-MONTGOMERY, ORBUCH, PLESE,

SCHWARTZ
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: CRANDALL
TO APPEAL THIS DECISION (see Section 3.24.300 of the Berkeley Municipal Code):

To appeal a decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to the City Council you must:

1. Submit a letter clearly and concisely setting forth the grounds for the appeal to the City Clerk, located at 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley. The City Clerk’s telephone number is (510) 981-6900.
a. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.300.A, an appeal may be taken to the City Council by the application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents, or by the application of at least fifty residents of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the commission made under the provisions of Chapter 3.24.

2. Submit the required fee (checks and money orders must be payable to ‘City of Berkeley’):
a. The basic fee for persons other than the applicant is $1,500. This fee may be reduced to $500 if the appeal is signed by persons who lease or own at least 50 percent of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or at least 25 such persons (not including dependent children), whichever is less. Signatures collected per the filing requirement in BMC Section 3.24.300.A may be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee, so long as the signers are qualified. The individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.
b. The fee for appeals of affordable housing projects (defined as projects which provide 50 percent or more affordable units for households earning 80% or less of Area Median Income) is $500, which may not be reduced.
c. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $6,000.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-0003
2009 Tenth Street
Mailed: July 7, 2025

3. The appeal must be received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the "APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION" date shown above (if the close of the appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the appeal period expires the following business day).

If no appeal is received, the Structural Alteration Permit will be final on the first business day following expiration of the appeal period.

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

If you object to this decision, the following requirements and restrictions apply:

1. If you challenge this decision 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 Landmarks Preservation Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.

2. You must appeal to the City Council within fifteen (15) days after the Notice of Decision of the action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is mailed. It is your obligation to notify the Land Use Planning Division in writing of your desire to receive a Notice of Decision when it is completed.

3. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b) and Government Code Section 65009(c)(1), no lawsuit challenging a City Council decision, as defined by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(e), regarding a use permit, variance or other permit may be filed more than ninety (90) days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b). Any lawsuit not filed within that ninety (90) day period will be barred.

4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), notice is hereby given to the applicant that the 90-day protest period for any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions included in any permit approval begins upon final action by the City, and that any challenge must be filed within this 90-day period.

5. If you believe that this decision or any condition attached to it denies you any reasonable economic use of the subject property, was not sufficiently related to a legitimate public purpose, was not sufficiently proportional to any impact of the project, or for any other reason constitutes a “taking” of property for public use without just compensation under the California or United States Constitutions, your appeal of this decision must include the following information:

A. That this belief is a basis of your appeal.

B. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a "taking" of property as set forth above.

C. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” as set forth above.

If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been taken, both before the City Council and in court.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-0003
2009 Tenth Street
Mailed: July 7, 2025

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees 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 a City board, commission or committee, 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 secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. 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 secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Boshi Fu, at (510) 981- 7544 or [email protected]. All project application materials may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, 3rd Fl., during regular business hours.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Project Plans
ATTEST:

Anne Hersch, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Claire Jung & Vadim Mishchuk, Sidell Pakravan Architects, 2445 Sixth St, Berkeley, CA Young Men’s Christian Association of the East Bay, 2330 Broadway, Oakland, CA

A t t a c h m e n t 1, Part 2
F i n d i n g s a n d C o n d i t i o n s
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 2009 Tenth Street (West Berkeley YMCA)
Structural Alteration Permit (#LMSAP2025-0003) to replace windows, remove and replace deteriorated exterior stucco, and replace existing awnings in-kind, at the south portion of a Structure of Merit property.

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA

1. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, §15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines (“Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation”).

FINDINGS RELATED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS Regarding the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOI) for Rehabilitation (36 CFR Part 67), the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley makes the following findings:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

Evidence: The proposed project does not involve a change of use. The building will continue to serve its community-serving function.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

Evidence: The project involves limited exterior alterations, including replacement of non- original vinyl windows, deteriorated stucco, and entry awnings. The massing, raised vertical panels, and façade rhythm will remain unchanged. All new materials will match the existing conditions in appearance and placement, ensuring that the architectural character of the property is preserved.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken Evidence: The project will not propose any conjectural features or create any false sense of history. New windows and awnings will be compatible with the existing design.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2009 TENTH STREET – #LMSAP2025-0003 JUNE 5, 2025 Page 2 of 4

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved:

Evidence: No prior alterations have acquired significance in their own right, therefore, no such features will be affected.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

Evidence: The project will preserve character-defining features, including the original raised vertical panels, and the three large windows on the left side of the front façade, which will not be in the scope of this project. Stucco replacement is limited to deteriorated areas and will be applied to match the original in texture and color. The distinctive visual appearance and façade that define the building’s Art Deco character will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.

Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

Evidence: The stucco replacement is in-kind, along the south and east façade, while all character-defining raised vertical panels will remain intact. No original historic features will be removed unless required by deterioration and no missing features are proposed to be reconstructed.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

Evidence: No chemical or physical treatments are proposed. Standard conditions of approval for a Structural Alteration Permit will require any potential chemical or physical treatments to be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved.

If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

Evidence: The project does not have the potential to affect any archaeological resources because the project does not require any excavation or ground disturbance.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

Evidence: The new windows and replacement awnings are compatible in scale, proportion, and placement with the existing windows and awnings. While the windows will be constructed of new materials (fiberglass and finished in bronze), they will match the

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2009 TENTH STREET – #LMSAP2025-0003 JUNE 5, 2025 Page 3 of 4
existing openings and profiles. The awnings will be replaced in the same locations with comparable size and appearance. The project does not destroy historic materials or relationships and will preserve the architectural character of the structure as viewed from the street and surrounding area.

10.New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Evidence: All proposed work is surface-level and does not alter the building’s structural form or massing. The replacement windows and awnings will be installed within existing openings and attachment points, and no invasive construction is proposed. If these alterations were removed in the future, the essential form, proportions, and architectural character of the historic building and its setting would remain intact and unimpaired.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2009 TENTH STREET – #LMSAP2025-0003 JUNE 5, 2025 Page 4 of 4

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE

1. As required by Section 3.24.260 of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the Commission finds that the proposed work is appropriate for and consistent with the purposes of the Ordinance, and will preserve the characteristics and features specified in the designation for this property. Specifically:

A. For applications relating to landmark sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the landmark and, where specified in the designation for a publicly owned landmark, its major interior architectural features; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site, as viewed both in themselves and in their setting.

Evidence: N/A; The West Berkeley YMCA is not a City of Berkeley landmark and this finding is therefore not relevant or applicable to this Structural Alteration Permit.

B. For applications relating to property in historic districts, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the subject property or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including facade, setback and height; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. The proposed work shall also conform to such further standards as may be embodied in the designation of the historic district.

Evidence: N/A; The West Berkeley YMCA is not located within a designated City of Berkeley historic district. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to this Structural Alteration Permit.

C. For applications relating to structure of merit sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the architectural features if architectural merit is the basis for designation; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special cultural, educational or historical interest or value if that is the basis for designation.

Evidence: The West Berkeley YMCA was designated as a Structure of Merit in 1992 for its status as a fine example of the Art Deco style, part of the architectural legacy of Walter H. Ratcliff, Jr., and contributes to the neighborhood through its street-facing presence and historic role as a community-serving facility constructed with funds raised through neighborhood conscription.

The proposed work does not alter the building’s form, massing, or character-defining architectural features, including its vertical plaster reliefs and symmetrical Art Deco composition. Deteriorated stucco will be replaced in-kind, non-original windows will be replaced with compatible units, and awnings will be replaced in the same size and location. No original or character-defining materials will be removed. Because the architectural features and the building’s cultural identity will be preserved, the project will not adversely affect the attributes that designated this as a Structure of Merit.

E x h i b i t A
Conditions of Approval
J U N E 5 , 2 0 2 5
Page | 5
I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/ Implementation
Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Project Approval. This Structural Alteration Permit approval is for 2009 Tenth Street, as substantially shown and described on the project plans dated April 24, 2025, except as required to be modified by conditions herein and plans as presented to the Landmarks Preservation Commission on June 5, 2025 (“Approval Date.”). For any condition herein that requires preparation of a Final Plan where the project applicant has submitted a conceptual plan, the project applicant shall submit final plan(s) in substantial conformance with the conceptual plan, but incorporate the modifications required by the conditions herein for approval by the City.

City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning

2. Approval Limited to Proposed Project. This Permit authorizes only the proposed project described in the application. In no way does an approval authorize other uses, structures or activities not included in the project description.

City of Berkeley
BMC Sections

23.404.060
On-Going Land Use Planning

3. Compliance Required. All land uses and structures in Berkeley must comply with the Zoning Ordinance and all applicable City ordinances and regulations. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance does not relieve an applicant from requirements to comply with other federal, state, and City regulations that also apply to the property.

City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning

4. Conformance to Approved Plans. All work performed under an approved permit shall be in compliance with the approved plans and any Conditions of Approval.

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

23.404.060. B.4
On-Going Land Use Planning

6. Permit Revocation. The City may revoke or modify a discretionary permit for completed projects due to: 1) violations of permit requirements; 2) Changes to the approved project; and/or 3) Vacancy for one year or more. However, no lawful residential use can lapse, regardless of the length of time of the vacancy. Proceedings to revoke or modify a permit may be initiated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), or City Council referral.

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

23.404.080
On-Going Land Use Planning

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2009 TENTH STREET – #LMSAP2025-0003 JUNE 5, 2025 Page 6 of 10
Page | 6
I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/ Implementation
Enforcement/ Monitoring

8. Exercise and Expiration of Permits A permit authorizing a land use is exercised when both a valid City business license is issued (if required) and the land use is established on the property.

A. A permit authorizing a land use is exercised when both a valid City business license is issued (if required) and the land use is established on the property.

B. A permit authorizing construction is exercised when both a valid City building permit (if required) is issued and construction has lawfully begun.

C. The Zoning Officer may declare a permit lapsed if it is not exercised within one year of its issuance, except if the applicant has applied for a building permit or has made a substantial good faith effort to obtain a building permit and begin construction. The Zoning Officer may declare a permit lapsed only after 14 days written notice to the applicant. A determination that a permit has lapsed may be appealed to the ZAB in accordance with Chapter 23.410 (Appeals and Certification).

D. A permit declared lapsed shall be void and of no further force and effect. To establish the use or structure authorized by the lapsed permit, an applicant must apply for and receive City approval of a new permit.

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

23.404.060 (C)
“Time Limits”
On-Going Land Use Planning

9. Hold Harmless. The permittee agrees as a condition of approval of this application to indemnify, protect, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless, the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the approval of this application, any actions taken by the City related to this entitlement, or any environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 210000 et seq., for this entitlement and related actions.

The indemnification shall include any Claims that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the permittee, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2009 TENTH STREET – #LMSAP2025-0003 JUNE 5, 2025 Page 7 of 10
Page | 7
I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/ Implementation
Enforcement/ Monitoring
and agents. The permittee’s duty to defend the City shall not apply in those instances when the permittee has asserted the Claims, although the permittee shall still have a duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City.

II. At Building Permit Submittal Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Conditions of Approval on Building Permit Plan Submittal Structural Alteration Permit. The Conditions of Approval for this Structural Alteration Permit shall be printed on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit pursuant to this Structural Alteration Permit, under the title ‘Structural Alteration Permit Conditions.’ City of Berkeley At the Time of Building
Permit Submittal
Building & Safety/Land Use
Planning

2. Project Liaison. The applicant shall include in all building permit plans and post onsite the name and telephone number of an individual empowered to manage construction-related complaints generated from the project. The individual’s name, telephone number, and responsibility for the project shall be posted at the project site for the duration of the project in a location easily visible to the public. The individual shall record all complaints received and actions taken in response, and submit written reports of such complaints and actions to the project planner on a weekly basis.

Please designate the name of this individual below:
 Project Liaison ____________________________________________________ Name Phone #
City of Berkeley At the Time of Building
Permit Submittal
Building & Safety/Land Use
Planning

3. Construction and Demolition Diversion. The applicant shall submit a Construction Waste Management Plan that meets the requirements of BMC Chapter 19.37 including 100% diversion of asphalt, concrete, excavated soil and land-clearing debris and a minimum of 65% diversion of other nonhazardous construction and demolition waste.

City of Berkeley
BMC Chapter 19.37
At Building Permit
Submittal
Building & Safety Division

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2009 TENTH STREET – #LMSAP2025-0003 JUNE 5, 2025 Page 8 of 10
Page | 8
III. During Construction
A. Building & Safety Division
Regulation Source Timing/ Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring 1 Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety

2. 1. Construction Hours- Exceptions. It is recognized that certain construction activities, such as the placement of concrete, must be performed in a continuous manner and may require an extension of these work hours. Prior to initiating any activity that might require a longer period, the developer must notify the Zoning Officer and request an exception for a finite period of time.

If the Zoning Officer approves the request, then two weeks prior to the expanded schedule, the developer shall notify businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site describing the expanded construction hours. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the City for review and approval. The project shall not be allowed more than 15 extended working days.

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety

3. Construction / No Parking Permits. Contact the Permit Service Center (PSC) at 1947 Center Street, Third Floor or (510) 981-7500 for details on obtaining Construction/No Parking Permits (and associated signs and accompanying dashboard permits). Please note that the Zoning Officer and/or Traffic Engineer may limit off-site parking of construction-related vehicles if necessary to protect the health, safety or convenience of the surrounding neighborhood. A current copy of this Plan shall be available at all times at the construction site for review by City Staff.

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety
IV. During Construction
B. During Construction: Public Works
Regulation Source Timing/ Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Site Debris. All piles of debris, soil, sand, or other loose materials shall be covered at night and during rainy weather with plastic at least one-eighth millimeter thick and secured to the ground.

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2009 TENTH STREET – #LMSAP2025-0003 JUNE 5, 2025 Page 9 of 10
Page | 9

2. Street & Sidewalk Damages. Subject to approval of the Public Works Department, the applicant shall repair any damage to public streets and/or sidewalks by construction vehicles traveling to or from the project site.

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

3. Underground Utilities. If underground utilities leading to adjacent properties are uncovered and/or broken, the contractor involved shall immediately notify the Public Works Department and the Building & Safety Division, and carry out any necessary corrective action to their satisfaction
City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

4. Hauling of Debris. Trucks hauling debris, soil, sand, or other loose materials shall be covered or required to maintain at least two feet of board.

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works
V. Structural Alteration Permit Conditions
Regulation
Source
Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Repair and replacement of character-defining features. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old or historic feature in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

2. Chemical Treatments. With respect to historic resources located on this site or within the propose project area, any chemical treatments needed as construction progresses will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

3. Equipment. Any above ground or roof equipment, such as transformer(s), utilities, fire apparatus, air conditioning units, compressors, etc. shall be shown to scale on the City of
Berkeley
At the Time of
Building Permit
Submittal
Land Use Planning

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2009 TENTH STREET – #LMSAP2025-0003 JUNE 5, 2025 Page 10 of 10
Page | 10
architectural drawings of the building permit set of drawings in both plan and elevation, in order to determine if additional screening and SAP may be required.

4. Glass. All glass is assumed to be clear glass. Any proposed glass that is not clear glass, shall be indicated on all drawings, and shall be reviewed for approval by staff.

City of
Berkeley
At the Time of
Building Permit
Submittal
Land Use Planning

5. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be downcast and not cause glare on the public right- of-way and abutting parcels.

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

6. Landscaping. The applicant shall provide irrigation for all landscaped areas. This shall be called out on Landscape building permit drawings.

City of
Berkeley
At the Time of
Building Permit
Submittal
Land Use Planning

7. Window Recessing (added by the LPC). Replacement windows on the west (front) façade, including the wrap-around window at the southwest corner of the second story, shall be recessed to match the depth of the existing window units.

City of
Berkeley
At the Time of
Building Permit
Submittal
Land Use Planning

8. Entry Awnings (added by the LPC). All replacement awnings shall be installed in-kind, matching the existing awnings in material, dimensions, and appearance.

City of
Berkeley
At the Time of
Building Permit
Submittal
Land Use Planning

9. Other Permits. The applicant shall be responsible for identifying and securing all applicable permits from the Building and Safety Division and all other affected City divisions/departments prior to the start of work.

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A0.01

COVER PAGE

SYMBOLS

BUILDING / WALL SECTION

VIEW DIRECTION

DRAWING NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

ROOM TAGS

ROOM NAME

ROOM NUMBER

AREA OF REVISION

REVISION MARKER
AX.X
X
F.F. FLOOR 02
25'-2"
X
100

ROOM NAME

CONTROL POINT
HIEGHT

LEVEL NAME

REVISION CLOUDS

DRAWING INDEX

PROJECT DIRECTORY

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT DATA
N.T.S.

ARCHITECTURAL
A0.01 COVER SHEET AND PROJECT INFORMATION
A0.02 TABULATION FORM
A0.03 PHOTOS
A1.00 (E) SITE PLAN
A1.01 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A1.02 (E) PLANS
A1.03 (E) PLANS
A1.04 ROOF PLAN
A2.00 (E) ELEVATIONS
A2.01 (E) ELEVATIONS
A2.02 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
A2.03 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
A4.00 COLORS AND MATERIALS
A5.00 DETAILS
A6.00 WINDOW SCHEDULE
OWNER
YMCA Headstart
2009 Tenth St
Berkeley, CA 94702

ARCHITECT
Sidell Pakravan Architects
2445 Sixth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
510 984 0904
[email protected]

REPLASTERING (E) EXTERIOR WALLS FOR

WATERPROOFING IMPROVEMENT,

WINDOW REPLACEMENT
BUILDING ADDRESS2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94702

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APN56-1978-19
PARCEL ID056 197801900
ZONINGR-3
SETBACKSFRONT:15'-0"
REAR:15'-0"
SIDES:4'-0"
LOT AREA13,500 SF
BLDG FOOTPRINT(E) PRIMARY:7,200 SF
(NO CHANGE)
FLOOR AREA(E) SECOND LEVEL7,200 SF
(E) FIRST LEVEL7,200 SF
(E) TOTAL14,400 SF
(NO CHANGE)
LOT COVERAGEMAX ALLOWABLE:45%
EXISTING:53.3%
(NO CHANGE)
MAX HEIGHTMAX ALLOWABLE:N/A
EXISTING:28'-6"
(NO CHANGE)

OCCUPANCYE

CONSTRUCTION TYPEV-B
FIRE ZONE1

TENTH ST

NINTH ST

ADDISON ST

SAN PABLO AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE
COWPER ST.

UNIVERSITY AVE
2009 TENTH ST

ADDISON ST

TENTH ST

NINTH ST

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A0.02

TABULATION FORM
2009 TENTH ST, BERKELEY, CA 94702

SIDELL PAKRAVAN ARCHITECTS
R-3
01/14/25
15'-0"
4'-0"
4"-0"
41'-0"
2 15'-0"
3 MAX
28'-6"
28'-6"
N/A
35'-0"
13,500 SF
14,400 SF
7,200 SF

53.5%
5,722 SFN/A
45%

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE
9'-6"
5'-0"
8'-0"

N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5,000 SF MIN
N/A
N/A

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A0.03

EXISTING PHOTOS
1: WEST ELEVATION
3 4
1 LOCATION KEY
N.T.S.
3: SOUTH ELEVATION4: EAST ELEVATION
2009

TENTH ST

TENTH ST
2: WEST ELEVATION
2

02'4'8'
1 8" = 1'-0"
1: EXISTING SITE PLAN

DEMO PAVING
DEMO (E) CONC. STAIRS
(E) WD. FENCE AND GATE

TO REMAIN, PROTECT

DURING DEMO

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

NEIGHBORING PARKING LOT

PROJECT SITE
2009 TENTH ST
APN: 56-1978-19
1048 UNIVERSITY AVE.
2032 SAN PABLO AVE.
2026 SAN PABLO AVE.
2000 SAN PABLO AVE. 1056 UNIVERSITY AVE.1058 UNIVERSITY AVE. 2040 SAN PABLO AVE.

TENTH STREET
UP
UP
UP
(E) OVERHEAD UTILITY

LINES, DASHED
(E) ELECTRICAL

EQUIPMENT
(E) UTILITY POLE
(E) MECH.

UP

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A1.00

EXISTING SITE PLAN
04'8'16'
1 16" = 1'-0"
1: EXISTING SITE PLAN

PROJECT SITE
2009 TENTH ST
APN: 56-1978-19
UP

TENTH STREET
1048 UNIVERSITY AVE.
2000

SAN PABLO
AVE.

REQ'D SETBACK
2026 SAN PABLO AVE.
2040 SAN PABLO AVE.

UP
UPUP
(E) OVERHEAD UTILITY

LINES, DASHED
(E) ELECTRICAL

EQUIPMENT
(E) UTILITY POLE
(E) MECH.
100'-0"; PROPERTY LINE
135'-0"; PROPERTY LINE
41'-0" REAR SETBACK
(E) 6'-0" H WOOD FENCE

AND GATE TO REMAIN,

PROTECT DURING DEMO

DEMO PAVING
DEMO (E) CONC. STAIRS

NEIGHBORING PARKING LOT
1'-0"
9'-0" 5'-0"
8'-0"
14'-7"
8'-4"
15'-0"
(E) RAMP
CL
27'-6"

REMOVE (E) MURALS

REMOVE (E) MURALS

AT THE ENTRYWAY

REMOVE (E) MURALS
2032 SAN PABLO AVE.

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A1.01

PROPOSED SITE
PLAN
04'8'16'
1 16" = 1'-0"
1: PROPOSED SITE PLAN

PROJECT SITE
2009 TENTH ST
APN: 56-1978-19
UP

TENTH STREET
1048 UNIVERSITY AVE.
2000

SAN PABLO
AVE.
2032 SAN PABLO AVE.
2026 SAN PABLO AVE.
2040 SAN PABLO AVE.

UP
UPUP
(E) OVERHEAD UTILITY

LINES, DASHED
(E) ELECTRICAL

EQUIPMENT
(E) UTILITY POLE
(E) MECH.
135'-0"; PROPERTY LINE
41'-0" REAR SETBACK
(E) WD. FENCE AND GATE

TO REMAIN, PROTECT

DURING DEMO
(N) TRENCH DRAIN
(N)) CONC. STAIRS IN KIND

NEIGHBORING PARKING LOT
1'-0"
100'-0"; PROPERTY LINE
9'-0" 5'-0"
8'-0"
14'-7"
8'-4"
CL
27'-6"

REQ'D SETBACK
15'-0"

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A1.02

FIRST FLOOR
EXISTING + DEMO
PLANS
A2.00
2 A2.01
1 A2.00
1 1: (E) FIRST FLOOR PLAN
04'
3 32" = 1'-0"
2'10'
86'-0"
118
(E) CLASSROOM
(E) TO DEMO
LEGEND
(E) WALLS

SYMBOLTYPE
117
(E) CLASSROOM
116
(E) OFFICE
115
(E) CLASSROOM
113
(E) SNACK AREA
114
(E) OFFICE
HALL
CL.CL.CL.CL.
103
(E) OFFICE
102
(E) OFFICE
100
(E) ENTRY
85'-8"
17'-5"8'-8"
UPUP
101
(E) OFFICE
105
(E) OFFICE
104
(E) WC
HALL
107
(E) CHILDREN'S RESTROOM
106
(E) WC
111
(E) CLASSROOM
112
(E) LAUNDRY
110
(E) STORAGE
109
(E) MECH
108
(E) JAN
CL.

UP
UP
UP
NOTES

1.NO INTERIOR SCOPE,

ALL INTERIOR WALLS
TO REMAIN.

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A1.03

SECOND FLOOR
EXISTING + DEMO
PLANS
A2.00
2 A2.01
1 A2.00
1 1: (E) SECOND FLOOR PLAN
04'
3 32" = 1'-0"
2'10'
86'-0"
(E) TO DEMO
LEGEND
(E) WALLS

SYMBOLTYPE
85'-8"
DN
NOTES

1.NO INTERIOR SCOPE,

ALL INTERIOR WALLS
TO REMAIN.

DN
204
(E) OFFICE
201
(E) OFFICE
202
(E) OFFICE
203
(E) OFFICE
200
(E) RECEPT.HALL
205
(E) CONFERENCE
206
(E) LUNCH RM
211
(E) WORKSPACE
216
(E) OFFICE
215
(E) OFFICE
214
(E) OFFICE
213
(E) COPY
212
(E) OFFICE
207
(E) WC
208
(E) WC
209
(E) IT
210
(E) JAN
217
(E) OFFICE
35'-0"

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A1.04

ROOF PLAN
A2.00
2 A2.01
1 A2.00
1 1: ROOF PLAN
04'
3 32" = 1'-0"
2'10'
86'-0"
(E) TO DEMO
LEGEND
(E) WALLS

SYMBOLTYPE
85'-8"
NOTES

1.NO INTERIOR SCOPE,

ALL INTERIOR WALLS
TO REMAIN.

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A2.00

EXISTING

ELEVATIONS
02'4'8'
1 8" = 1'-0"
3: (E) SOUTH ELEVATION
02'4'8'
1 8" = 1'-0"
1: (E) WEST ELEVATION
24'-6", V.I.F.
28'-6", V.I.F.
24'-6", V.I.F.

REMOVE (E) STUCCO

REMOVE (E) STUCCO
(E) EDGE IN SURFACE

REMOVE (E) WINDOW
& WD. SILL

REMOVE (E)
WINDOW & WD. SILL
REMOVE
(E) WINDOW &
WD. SILL

REMOVE (E) AWNING

REMOVE (E) WINDOW
& WD. SILL
REMOVE
(E) WINDOW & WD. SILL
REMOVE
(E) WINDOW &
WD. SILL
REMOVE (E) WINDOW & WD. SILL
(E) FENCE TO

REMAIN (E) FENCE TO
REMAIN
REMOVE
(E) MURAL;
(E) MURAL TO BE

PAINTED OVER
REMOVE
(E) MURAL; (E) MURAL

TO BE PAINTED OVER
F.F. WEST WING FL01
0'-0"F.F. EAST WING FL01
2'-6"
F.F. WEST WING FL02
9'-4"
F.F. EAST WING FL02
12'-2"
F.F. EAST WING FL01
2'-6"
F.F. EAST WING FL02
12'-2"

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A2.01

EXISTING

ELEVATIONS
02'4'8'
1 8" = 1'-0"
2: (E) NORTH ELEVATION
02'4'8'
1 8" = 1'-0"
1: (E) EAST ELEVATION
24'-6", V.I.F.
24'-6", V.I.F.

REMOVE (E) STUCCO

REMOVE (E) WINDOW &
WD. SILL
(E) DOOR TO REMAIN

REMOVE (E) WINDOW &
WD. SILL

REMOVE (E) AWINGING

AND RELATED

STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS
(E) STAIRS AND
RAILING TO REMAIN.

PROTECT DURING
DEMO.
(E) DOOR TO REMAIN
(E) DOOR TO REMAIN

REMOVE (E) AWINGING

AND RELATED

STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS
3'-0"
F.F. WEST WING FL01
0'-0"
F.F. WEST WING FL02
9'-4"
F.F. WEST WING FL01
0'-0"
F.F. WEST WING FL02
9'-4"

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A2.02

PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS
02'4'8'
1 8" = 1'-0"
3: SOUTH ELEVATION
02'4'8'
1 8" = 1'-0"
1: WEST ELEVATION
24'-6", V.I.F.
28'-6", V.I.F.
24'-6", V.I.F.
(N) STUCCO
(N) STUCCO
(E) EDGE IN SURFACE
(N) WINDOWS
(N) WINDOWS
(N) WINDOW
(N) AWNING
(N) WINDOWS(N) WINDOWS
(N) WINDOWS (N) WINDOWS

REPAINT WITH ELASTOMERIC PAINT
(E) ARCHITECTURAL
ELEMENT, NO CHANGE.
(E) WINDOWS,

NO CHANGE
(E) WINDOWS,

NO CHANGE
(E) FIRE ESCAPE TO

BE REINSTALLED IN

SAME PLACE WHEN

CONSTRUCTION IS

COMPLETE
(N) STUCCO, SHOWN
HATCHED, TYP.

ABC
DE
F
G
H
I

JKLMNOPQ
R
ST

UYZAA VWX

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A2.03

PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS
02'4'8'
1 8" = 1'-0"
2: NORTH ELEVATION
02'4'8'
1 8" = 1'-0"
1: EAST ELEVATION
24'-6", V.I.F.
24'-6", V.I.F.
(N) STUCCO
(N) WINDOW
(N) WINDOW3'-0"

REPAINT WITH ELASTOMERIC PAINT
(E) WINDOWS,

NO CHANGE (N) AWNING, TO MATCH

SIZE AND APPEARANCE

OF (E) AWNING
(N) STUCCO, SHOWN
HATCHED, TYP.
(N) AWNING, TO MATCH SIZE

AND APPEARANCE OF (E)
AWNING

REPAINT WITH ELASTOMERIC PAINT
BBCC
DD
EE

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A4.00

COLORS AND

MATERIALS

ACCENT PAINT TO BE IN LIGHT GREEN REPAINT COLOR TO BE WARM WHITE

ACCENT PAINT(N) FIBERGLASS

WINDOW WITH

BRONZE FINISH

PROPOSED EXTERIOR FROM STREET EXISTING EXTERIOR FROM STREET

FIBERGLASS WINDOW FINISH IN BRONZE

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A5.00

DETAILS
0124

SECTION
WINDOW SILL DETAIL: CEMENT PLASTER

CEMENT PLASTER
WRB

CORROSION RESISTANT

SELF-FURRING LATH

FIBERGLASS WINDOW, SEE

SCHEDULE
DOUBLE

LOW-E GLAZING
(E) 5
8" SHEATHING

INTERIOREXTERIOR
GYP. BD. PTD.
(E) STRUCTURE,

CONFIRM IN FIELD

SAF, EXTEND INTO

WINDOW OPENING

JAMB BEYOND
HIGH IMPACT GYP. BD.

AT CORNER

SHIM AS NEEDED

SEALANT

WOOD TRIM, TO MATCH (E)
LEAVE 3
8 INCH GAP FOR

BACKER ROD AND

SEALANT

BACKER ROD & SEALANT
0124

SECTION
WINDOW HEAD DETAIL: CEMENT PLASTER

CEMENT PLASTER
WRB

CORROSION RESISTANT

SELF-FURRING LATH

FIBERGLASS WINDOW, SEE

SCHEDULE
DOUBLE

LOW-E GLAZING
(E) 5
8" SHEATHING

INTERIOREXTERIOR
GYP. BD. PTD.
(E) HEADER

EXTEND SAF INTO

WINDOW OPENING

JAMB BEYOND

HIGH-TEMP RESISTANT

SELF ADHERING
FLASHING HIGH IMPACT GYP. BD.

AT CORNER

SHIM AS NEEDED

SEALANT

SHEET METAL HEAD WITH

END DAMS, END

CLOSURES, AND SIDE

FLANGES

BACKER ROD AND

SEALANT
SAP

BACKER ROD AND

SEALAND

DRIP SCREED,
CEMCOSTEEL #6 DRIP

HEAD OR SIM
0124
PLAN
WINDOW JAMB DETAIL: CEMENT PLASTER
DOUBLE

LOW-E GLAZING

INTERIOREXTERIOR
(E) 5
8" SHEATHING
GYP. BD. PTD.
(E) STRUCTURE
WRB

SAF INTO THE ROUGH

OPENING AND ANOTHER

LAYER OVER THE FLANGE

CORROSION RESISTANT

SELF-FURRING LATH

CEMENT PLASTER

FIBERGLASS WINDOW,

SEE SCHEDULE

SILL BELOW
LIGHT IMPACT GYP. BD.

AT CORNER, PTD.

WD SILL BELOW
LEAVE 3/8" GAP FOR

BACKER ROD AND

SEALANT

BACKER ROD AND

SEALANT
* NOTES: FRAME WINDOW TOWARD

EXTERIOR FACE OF WALL TO MAINTAIN
WATER PROOFING INTEGRITY.

* UNIT DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY MANUFACTURERS' ACTUAL UNIT DIMENSIONS

WINDOW TYPES
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
SEE

SCHEDULE
GLIDERGLIDER + CLERESTORYSINGLE HUNGGLIDER OXOGLIDER OXO + CLERESTORYFIXED

SIDELL PAKRAVAN

ARCHITECTS
sidellpakravan.com
[email protected]

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
2009 TENTH ST
BERKELEY, CA 94710
YMCA

HEAD START
24008
PROJECT NO.

DRAWNCHECKED
CJVM
DATE

01.15.2025

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS

IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT 2021.

A6.00

WINDOW SCHEDULE

UNIT DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY MANUFACTURERS' ACTUAL UNIT DIMENSIONS

WINDOW SCHEDULE
A
5'-1" x 5'-2"
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
WINDOW
MARK

MANUFACTURER
& LINE

UNIT FRAME
SIZE (WxH)
HEAD
HT AFF

OPERATION

EXTERIORINTERIOR

SCREEN DIVIDED
LITES
NONE MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS

FIBERGLASSFIBERGLASSTBDGLIDER-
5'-1" x 5'-2"
5'-2" x 5'-2"
4'-6" x 6'-2"
7'-9" x 5'-1"7'-9"
8'-8"
GLIDER
2'-7" x 5'-2"
8'-9" x 6'-2"

FIBERGLASS

FIBERGLASS

FIBERGLASS

FIBERGLASS
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

MATERIAL

EXTERIORINTERIOR
FINISH
GLIDER
GLIDER +
FIXED

CLERESTORY
SINGLE
HUNG

GLIDER -
OXO
GLIDER
OXO +

CLERESTORY
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
BRONZE

FIBERGLASS

FIBERGLASS

FIBERGLASS

FIBERGLASS

FIBERGLASS

FIBERGLASS
TBD
TBD
7'-8"
7'-8"
7'-9"
8'-8"
7'-9"

FIBERGLASS

FIBERGLASS
ESCAPE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

TYPEFINISH
PER MANUF.-
PER MANUF.-
PER MANUF.-
PER MANUF.-
PER MANUF.-
PER MANUF.-
PER MANUF.-
PER MANUF.-

HARDWARE GLAZING
ENERGY RATINGSAFETY RATING*
NOTES
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DETAIL

SILLJAMB
---
HEAD
*NONE = NO SAFETY RATING;
TEMPERED = BOTH PANES TEMPERED;
WUI = AT LEAST ONE PANE MUST BE TEMPERED PER CBC SEC 2406 - MUST BE IDENTIFIED W/ ETCHED LABEL S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
N/A 2'-6" x 3'-6"FIXEDNONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 7'-8" 5'-1" x 5'-2"GLIDERNONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 7'-10" 1'-9" x 3'-6"FIXEDNONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 7'-8" 5'-1" x 5'-2"GLIDERNONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 6'-7" 5'-1" x 3'-5"GLIDERNONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 6'-7" 5'-1" x 3'-5"GLIDERNONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 6'-8" 4'-1" x 4'-1"GLIDERNONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 6'-8" 4'-1" x 4'-1"GLIDERNONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 6'-8" 4'-1" x 4'-1"GLIDERNONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 8'-3" 5'-1" x 3'-5"GLIDERNONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 9'-7"NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.--
9'-7"NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.--
9'-4" 2'-8" x 2'-7"NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.--
NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.--
NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.--
9'-0" 5'-1" x 5'-1"NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 9'-0" 5'-1" x 5'-1"NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- 9'-0" 5'-1" x 5'-1"NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
4'-6" x 6'-2"FIBERGLASSGLIDER +
FIXED

CLERESTORY
FIBERGLASS8'-8"
5'-1" x 3'-5"
5'-1" x 3'-5"
2'-8" x 2'-7"
2'-8" x 2'-7"
2'-8" x 2'-7"
9'-4"
9'-4"
9'-4"
GLIDER
GLIDER
GLIDER
GLIDER
GLIDER
GLIDER
GLIDER +

CLERESTORY
GLIDER +

CLERESTORY
GLIDER +

CLERESTORY
BB
6'-6" 5'-1" x 3'-5"NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
GLIDER
CC
6'-6" 5'-1" x 3'-5"NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
GLIDER
DD
9'-1" 5'-8" x 2'-9"NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
FIXED
EE
6'-8" 5'-1" x 3'-6"NONE FIBERGLASSTBD FIBERGLASS -PER MANUF.-- MARVIN:

ESSENTIALS
FIXED
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE
BRONZE

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 2035 Francisco Street/#LMIN2024-0003

INTRODUCTION
The attached Landmarks Preservation Commission Notice of Decision (NOD) is presented to the Mayor and City Council pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code/Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (BMC/LPO) Section 3.24.160, which requires that “a copy of the Notice of Decision shall be filed with the City Clerk and the City Clerk shall present said copy to the City Council at its next regular meeting.”

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC/Commission) has designated the subject property as a Structure of Merit. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period, which began on July 8, 2025, the day after the notice was mailed.

BACKGROUND
BMC/LPO Section 3.24.190 allows the Council to review any action of the Commission in granting or denying Landmark, Structure of Merit, or Historic District status. For Council to review the decision on its merits, Council must appeal the Notice of Decision.

To do so, a Council member must move this Information Item to Action and then move to set the matter for hearing on its own. Such action must be taken within 15 days of the mailing of the Notice of Decision, or by July 22, 2025. Such certification to Council shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal.

If the Council chooses to appeal the action of the Commission, then a public hearing will be set. The Council must then rule on the designation within 30 days of closing the hearing, otherwise the decision of the Commission is automatically deemed affirmed.

Unless the Council wishes to review the determination of the Commission and make its own decision, the attached NOD is deemed received and filed.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE IMPACTS
Landmark designation provides opportunities for the preservation, rehabilitation and adaptive re-use of historic resources within the City. The rehabilitation of these

21

Notice of Decision: 2035 Francisco Street/#LMIN2024-0003 INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

resources, rather than their removal, achieves construction and demolition waste diversion, and promotes investment in existing urban centers.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Council may choose to appeal the decision, in which case it would conduct a public hearing at a future date.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no known fiscal impacts associated with this action.

CONTACT PERSON
Allison Riemer, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7433 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMIN2024-0003/2035 Francisco Street

Attachment 1, Part 1

L A N D M A R K S

P R E S E R V A T I O N

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: June 5, 2025
DATE NOTICE MAILED: July 7, 2025
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: July 22, 2025
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): July 23, 20251 2035 Francisco Street – The Byron E. Underwood
House
Landmark application #LMIN2024-0003 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a residential property constructed circa 1907 (APN: 058-2175-010-00).

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the following designation:
 Structure of Merit designation
 Application Author: Jerri Holan, FAIA
1323 Solano Avenue, Suite 204
Albany, CA 94706
 Property Owner: Toni Pinck, David Pinck, and Zack Kahn 2035 Francisco Street
Berkeley, CA 94709
ZONING DISTRICT: Restricted Multiple-Family Residential District (R-2A) 1 Pursuant to BMC Chapter 3.24, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, which has the same effect as an appeal. In most cases, the Council must certify the LPC decision during the 15-day appeal period. However, pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if any portion of the appeal period falls within a Council recess, the deadline for Council certification is suspended until the first Council meeting after the recess, plus the number of days of the appeal period that occurred during the recess, minus one day. If there is no appeal or certification, the Use Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2024-0003
2035 Francisco Street
Mailed: July 7, 2025

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.(b)(3) Review for Exemptions.

The application materials for this project is available online at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/zoning-projects or https://permits.cityofberkeley.info/CitizenAccess/Default.aspx

FINDINGS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS ARE ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE COMMISSION VOTE: 5-2-0-1
YES: ENCHILL, FINACOM, ORBUCH, PLESE, SCHWARTZ
NO: LEUSCHNER, HALL-MONTGOMERY
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: CRANDALL
TO APPEAL THIS DECISION (see Section 3.24.300 of the Berkeley Municipal Code):

To appeal a decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to the City Council you must:

1. Submit a letter clearly and concisely setting forth the grounds for the appeal to the City Clerk, located at 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley. The City Clerk’s telephone number is (510) 981-6900.
a. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.300.A, an appeal may be taken to the City Council by the application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents, or by the application of at least fifty residents of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the commission made under the provisions of Chapter 3.24.

2. Submit the required fee (checks and money orders must be payable to ‘City of Berkeley’):
a. The basic fee for persons other than the applicant is $1,500. This fee may be reduced to $500 if the appeal is signed by persons who lease or own at least 50 percent of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or at least 25 such persons (not including dependent children), whichever is less. Signatures collected per the filing requirement in BMC Section 3.24.300.A may be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee, so long as the signers are qualified. The individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.
b. The fee for appeals of affordable housing projects (defined as projects which provide 50 percent or more affordable units for households earning 80% or less of Area Median Income) is $500, which may not be reduced.