Agenda packet, first session — Berkeley City Council, July 22, 2025 (part 1 of 5)

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 1

REVISED AGENDA
(REVISED TO ADD TELECONFERENCE LOCATION)

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, July 22, 2025
6:00 PM

SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702 TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - 5617 NW JETTY AVE, LINCOLN CITY, OR 97367 TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - MARINA DEL SOL C-202, IXTAPA, ZIHUATANEJO DE AZUETA, 40884, GUERRERO, MÉXICO
TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - TÜRKMEN MAH. ÜNLÜ SOK. NO. 6 KUŞADASI, AYDIN, TÜRKIYE

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in- person attendance and virtual participation. Live captioned broadcasts of Council meetings are available on B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet video stream at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244. A ll Council meetings are recorded.

To access the meeting remotely use this URL: https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1602078591. T o request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom. To join by phone: Dial 1-669-254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 160 207 8591 . To provide public comment, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. To submit a written communication for the public record, email [email protected].

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

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

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

Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act) - Parties to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use are required to disclose if they made contributions over $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.

REV - 1
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

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

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

1. Adjourn in memory of Marie Gunter, Sustainability Advocate

2. Adjourn in memory of George Leitmann, UC Berkeley Professor

3. Adjourn in memory of Rita Maran, former Peace & Justice Commissioner City Manager Comments: The City Manager may make announcements or provide information to the City Council in the form of an oral report. The Council will not take action on such items but may request the City Manager place a report on a future agenda for discussion.

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

In-person attendees wishing to address the Council on matters not on the Council agenda during the initial ten-minute period for such comment, must submit a speaker card to the City Clerk in person at the meeting location and prior to the moment that the Presiding Officer calls for public comment on non- agenda items. Remote attendees must raise their hand in the videoconference application when the Presiding Officer calls for non-agenda speakers. The first five raised hands on the videoconference application will be selected to speak and the first five cards drawn at the meeting will be selected to speak. The number of in-person and remote speakers selected may be adjusted by the Presiding Officer if fewer than five speakers from either format are identified.

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

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

REV - 2
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 3
Consent Calendar
The Council will first determine whether to move items on the agenda for “Action” or “Information” to the “Consent Calendar”, or move “Consent Calendar” items to “Action.” Three members of the City Council must agree to pull an item from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar for it to move to Action.

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

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

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

Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: The Council will take public comment on any items that are either on the amended Consent Calendar or the Information Calendar. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue. A speaker may only speak once during the period for public comment on Consent Calendar and Information items.

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

Consent Calendar

1. At-Will Designation: Assistant City Attorney
From: City Attorney
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,979–N.S amending Berkeley Municipal Code Section 4.04.120(A) to designate the unrepresented classification of Assistant City Attorney as at-will.

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Farimah Brown, City Attorney, (510) 981-6950

REV - 3
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 4

2. Lease Amendment with Yoonaco, Inc. (Hana Japan) at 235 University Avenue From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,980–N.S. amending the City’s improved property lease with Yoonaco, Inc. (Hana Japan) for property at 235 University Ave to extend the initial lease term through June 30, 2026, replace the five-year extension option with a one-year extension option, maintain the rent at the current rate of $7,868 per month for the lease term, and remove the daily operating requirement for the first floor of the property.

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

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

3. Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code for Consistency with State Law and Technical Edits (SLTE 2025) From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,981–N.S. amending the following sections of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) to maintain consistency and accuracy:

3.24.110 Landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit- Designation – Criteria for consideration

23.106.030 Floor Area, Gross

23.202.030 Additional Permit Requirements (Residential)

23.204.030 Additional Permit Requirements (Commercial Districts)

23.206.030 Additional Permit Requirements (Manufacturing Districts)

23.302.020 General Use Regulations

23.304.070 Unenclosed Accessory Structures in Residential Districts

23.326.030 Demolition of Residential Units

23.326.050 Demolition of Accessory Buildings

23.326.070 Demolition of Non-Residential Buildings
First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

4. Appointment of Emergency Standby Officers
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution confirming the appointment of newly nominated standby officers for the Mayor and City Council to serve in the event the elected official is unavailable during an emergency, and rescinding Resolution No. 70,833-N.S.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

REV - 4
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 5

5. Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on July 22, 2025
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids that will be or planned to be issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

6. Reallocation of FY 2025 Youth Resiliency Funding
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to reallocate Youth Equity Partnership (YEP) funds awarded through the FY 2025 - 2028 community agency contracting process to the Berkeley Public Schools Fund, Contract No. 32500058, and amend the Schools Fund’s existing contract as follows:

1. Remove the Black Girls United (BGU) program from the contract (at the contractor’s request). 2. Reallocate $20,000 of the BGU funding to the Longfellow Identity Affirming Programs (LIAP) for FY 2026 through FY 2028, increasing their total annual allocation from $25,300 to $45,300. 3. Return the remaining $27,817 initially awarded to BGU, annually, to the General Fund for FY 2026 - 2028.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

7. Revenue Grant Agreements: Funding Support from Alameda County to Conduct Public Health Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt three Resolutions authorizing the City Manager or designee to submit grant agreements to Alameda County, to accept the grants, and execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments to conduct public health promotion, protection, and prevention services for the following three revenue agreements:

1. Berkeley High School and Berkeley Technology Academy Health Center Programs in the projected amount of $187,926 for Fiscal Year 2026.

2. School Linked Health Services Program (Measure A Funding) in the projected amount of $200,011 for Fiscal Year 2026.

3. Tobacco Prevention Program in the projected amount of $82,600 for Fiscal Year 2026.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

REV - 5
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 6

8. Revenue Grant Agreements: Funding Support from the State of California to Conduct Public Health Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt three Resolutions authorizing the City Manager or designee to submit grant agreements to the State of California, to accept the grants, and execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments to conduct public health promotion, protection, and prevention services for the following three revenue agreements:

1. Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health (MCAH) Program, in the projected amount of $377,000 for Fiscal Year 2026. See match information in Fiscal Impacts section below.

2. Tobacco Trust Fund: There is no match required, and this contract is expected to be for $600,000 for Fiscal Year 2026 through Fiscal Year 2027.

3. Women, Infant, Children Program There is no match required, and this contract is expected to be for $2,557,619 for Federal Fiscal Year 2026 through Federal Fiscal Year 2028.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

9. Supplemental Military Leave Compensation Policy
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 63,646–N.S. to the City’s Supplemental Military Leave Compensation Policy to be retroactively effective from July 1, 2025, going forward in order to provide supplemental wages for employees called to involuntary active military service.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Janelle Rodrigues, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800

10. 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report (Assembly Bill 481) From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report.

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

11. Surveillance Technology Ordinance Submission for Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Accepting the attached Surveillance Acquisition Report for the Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System, pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (B.M.C.) Chapter 2.99. 2. Accepting the attached Surveillance Use Policy: Use of Internal Video Surveillance System (BPD Policy 1306).

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

REV - 6
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 7

12. Appointment of Ian Hunt to the Mental Health Commission From: Mental Health Commission
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the recommendation for appointment of Ian Hunt to the Mental Health Commission. Mr. Hunt will represent the Special Interest Category (consumer), beginning his 3-year term on July 23, 2025, ending on July 22, 2028.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jamie Works-Wright, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-5400

13. Police Accountability Board Report: Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation (Reviewed by the Public Safety Committee) (Item contains supplemental material) From: Police Accountability Board
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.

REV - 7
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 8

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.

Policy Committee Recommendation: 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.

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

REV - 8
Council Consent Items
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 9

14. Resolution in Support of California Senate Bill 81 (Arreguín) Health and Care Facilities: Information Sharing to Amend Sections 56.05 and 56.10 of the Civil Code, and to Add Chapter 1.5 to Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Health and Care Facilities
From: Councilmember Tregub (Author), Mayor Ishii (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Humbert (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co- Sponsor)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution in support of California State Senate (SB) Bill 81 (Arreguín), Healthcare Provider Entities: Information Sharing amend Sections

56.05 and 56.10 of the Civil Code, and to add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 1249) to Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to health and care facilities, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately; and distribute copies to the California Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Jesse Arreguín, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, California Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, and California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas to advocate for its passage. SB 81 would mandate healthcare facilities to develop protocols for monitoring and receiving visitors, as well as designating certain areas as nonpublic in order to maintain a secure environment aligned with the facility’s mission and commitment to patient care. Additionally, the bill would prohibit immigration enforcement agents from entering nonpublic areas of a facility without a valid judicial warrant or court order. It would also protect patient information by barring the disclosure of a person’s current or past immigration status or place of birth for purposes related to immigration enforcement.

Financial Implications: Staff time.

Contact: Igor Tregub, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again during the Action Calendar public comment period on the item
The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

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

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

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

REV - 9

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 10
Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. For certain hearings, this is followed by five-minute presentations each by first the appellant and then the applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

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

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

15. Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Carleton Street from Westerly Terminus Extending 381.23 Feet Easterly
From: City Manager
Recommendation:

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

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

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

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

16. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations
From: City Manager
Recommendation:

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

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

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

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

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

REV - 10

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 11
Action Calendar – New Business

17. Surveillance Technology Ordinance Submission for External Fixed Surveillance Cameras (Flock Safety Condor Video Cameras) From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Accepting the attached Surveillance Acquisition Report for the Flock Safety Condor video cameras, pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (B.M.C.) Chapter 2.99.

2. Re-affirming the associated Berkeley Police Department (BPD) Use Policies (BPD Policy 351: External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras and BPD Policy 1304:

Surveillance Use Policy—External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras), which were previously approved by Council on June 13, 2023.

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

Information Reports

18. Reimagining Public Safety Status Report
From: City Manager
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

19. Restaurant Inspection Audit Status Report
From: City Manager
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

20. Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 2009 Tenth Street/#LMSAP2025-0003
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

21. Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 2035 Francisco Street/#LMIN2024-0003
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

22. City Auditor Fiscal Year 2026 Audit Plan
From: Auditor
Contact: Jenny Wong, Auditor, (510) 981-6750

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of REV - 11

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 12
Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90- day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

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

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

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

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

Agendas, agenda reports, and revised/supplemental material may be accessed via the online agenda for this meeting at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas and may be accessed at reference desks at the following locations:

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

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

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at [email protected], (510) 981-6 418 (V), or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

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

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

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

REV - 12
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the agenda for this meeting of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on July 17, 2025.

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

Harrassment Concern

1. Cielo Sambas (2)
B
rown Act

2. Inger Acking

3. David Meyer

4. Mary Anne Morgan

5. Jackie Schmidt-Posner

6. Barbara Anscher
G
eneva’s Path

7. Deb Spaulding Graham

8. Andrew Graham
D
ogs at Caesar Chavez Park

9. Maureen Daggett
O
hlone Concerns and Encampments

10. Yasemin Sussman

11. Tom Attar (2)

12. Nicholas Alexander (3)

13. Xavier Linn

14. Roger Hallsten

15. Rochelle T.

16. Jessica Fain

17. Daniel Jurnove

18. Kathy Dittmer

19. Karl Torke

20. David Mateer

21. Martin Seldin

22. Lj Cranmer
REV - 13

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 14

23. Dan Cutter (2)

24. Yael Galinson

25. Jia Liang

26. David Tepper

Berkeley Waterfront and Park Fees

27. Margie Winter (2)

28. Elisha Greenwell

29. Iliana Montauk (2)

30. Rachel Bradley

31. Juliane Kowski

32. Robert Crosman

33. Deborah Green

Takara Sake Plant

34. Cecelia Mautner

Road Damage

35. Jia Liang

Homelessness Concerns

36. Andrea Ricci

37. Maris Arnold

38. Kathleen Krier

Half Price Books

39. Simi Dhillon

Sidewalk Repair

40. Todd Andrew

City Services Concerns

41. Rebecca Young

Berkeley’s City Budget

42. David Lerman

Granicus Concern

43. Alex Taylor

Filming Concern

44. Liying Tao

EMBER

45. Mary-Louise Hansen

46. Geoff Lomax

REV - 14

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 15
Blight in Berkeley

47. Cecelia Mautner

8th and Harrison

48. Elana Auerbach

Home Security Concern

49. Seth Crabtree
The Bay Baby Book Project Donation

50. Seena Hawley

Parking Concerns and Pedestrian Safety

51. Shirley Kirsten (3)

52. Parking & Transportation

53. Bill Pottinger

Online Bill Payments

54. Jeffrey Frey

E-Scooters

55. Robert Borghese (6)

56. Robert Byler (3)

57. John Roveron Ravano

ODPA Statement

58. Office of the Director of Police Accountability

Middle East Conflict

59. Mohammed Hassan

Forwards

60. Elana Auerbach (2)

URL’s

61. Inetjalopy

62. Russbumper

63. Jai

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

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

REV - 15

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 REVISED AGENDA Page 16
• Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Available by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting.

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

REV - 16
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 1
AGENDA

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, July 22, 2025
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702 TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - 5617 NW JETTY AVE, LINCOLN CITY, OR 97367 TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - MARINA DEL SOL C-202, IXTAPA, ZIHUATANEJO DE AZUETA, 40884, GUERRERO, MÉXICO

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SHOSHANA O’KEEFE DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – BRENT BLACKABY
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – CECILIA LUNAPARRA DISTRICT 4 – IGOR TREGUB DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in -person attendance and virtual participation. Live captioned broadcasts of Council meetings are available on B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet video stream at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244. All Council meetings are recorded.

To access the meeting remotely use this URL: https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1602078591. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom. To join by phone: Dial 1-669-254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 160 207 8591 . To provide public comment, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. To submit a written communication for the public record, email [email protected].

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

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

Pursuant to the City Council Rules of Procedure and State Law, the presiding officer may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual fo r 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 t hen 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 me eting and includes, but is not limited to, a failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body, or engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.

Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act ) - Parties to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use are required to disclose if they made contributions over $5 00 within the prior 12 months to any City employee or officer. Parties and participants with a financial intere st 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.

Page 1 ends

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

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

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

1. Adjourn in memory of Marie Gunter, Sustainability Advocate

2. Adjourn in memory of George Leitmann, UC Berkeley Professor

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

Page 2 ends

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 3
Consent Calendar
The Council will first determine whether to move items on the agenda for “Action” or “Information” to the “Consent Calendar”, or move “Consent Calendar” items to “Action.” Three members of the City Council must agree to pull an item from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar for it to move to Action.

Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: The Council will take public comment on any items that are either on the amended Consent Calendar or the Information Calendar. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have mo re than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue. A speaker may only speak once during the period for public comment on Consent Calendar and Information items.

Consent Calendar

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Farimah Brown, City Attorney, (510) 981-6950

Page 3 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 4

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

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

3.24.110 Landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit- Designation – Criteria for consideration

23.106.030 Floor Area, Gross

23.202.030 Additional Permit Requirements (Residential)

23.204.030 Additional Permit Requirements (Commercial Districts)

23.206.030 Additional Permit Requirements (Manufacturing Districts)

23.302.020 General Use Regulations

23.304.070 Unenclosed Accessory Structures in Residential Districts

23.326.030 Demolition of Residential Units

23.326.050 Demolition of Accessory Buildings

23.326.070 Demolition of Non-Residential Buildings
First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

Page 4 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 5

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

1. Berkeley High School and Berkeley Technology Academy Health Center Programs in the projected amount of $187,926 for Fiscal Year 2026.

2. School Linked Health Services Program (Measure A Funding) in the projected amount of $200,011 for Fiscal Year 2026.

3. Tobacco Prevention Program in the projected amount of $82,600 for Fiscal Year 2026.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

Page 5 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 6

1. Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health (MCAH) Program, in the projected amount of $377,000 for Fiscal Year 2026. See match information in Fiscal Impacts section below.

2. Tobacco Trust Fund: There is no match required, and this contract is expected to be for $600,000 for Fiscal Year 2026 through Fiscal Year 2027.

3. Women, Infant, Children Program There is no match required, and this contract is expected to be for $2,557,619 for Federal Fiscal Year 2026 through Federal Fiscal Year 2028.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Janelle Rodrigues, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800

10. 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report (Assembly Bill 481) From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report.

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

Page 6 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 7

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jamie Works-Wright, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-5400

Recommendations to the Berkeley Police Department: 1. Three-prong approach. a.

Page 7 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 8

Recommendations to the Police Accountability Board:

Recommendations to the Berkeley City Council:

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

Page 8 ends

Council Consent Items
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 9

Financial Implications: Staff time.

Contact: Igor Tregub, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140

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

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

Page 9 ends

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 10
Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. For certain hearings, this is followed by five-minute presentations each by first the appellant and then the applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

15. Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Carleton Street from Westerly Terminus Extending 381.23 Feet Easterly
From: City Manager
Recommendation:

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

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

16. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations
From: City Manager
Recommendation:

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

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

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

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

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

Page 10 ends

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 11
Action Calendar – New Business

2. Re-affirming the associated Berkeley Police Department (BPD) Use Policies (BPD Policy 351: External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras and BPD Policy 1304:

Surveillance Use Policy—External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras), which were previously approved by Council on June 13, 2023.

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

Information Reports

18. Reimagining Public Safety Status Report
From: City Manager
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

19. Restaurant Inspection Audit Status Report
From: City Manager
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

20. Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 2009 Tenth Street/#LMSAP2025-0003
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

21. Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 2035 Francisco Street/#LMIN2024-0003
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

22. City Auditor Fiscal Year 2026 Audit Plan
From: Auditor
Contact: Jenny Wong, Auditor, (510) 981-6750

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the f ollowing requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of

Page 11 ends

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 12
Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be li mited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

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

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

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

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

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

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

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

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

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

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

Page 12 ends

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the agenda for this meeting of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on July 10, 2025.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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

Harrassment Concern

1. Cielo Sambas (2)

Brown Act

2. Inger Acking

3. David Meyer

4. Mary Anne Morgan

5. Jackie Schmidt-Posner

6. Barbara Anscher

Geneva’s Path

7. Deb Spaulding Graham

8. Andrew Graham

Dogs at Caesar Chavez Park

9. Maureen Daggett

Ohlone Concerns and Encampments

10. Yasemin Sussman

11. Tom Attar (2)

12. Nicholas Alexander (3)

13. Xavier Linn

14. Roger Hallsten

15. Rochelle T.

16. Jessica Fain

17. Daniel Jurnove

18. Kathy Dittmer

19. Karl Torke

20. David Mateer

21. Martin Seldin

Page 13 ends

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 14

22. Lj Cranmer

23. Dan Cutter (2)

24. Yael Galinson

25. Jia Liang

26. David Tepper

Berkeley Waterfront and Park Fees

27. Margie Winter (2)

28. Elisha Greenwell

29. Iliana Montauk (2)

30. Rachel Bradley

31. Juliane Kowski

32. Robert Crosman

33. Deborah Green

Takara Sake Plant

34. Cecelia Mautner

Road Damage

35. Jia Liang

Homelessness Concerns

36. Andrea Ricci

37. Maris Arnold

38. Kathleen Krier

Half Price Books

39. Simi Dhillon

Sidewalk Repair

40. Todd Andrew

City Services Concerns

41. Rebecca Young

Berkeley’s City Budget

42. David Lerman

Granicus Concern

43. Alex Taylor

Filming Concern

44. Liying Tao

EMBER

45. Mary-Louise Hansen

46. Geoff Lomax

Page 14 ends

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 15
Blight in Berkeley

47. Cecelia Mautner

8th and Harrison

48. Elana Auerbach

Home Security Concern

49. Seth Crabtree
The Bay Baby Book Project Donation

50. Seena Hawley

Parking Concerns and Pedestrian Safety

51. Shirley Kirsten (3)

52. Parking & Transportation

53. Bill Pottinger

Online Bill Payments

54. Jeffrey Frey

E-Scooters

55. Robert Borghese (6)

56. Robert Byler (3)

57. John Roveron Ravano

ODPA Statement

58. Office of the Director of Police Accountability

Middle East Conflict

59. Mohammed Hassan

Forwards

60. Elana Auerbach (2)

URL’s

61. Inetjalopy

62. Russbumper

63. Jai

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

Page 15 ends

Tuesday, July 22, 2025 AGENDA Page 16
• Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Available by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting.

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

Page 16 ends

Ordinance No. 7,979-N.S. Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 7,979-N.S.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 4.04.120 TO UPDATE SECTION 4.04.120 EXEMPTIONS FROM CAREER SERVICE (AT-WILL EMPLOYEES) BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Section 4.04.120(A) of the Berkeley Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

4.04.120 Exemption from career service (At-will employees).

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all positions in the service of the City except:

A. The City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Assistant City Attorney, Assistant to the City Manager, Assistant to the City Attorney, Police Review Commission Officer, Police Review Commission Investigator, Budget Manager, Assistant to the Mayor, Capital Improvement Programs Manager, Economic Development Manager, and Legislative Aide, and Employee Relations Manager;
B. Assistant, Associate and Senior Management Analyst when appointed to the City Manager's Department or to the budget unit of the Management and Administrative Services Agency; and Secretary to the Mayor, Administrative Secretary and Secretary when appointed to the Mayor's office;
C. All department heads, health officer, and supervising psychiatrist; D. Persons employed seasonally in the summer camps;
E. Persons employed as reserve or emergency employees during the period of national emergency as provided in the ordinance creating such employment; F. All persons who are paid at an hourly rate with the exception of library aides.

Persons appointed as hourly library aides shall be part of the career service with the exception of those hired to fill temporary positions of six months or less.

Persons appointed to these positions which are exempt from the career service shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and may be demoted, suspended, or otherwise rejected at any time without cause and without right of appeal or hearing in any manner. Except that, any employee in the career service promoted or transferred to a position not included in the career service and made exempt from the career service shall be reinstated to their career appointment from which they were promoted or transferred if within six months of appointment to a position not included in the career service, action is taken to dismiss them, unless charges are filed and the employee is discharged in accordance with this chapter and the rules established hereunder for positions in the career service. All

Page 1 of 2 ends

Page 17 ends

Ordinance No. 7,979-N.S. Page 2 of 2
employments designated in this section shall be entitled to only those benefits provided for at-will employees in the personnel rules and regulations or in applicable memoranda agreements.

At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on July 8, 2025, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Blackaby, Humbert, Kesarwani, Lunaparra, O’Keefe, Taplin, Tregub, and Ishii.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 18 ends

Ordinance No. 7,980-N.S. Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 7,980-N.S.

LEASE AMENDMENT FOR YOONACO, INC. DBA HANA JAPAN AT 235 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1.

The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Yoonaco, Inc. dba Hana Japan, for the property at 235 University Avenue. The terms of the amendment shall be on substantially the terms set forth in Exhibit A.

Section 2.

The initial term for the lease will be extended by one year, to expire on June 30, 2026.

The five-year extension option will be replaced with a one-year extension. The rent will remain at $7,868 per month for the initial term of the lease and through the one-year option period. The daily operating requirement for the first floor will be removed.

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

At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on July 8, 2025, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Blackaby, Humbert, Kesarwani, Lunaparra, O’Keefe, Taplin, Tregub, and Ishii.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 19 ends

E
xhibit A:

AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT

This Lease amendment (“Amendment”) is made on and entered into as of July 1, 2025, between the CITY OF BERKELEY (“Landlord”), a Charter City organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and YOONACO, INC. DBA HANA JAPAN, a California Corporation (“Tenant”), who agree as follows:

This lease amendment is made with reference to the following facts and objectives:

A. Per City Ordinance No. 7,703-N.S. approved on June 26, 2020, Landlord and Tenant entered into an Improved Property Lease which was effective on July 1, 2020 (“the Lease Agreement”).

B. In the Lease Agreement, the Landlord and Tenant agreed to an Initial Term of five (5) years with a five (5)-year Option Period.

C. Tenant requested one (1) additional year of tenancy with an option to extend the Lease Agreement for one (1) year, and to remove the existing five (5)-year option period.

D. Tenant requested to maintain the current monthly rent payment of Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-Eight DOLLARS ($7,868) per month for the remainder of the Initial Term and for the Option Period of the Lease Agreement.

E. Tenant requested to remove the daily operating requirement for the first floor of the Property.

F. Per Ordinance No. 7,703-N.S., the City Manager is authorized to execute amendments to the lease.

Therefore, the Landlord and Tenant agree to amend the Lease Agreement as follows:

1. Basic Lease Information is amended with the following language:

7. Initial Term: Six (6) Year(s), commencing as of July 1, 2020 (“Commencement Date”).

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 20 ends

8. Rent:

Lease Period Beginning: Monthly Rent Due Yearly Rent Due July 1, 2020 (2 months) $2,832.50 $57,415 September 1, 2020 (10 months) $5,175
July 1, 2021 $5,330 $63,963
July 1, 2022 $7,416 $88,992
July 1, 2023 $7,638 $91,662
July 1, 2024 $7,868 $94,412
July 1, 2025 $7,868 $94,412
Option Year Beginning: Monthly Rent Due Yearly Rent Due July 1, 2026 $7,868 $94,412

2. Section 2. TERM is amended with the following language:

A. The Initial Term shall commence on the July 1, 2020 (“Lease Commencement Date”) and expire on June 30, 2026 (“Lease Expiration Date”).

B. Tenant is granted the option (“Extension Option”) to extend the initial term of this lease for an additional term of one (1) year (“Option Period”) provided all of the Extension Conditions are met.

3. Section 3. RENT: The schedule of monthly rent payment is amended to reflect changes in Basic Lease Information: 8. Rent, referenced above.

4. Section 5.F. USE OF PROPERTY is deleted and replaced with the following language:

F. The first floor commercial space may be subleased to a separate entity pursuant to Section 15.

5. In all other respects, the Lease Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 21 ends

I
N WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Tenant have executed this Amendment as of the date written on the first paragraph above.

CITY OF BERKELEY

BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________
City Manager City Attorney
Dated: _____________________

REGISTERED BY: ATTEST:

____________________ ________________________
City Auditor Deputy City Clerk

TENANT

_______________________________
By:

Title:

_______________________________
City of Berkeley Business License No.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 22 ends

Ordinance No. 7,981-N.S. Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. 7,981-N.S.

AMENDMENTS TO LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION CHAPTER (BMC

3.24), THE RULES OF MEASUREMENT CHAPTER (BMC 23.106), RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.202), COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC

23.204), MANUFACTURING DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.206), USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS CHAPTER (BMC 23.302), GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHAPTER (BMC 23.304), AND DEMOLITION AND DWELLING UNIT CONTROL CHAPTER (BMC 23.326), TO CORRECT ERRORS, CLARIFY LANGUAGE, AND

CODIFY EXISTING PRACTICE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That BMC Section 3.24.110(A)(1) is amended to read as follows:

1. Architectural merit:
a. Property that is first, last, only, or most significant architectural property of its type in Berkeley or within a neighborhood or area of the city ,
b. Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works of the best surviving work of an architect, designer or master builder in Berkeley or within their neighborhood or area of the city; or
c. Architectural examples worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric.

Section 2. That BMC Section 23.106.030 is amended to read as follows:

A. Gross Floor Area Defined. Gross floor area means the total gross horizontal areas of all floors of a building or enclosed structure, below the roof and within the outer surface of the main walls of a main or accessory building (or the centerlines of party walls separating such buildings or portions of buildings); or areas within lines drawn parallel to and 2 feet within the roof line of any building or portion of a building; including:

1. Usable basements and cellars

2. Access features in multi-story buildings. For a multi-story building with a covered or enclosed stairways, stairwells, or elevator shaft, the horizontal area of these features is counted only once at the floor level of their greatest area of horizontal extent

3. Covered pedestrian access features for non-residential uses. For non- residential uses, gross floor area includes pedestrian access interior walkways

Page 1 of 5 ends

Page 23 ends

Ordinance No. 7,981-N.S. Page 2 of 5
or corridors, or interior courtyards, walkways, paseos or corridors covered by a roof or skylight

4. Mezzanines
B. Excluded Areas. The following areas are excluded from gross floor area calculation:

1. Covered or uncovered areas used for off-street parking or loading spaces.

2. Driveways ramps between floors and maneuvering aisles of a multi-level parking garage.

3. Mechanical, electrical, and telephone equipment rooms below finished grade.

4. Areas which qualify as usable open space.

5. Arcades, porticoes, and similar open areas for non-residential uses which are:
(a) Located at or near street level;
(b) Accessible to the general public; and
(c) Are not designed or used as sales, display, storage, service, or production areas.

6. The floor area associated with any existing or proposed accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit, up to 800 square feet per lot. See 23.306 Accessory Dwelling Units.

Section 3. That BMC Section 23.202.030(D) is amended to read as follows:

D. Accessory Structures. For accessory structure permit requirements, see the following:

1. Section 23.304.060– Accessory Buildings and Enclosed Accessory Structures.

2. Section 23.304.070– Unenclosed Accessory Structures in All Districts

3. Section 23.304.080– Fences
Section 4. That BMC Section 23.204.030(E) is amended to read as follows:

E. Accessory Structures. For accessory structure permit requirements, see the following:

1. Section 23.304.060– Accessory Buildings and Enclosed Accessory Structures.

2. Section 23.304.070– Unenclosed Accessory Structures in All Districts.

Page 2 of 5 ends

Page 24 ends

Ordinance No. 7,981-N.S. Page 3 of 5

3. Section 23.304.080– Fences.

Section 5. That BMC Section 23.206.030(F) is amended to read as follows:

F. Accessory Structures. For accessory structure permit requirements, see the following:

1. Section 23.304.060– Accessory Buildings and Enclosed Accessory Structures.

2. Section 23.304.070– Unenclosed Accessory Structures in All Districts.

3. Section 23.304.080– Fences.

Section 6. That Table 23.032-1, Allowed Hours of Operation, within BMC Chapter

23.302.020(B)(3), Exceptions, is amended to read as follows:

Table 23.302-1: Allowed Hours of Operation

DISTRICT ALLOWED HOURS OF OPERATION
PERMIT

REQUIRED TO

EXTEND HOURS

C-C, C-U, C-NS, C-AC,
C-W nodes 6:00 a.m. – 12:00 midnight AUP

C-N, C-E, C-SO, C-SA,
C-W outside nodes,
MU-R
6:00 a.m. – 12:00 midnight AUP
C-T, C-DMU 24 hours per day 7 days a week N/A
Section 7. That BMC Section 23.304.070 is amended to read as follows:

23.304.070 – Unenclosed Accessory Structures in All Districts A. Applicability. This section applies to unenclosed accessory structures as defined in 23.502--Glossary, excluding fences which are addressed in 23.304.080--Fences.

B. Placement on Lot. Unenclosed accessory structures require an AUP if placed on the ground within a required setback.

C. Height.

1. For unenclosed accessory structure within a required setback, allowed height shall be specified in the AUP.

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 25 ends

Ordinance No. 7,981-N.S. Page 4 of 5

2. No height limitations apply to unenclosed accessory structures outside of required setbacks.

3. The height of an unenclosed accessory structure is measured as the vertical distance from the lowest existing grade point within a 3-foot radius of any point of the structure to the highest point of the structure.

D. Hot Tubs, Jacuzzis, and Spas.

1. An unenclosed outdoor hot tub, jacuzzi, or spa located anywhere on a lot requires:
(a) An AUP in all Districts except for the ES-R district; and (b) A Use Permit in the ES-R district.

2. Any pump associated with an unenclosed outdoor hot tub, jacuzzi, or spa shall be mounted and enclosed so that its sound is not audible on an adjacent lot.

Section 8. That BMC Section 23.326.050 is amended to read as follows:

23.326.050 – Demolition of Accessory Structures or Buildings A. Notwithstanding anything in Municipal Code Title 23 (Zoning Ordinance) to the contrary, but subject to any applicable requirements in Municipal Code Section 3.24 (Landmarks Preservation Ordinance), accessory structures or accessory buildings of any size that are accessory to a residential use, including, but not limited to, garages, carports, and sheds may be demolished by right except where the accessory structure or building is occupied by a residential tenant (regardless of whether it is lawfully permitted) or otherwise contains a lawfully established residential unit, which serves and is located on the same lot as a lawful residential use. Such accessory structures or accessory buildings are considered residential units for the purposes of this Chapter. (Ord. 7924-NS § 1, 2024)
Section 9. That BMC Section 23.326.070(B) is amended to read as follows:

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

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

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

Page 4 of 5 ends

Page 26 ends

Ordinance No. 7,981-N.S. Page 5 of 5
Section 10. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on July 8, 2025, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Blackaby, Humbert, Kesarwani, Lunaparra, O’Keefe, Taplin, Tregub, and Ishii.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

Page 5 of 5 ends

Page 27 ends

Page 28 ends

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Appointment of Emergency Standby Officers

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution confirming the appointment of newly nominated standby officers for the Mayor and City Council to serve in the event the elected official is unavailable during an emergency, and rescinding Resolution No. 70,833-N.S.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
With the election of Mayor Ishii and Councilmembers Lunaparra, Tregub, O’Keefe, and Blackaby in 2024, there is a need to nominate and approve standby officers for the new elected officials. The City Clerk has determined that the nominees meet the requirements and may be approved by the City Council. Nominees noted as pending are still in the verification and review process.

BACKGROUND
On March 14, 1995, the Council adopted Resolution No. 57,906-N.S., designating a procedure for the selection of Standby Officers for City Councilmembers in the event of an emergency. The original resolution was updated on April 23, 2019 by Resolution No. 68,830-N.S. which amended the qualifications required for standby officers. This procedure is part of the City’s emergency preparedness planning and ensures that in the case of a disaster or other catastrophic emergency causing the unavailability of members of the Council, government can continue to function. Under state law, a Councilmember or Standby Officer is “unavailable” when he or she is “either killed, missing, or so seriously injured as to be unable to attend meetings and otherwise perform his [or her] duties.” (Govt Code § 8636.)

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

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 29 ends

Emergency Standby Officers for the Mayor and Councilmembers CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
With the election of a new Mayor and Councilmembers in 2024, it is necessary to update the resolution to include the newly nominated standby officers.

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

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 30 ends

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF STANDBY OFFICERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 70,833-N.S.

WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 57,906-N.S. adopted March 14, 1995, the Council enacted a policy for the appointment of Standby Officers to serve in each Councilmember’s place in the event the Councilmember is unavailable during a disaster; and WHEREAS, each Councilmember has nominated Standby Officers and the City Manager has found all the nominees to be qualified in accordance with the standards set forth in Resolution No. 68,830-N.S.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the following persons are hereby confirmed as Standby Officers to serve in place of a Councilmember in case the Councilmember is unavailable during a catastrophic emergency, and that they shall serve in the order listed, successive Standby Officers serving only if the preceding officer or officers are unavailable. The definition of “unavailable” shall be as set forth in Government Code Section 8636: an officer is either killed, missing, or so seriously injured as to be unable to attend meetings and otherwise perform his or her duties; or as that Section may be hereafter amended.

For Mayor Adena Ishii

1. Pending

2. None Designated

3. None Designated
For Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani

1. Pending

2. Beth Gerstein

3. Teresa Clarke
For Councilmember Terry Taplin

1. Jennifer Shanoski

2. Weldon Bradstreet

3. None Designated
For Councilmember Ben Bartlett

1. Pending

2. Kathleen Crandall

3. James Chang

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 31 ends

Page 2 ends

For Councilmember Igor Tregub

1. Linda Maio

2. Holly Scheider

3. Pending
For Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe

1. None Designated

2. None Designated

3. None Designated
For Councilmember Brent Blackaby

1. Pending

2. Dyana Delfin Polk

3. None Designated
For Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra

1. Pending

2. Avery Arbaugh

3. None Designated
For Councilmember Mark Humbert

1. Gordon Wozniak

2. Pending

3. None Designated
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 70,833-N.S. is hereby rescinded.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 32 ends

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance
Subject: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on July 22, 2025

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be or planned to be issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Total estimated cost of items included in this report Is $6,810,000.

PROJECT Fund Source Amount
Desk Audits, Classification & Compensation
Studies, Investigations and Skelly Meetings 011 General Fund $250,000 Fire Department Administrative Surge
Staffing 164 Measure FF – Public Safety $960,000 (over four FYs)
K-Dock Restroom Renovation Project 511
608
Measure T1
Marina Operations/Maint.
$350,000
$50,000
Berkeley Marina F & G Dock Deck
Replacement
011 General Fund $250,000
On-Call Industrial Hygiene for City Facilities
and Landfill Regulatory Compliance
Services
501 Capital Improvements $4,300,000
Fleet Telematics System-Hardware,
Software and Services 672 Equipment Maintenance $450,000 Public Works Safety Training Services
601
611
616
672
673
Zero Waste
Sanitary Sewer Operations
Clean Storm Water
Equipment Maintenance
Building Maintenance
$200,000

Page 1 of 5 ends

Page 33 ends

Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Consent Calendar Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council July 22, 2025 Approval on July 22, 2025
Total: $6,810,000

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On May 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S. effective June 6, 2008, which increased the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services to $50,000. As a result, this required report submitted by the City Manager to Council is now for those purchases in excess of $100,000 for goods; and $200,000 for playgrounds and construction; and $50,000 for services. If Council does not object to these items being sent out for bid or proposal within one week of them appearing on the agenda, and upon final notice to proceed from the requesting department, the IFB (Invitation for Bid) or RFP (Request for Proposal) may be released to the public and notices sent to the potential bidder/respondent list.

BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S., amending the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Finance Department reviews all formal bid and proposal solicitations to ensure that they include provisions for compliance with the City’s environmental policies.  For each contract that is subject to City Council authorization, staff will address environmental sustainability considerations in the associated staff report to City Council.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Need for the goods and/or services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Roopreet Walia-Soorma, Senior Buyer, Finance, 510-981-7311 Attachments:
1: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on July 22, 2025
a. Desk Audits, Classification & Compensation Studies, Investigations and Skelly Meetings
b. Fire Department Administrative Surge Staffing
c. K-Dock Restroom Renovation Project
d. On-Call Industrial Hygiene for City Facilities and Landfill Regulatory Compliance Services

Page 2 of 5 ends

Page 34 ends

Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Consent Calendar Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council July 22, 2025 Approval on July 22, 2025
e. Berkeley Marina F & G Dock Deck Replacement
f. Fleet Telematics System-Hardware, Software and Services g. Public Works Safety Training Services
Note: Original of this attachment with live signature of authorizing personnel is on file in General Services.

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 35 ends

NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: July 22, 2025
Attachment 1
SPECIFICATION NO.

DESCRIPTION OF

GOODS / SERVICES

BEING PURCHASED
APPROX. RELEASE DATE APPROX. BID OPENING

DATE INTENDED USE

ESTIMATED COST
BUDGET CODE TO BE CHARGED DEPT. / DIVISION CONTACT NAME & PHONE 25-11743-C K-Dock Restroom
Renovation Project
7/23/25 8/21/2025 Renovation for existing K-Dock
Restroom to meet ADA
accessibility requirements. The K-
Dock Renovation project will
create a dedicated public
restroom and a separate slip-
holder restroom with a new
single-user ADA
accessible
shower room
Measure T
Phase 2
$350,000
Marina Fund
$50,000
Total : $400,000
Measure T1
511-52-545-000-0000-000-
461-662110
PWWT1122014
Marina Fund
608-52-545-000-0000-000-
473-662110
PRWT122014
PRW Robert Chan
510-981-6392
25-11745-C Berkeley Marina F
& G Dock Deck
Replacement
7/23/25 8/21/2025 Re-deck the F & G Dock at the
Berkeley Marina
$250,000 General Fund
$250,000
011-52-545-000-0000-000-
461-663110-
PRWWF26002
PRW/Waterfront Sean Crothers
510-981-6744
Dept Total $650,000
25-11744-C On-call  Industrial
Hygiene for City
Facilities and
Landfill Regulatory
Compliance
Services
7/23/25 8/21/2025 Industrial Hygiene Engineering
services and Landfill Compliance
Services for upcoming and
ongoing City projects.
$300,000 for
industrial hygiene
$4,000,000  for
landfill compliance
service
3-Year duration
PW  501-54-623-677-0000-
000-444-612310-              TBD
(on-call contract) funds are
built into projects
PW/Eng Priya Chopra
510-292-0064
25-11746-C Fleet Telematics
System-Hardware,
Software and
Services
7/23/25 8/21/2025 GPS, Devices, Monitoring
Platform for Fleet Management
of Vehicles and other designated
assets.
$150,000 annually
Three year contract
$450,000
672-54-626-722-0000-000-
472-612990-
Professional Svcs -
Miscellaneous
Public Works Equipment
Maintenance Division
Sara Rubio                        510-
981-5372
25-11747-C Public Works Safety
Training Services
7/23/25 8/21/2025 Provide on-site safety training
topics for all PW Divisions, such
as First Aid.CPR, Bloodborne
Pathogens, PPE, Confined
Spaces, Driver's Safety and other
issues as needed.

Contract will also support
assessments, development and
upates to current written safety
policies and provide
recordkeeping of City safety
policies/training records.
$200,000 over three
years with two 1-
year optional
extensions for two
vendors
601-54-627-734-3023-000-
472-612990-                       611-
54-624-712-0000-000-472-
612990-                      616-54-
623-675-0000-000-472-
612990-                        672-54-
626-722-0000-000-472-
612990-                  673-54-
624-692-0000-000-472-
612990-
Public Works               Facilities
Streets & Utilities
Equipment Maintenance
Zero Waste
Engineering
Tucker Broffit                   510-
981-5375                  Erika
Barros                      510-981-
6462
Dept Total $4,950,000
25-11741-C Desk Audits,
Classification &
Compensation
Studies,
Investigations and
Skelly Meetings
7/23/25 8/21/2025 The City is looking for a vendor
that will assist the Human
Resources department with Desk
Audits, Classifications and
Compensation Studies,
Investigations and Skelly
Meetings
$250,000.00 for a 5
year contract
011-34-341-000-0000-000-
412-612990
Human Resources Benita Torres             510-
981-6809
Dept Total $250,000
1 of  2

Page 4 of 5 ends

Page 36 ends

NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: July 22, 2025
Attachment 1
25-11742-C Fire Department
Administrative
Surge Staffing
7/23/25 8/21/2025 1. Fill intrerim vacancies in
established classifications.

2. Provide subject matter experts
for specialized initiatives.

3. Support divisions during peak
workload periods.

4. Facilitate knowledge transfer
in technical areas
$960,000 (over four
FYs)
164-72-742-834-0000-000-
422-612990
Fire/Suppression David Sprauge 510-
981-3473
Dept Total $960,000
TOTAL $6,810,000
SPECIFICATION NO.

DESCRIPTION OF

GOODS / SERVICES

BEING PURCHASED
APPROX. RELEASE DATE APPROX. BID OPENING

DATE INTENDED USE

ESTIMATED COST
BUDGET CODE TO BE CHARGED DEPT. / DIVISION CONTACT NAME & PHONE 2 of 2

Page 5 of 5 ends

Page 37 ends

Page 38 ends

CONSENT 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: Reallocation of FY 2025 Youth Resiliency Funding

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to reallocate Youth Equity Partnership (YEP) funds awarded through the FY 2025 - 2028 community agency contracting process to the Berkeley Public Schools Fund, Contract No. 32500058, and amend the Schools Fund’s existing contract as follows:
 Remove the Black Girls United (BGU) program from the contract (at the contractor’s request).
 Reallocate $20,000 of the BGU funding to the Longfellow Identity Affirming Programs (LIAP) for FY 2026 through FY 2028, increasing their total annual allocation from $25,300 to $45,300.
 Return the remaining $27,817 initially awarded to BGU, annually, to the General Fund for FY 2026 - 2028.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Contract #32500058 for the Berkeley Public Schools Fund is part of the Berkeley Youth Equity Partnership’s (YEP) Healthy, Connected, and Resilient portfolio. The Schools Fund acts as a fiscal intermediary for these youth programs. The funds are designated to promote the mental health, well-being, and sense of belonging of African American/Black and Latinx young people in Berkeley.

BGU’s Manager advised the City that the program is changing strategies, making it no longer eligible for fiscal sponsorship from the Schools Fund or for funding from YEP.

This recommendation would shift $20,000 per year in funding from FY 2026 through FY 2028 within the City’s existing contract with the Schools Fund, moving funds from BGU to LIAP. Staff determined that this reallocation is consistent with the terms of the FY 2025 RFP, because this shift would occur within an existing contract (with the Schools Fund) and would remain under the same YEP priority (Healthy, Connected, and Resilient) as originally awarded by Council.

Page 1 of 5 ends

Page 39 ends

Reallocation of FY 2025 Youth Resiliency Funding CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

If approved, the total not-to-exceed amount of the Schools Fund contract would decrease by $83,451 (from $292,468 to $209,017). This $83,451 represents the total funds removed from the Black Girls United program's allocation for FY 2026 through FY 2028 that will be returned to the General Fund.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On June 25, 2024, the Berkeley City Council adopted the FY 2025 budget, which included authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a contract with the Berkeley Public Schools Fund for a total not-to-exceed amount of $292,468 ($73,117 per year for FY 2025 through FY 2028) to fund two new programs: BGU and LIAP.

In its first year with YEP funding, BGU struggled to build its administrative capacity, maintain staffing, and meet enrollment/participation goals. In May 2025, YEP received notification from the BGU Manager that its leadership decided to shift its programmatic focus away from in-school programming. BGU subsequently requested to conclude participation in the current grant after FY 2025.

During the first half of FY 2025, LIAP served 165 Black and Brown middle school students. Approximately 77% (127 students) of these participants were Latinx, and 23% (38 students) were African American/Black.

LIAP’s Raza Youth Consilio (RYCO) component includes a biweekly community- building group focused on students of Latinx heritage, though the curriculum is relevant to participants of all racial/ethnic backgrounds. RYCO engages youth in assets-based identity-awareness activities, focusing on beliefs, values, purpose, assets, cultural roots, and family interaction. A subset of RYCO’s students comprise a leadership team that meets bi-weekly to plan and support the larger group sessions.

The second component, Young MENtors, provides intervention services specifically designed for boys of color. LIAP’s RJ Counselor works with a team of Longfellow teachers and leaders to provide group and one-on-one support for 45 high-need students in areas including attendance, emotional regulation, and academics.

In its FY 2025 proposal to the City, LIAP requested a modest budget of $25,300. As first-time applicants for YEP funding, the Schools Fund and LIAP staff did not fully anticipate the time and staff expertise needed to collect service measures and outcomes, and to track attendance and budgets, as required of all YEP grant recipients.

The program is also growing quickly, with 18% more participants than anticipated in FY 2025. As a result, LIAP has had to spread its YEP funding thinly across participants.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
A key finding of Berkeley Unified School District’s (BUSD) Mental Health Needs Assessment 2023[1] was that “…families of color resoundingly shared that services and supports have not been focused toward honoring the diversity of student backgrounds

Page 2 of 5 ends

Page 40 ends

Reallocation of FY 2025 Youth Resiliency Funding CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025

Page 3 ends

and experiences; as a result, a culture of exclusion and inequity persists.” The assessment recommended “[a] focused approach…[to address] racial disparities experienced by students and families…”
The YEP funding awarded to the Schools Fund supports this recommended approach by investing in programs and services that promote resiliency, positive cultural identity, and belonging. With BGU stepping away from this contract, the City has an opportunity to bolster its sister program, LIAP, by providing additional funding. This will allow LIAP to build its administrative capacity and maintain program quality in the face of growing enrollment. The increase in funding will help ensure that African American/Black and Latinx students at Longfellow Middle School continue to experience the benefits of this program: stronger cultural identity, increased connectedness, and greater resiliency.

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

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff consulted with the Schools Fund to try to identify a solution that would enable BGU to continue to receive YEP funding. BGU opted to end their participation in the contract.

Staff considered the benefits of the City retaining the full balance of the BGU award to help address its deficit. Staff balanced this option with the City’s commitment to support vulnerable populations, including those impacted by recent federal immigration policies and practices. Particularly in light of these policy changes, LIAP plays an important role by providing Latinx middle schoolers and their families with a counterbalance to and refuge from the negative messaging and actions occurring across the country.

If it is not awarded the proposed additional funding, LIAP would need to divert a portion of its current grant award to support the program’s administration. This shift would result in the need to dilute program services and/or to turn away participants. In contrast, increasing LIAP’s allocation by $20,000 per year for FY 2026 – FY 2028 would enable LIAP to support a fast-growing participant pool and to build infrastructure to collect participant information, track expenditures, and document program impacts.

Given these considerations, staff recommends that $47,817 in funding originally awarded to support the BGU program be reallocated in FY 2026 – 2028 to increase LIAP’s annual funding by $20,000 (from $25,300 to $45,300) and the remaining $27,817 per year be returned to General Fund for FY 2026 – 2028.

CONTACT PERSON
Nina Goldman, Senior Management Analyst, HHCS, 510-981-5420

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 41 ends

Reallocation of FY 2025 Youth Resiliency Funding CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025

Page 4 ends

Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 4 of 5 ends

Page 42 ends

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

REALLOCATION OF FY 2025 YOUTH RESILIENCY FUNDING
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, City Council approved Berkeley’s FY 2025-2028 community agency contracts as part of the FY 2025 budget; and WHEREAS, the approved budget included an annual allocation of $73,117 in General Funds for FY 2025 thru FY 2028 to the Berkeley Public Schools Fund, fiscal sponsor for Black Girls United ($47,817/year) and Longfellow Identity Affirming Programs ($25,300) for a total not to exceed amount of $292,468 under Contract #32500058; and WHEREAS, both programs were awarded funding to advance the Youth Equity Partnership’s Healthy, Connected and Resilient priority; and WHEREAS, in May 2025, Black Girls United notified the Youth Equity Partnership that it was changing its programmatic approach and had decided to withdraw from its YEP funding award effective the end of FY 2025; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley Public Schools Fund’s other sponsored program, Longfellow Identity Affirming Programs, experienced enrollment growth in FY 2025 and recognized that its contract required administrative obligations beyond what had been budgeted; and WHEREAS, reallocating $20,000 annually in funding from Black Girls United to Longfellow Identity Affirming Programs (within the Berkeley Public Schools Fund Contract #32500058) would help strengthen the administrative infrastructure of Longfellow Identity Affirming Programs; and
WHEREAS, the remaining funds in the amount of $83,451 ($27,817/year in FY 2026, FY 2027, and FY 2028) would be reabsorbed by the City’s Fund 011 General Fund.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is authorized to amend its contract with the Berkeley Public Schools Fund, Contract #32500058, as follows: reallocate $20,000 annually of funding awarded to the Berkeley Public Schools Fund as fiscal sponsor from Black Girls United to the Longfellow Identity Affirming Programs (increasing Longfellow Identity Affirming Programs’ annual budget from $25,300 to $45,300 for FY 2026 thru FY 2028); return $27,817 annually to General Funds for FY 2026 thru FY 2028; and reduce Berkeley Public Schools Fund’s FY 2025 – 2028 funding by $83,451 (from $292,468 to $209,017). A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Page 5 of 5 ends

Page 43 ends

Page 44 ends

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt three Resolutions authorizing the City Manager or designee to submit grant agreements to Alameda County, to accept the grants, and execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments to conduct public health promotion, protection, and prevention services for the following three revenue agreements:

1. Berkeley High School and Berkeley Technology Academy Health Center Programs in the projected amount of $187,926 for Fiscal Year 2026.

2. School Linked Health Services Program (Measure A Funding) in the projected amount of $200,011 for Fiscal Year 2026.

3. Tobacco Prevention Program in the projected amount of $82,600 for Fiscal Year 2026.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley will receive funds in the amount of $470,537 from Alameda County for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY2026) from the sources listed below. There is no local match required for any of these grants, however, the grant funds do not fully cover personnel expenditures and the City provides general fund to support implementation of these essential services. Each contract has been entered into the citywide contract management system database:

1. Berkeley High School Health Center and Berkeley Technology Academy Programs: This contract is anticipated to be for $187,926 in FY2026. There is no match required.

2. School Linked Health Services Program (Measure A Funding): This contract is anticipated to be for $200,011 in FY2026. There is no match required.

Page 1 of 6 ends

Page 45 ends

Revenue Grant Agreements: Funding Support from Alameda County to CONSENT CALENDAR Conduct Public Health Promotion, Protection, and Prevention Services July 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

3. Tobacco Prevention Program: This contract is anticipated to be for $82,600 in FY2026. There is no match required.

Spending of all referenced grant funds is subject to Council approval of the budget for each fiscal year and the Annual Appropriations Ordinances. Depending on the timing of when grants are officially awarded and the amounts are determined, the grant budgets will be adjusted as part of a future amendment to the FY2026 Annual Appropriations Ordinance.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As a local health jurisdiction, the City of Berkeley provides a broad range of public health programs and services to the community, with the goals of addressing health inequities, promoting healthy environments and behaviors, protecting residents from disease, and preventing illness, disability, and premature death. Alameda County revenue is an important source of support for these City public health programs. In FY2026, there are no significant changes to this support.

1. Berkeley High School and Berkeley Technology Academy Health Center Programs: Provides clinical and health education services to adolescents attending Berkeley High School and Berkeley Technology Academy.

2. School Linked Health Services Program (Measure A Funding): Increases capacity to meet the health, dental and medical needs at Berkeley public schools, and to create the infrastructure to effectively provide referrals to services, promote school connectedness, and reduce chronic absenteeism.

3. Tobacco Prevention Program: Provides tobacco cessation services, enforcement of tobacco retail licensing requirements and youth prevention education

The Division is committed to providing services to the community to promote healthy environments and prevent the spread of disease.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
These funds provide necessary revenue to support vital services related to the City of Berkeley’s mandates as a Public Health jurisdiction. They also support the

Page 2 of 6 ends

Page 46 ends

Revenue Grant Agreements: Funding Support from Alameda County to CONSENT CALENDAR Conduct Public Health Promotion, Protection, and Prevention Services July 22, 2025

Page 3 ends

Department’s work to reduce health inequities in Berkeley and improve the health of our community.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff did not identify an alternative action consistent with the City’s goals of advancing public health and social and racial equity.

CONTACT PERSON
Janice Chin, Manager, Public Health Division, HHCS (510) 981-5121 Attachments:
1: Resolution: Berkeley High School and Berkeley Technology Academy Health Center Programs
2: Resolution: School Linked Health Services Program (Measure A Funding) 3: Resolution: Tobacco Prevention Program

Page 3 of 6 ends

Page 47 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###–N.S.

GRANT AGREEMENT WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR THE BERKELEY HIGH

SCHOOL AND BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY ACADEMY HEALTH CENTER

PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services, Public Health Division (HHCS/PHD), is committed to providing health services and health education to adolescents attending Berkeley High and Berkeley Technology Academy; and
WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD provides a broad range of Public Health program services to the community; and
WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD works to promote healthy environments and behaviors, protect residents from disease, and prevent illness, disability, and premature death; and WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD seeks to eliminate health and educational inequities; and WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD should seek outside funding wherever possible to fund vital health services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to submit a grant agreement to Alameda County for Fiscal Year 2026 funding for the Berkeley High School and Berkeley Technology Academy Health Center Programs to provide health services and health education to adolescents attending Berkeley High and Berkeley Technology Academy to accept the grant funds; execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments in line with the grant award, which may be larger or smaller than the projected award of $187,926; and implement the projects and appropriation of funding for related expenses, subject to securing the grant. Funds will be deposited and expensed from a defined budget code. A record signature copy of said agreements and any amendments shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Page 4 of 6 ends

Page 48 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###–N.S.

GRANT AGREEMENT WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR THE SCHOOL LINKED

HEALTH SERVICES (MEASURE A) PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services, Public Health Division (HHCS/PHD), is committed to increasing capacity to meet the health, dental and medical needs at Berkeley public schools, and to create the infrastructure to effectively provide referrals to services, promote school connectedness, and reduce chronic absenteeism.; and
WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD provides a broad range of Public Health program services to the community; and
WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD works to promote healthy environments and behaviors, protect residents from disease, and prevent illness, disability, and premature death; and WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD seeks to eliminate health and educational inequities; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley should seek additional grant funding wherever possible to fund vital health services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to submit a grant agreement to Alameda County for Fiscal Year 2026 funding for the School Linked Health Services Program (Measure A Funding) to increase capacity to meet the health, dental and medical needs at Berkeley public schools, and to create the infrastructure to effectively provide referrals to services, promote school connectedness, and reduce chronic absenteeism; to accept the grant funds; execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments in line with the grant award, which may be larger or smaller than the projected award of $200,011; and implement the projects and appropriation of funding for related expenses, subject to securing the grant. Funds will be deposited and expensed from a defined budget code. A record signature copy of said agreements and any amendments shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Page 5 of 6 ends

Page 49 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###–N.S.

GRANT AGREEMENT WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR THE TOBACCO

PREVENTION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services, Public Health Division (HHCS/PHD), is committed to providing tobacco cessation services, enforcement of tobacco retail licensing requirements and youth prevention education; and
WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD provides a broad range of Public Health program services to the community; and
WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD works to promote healthy environments and behaviors, protect residents from disease, and prevent illness, disability, and premature death; and WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD seeks to eliminate health inequities; and WHEREAS, the HHCS/PHD should seek outside funding wherever possible to fund vital health services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to submit a grant agreement to Alameda County for Fiscal Year 2026 funding for the Tobacco Prevention Program: to provide tobacco cessation services, enforcement of tobacco retail licensing requirements and youth prevention education, to accept the grant funds; execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments in line with the grant award, which may be larger or smaller than the projected award of $82,600; and implement the projects and appropriation of funding for related expenses, subject to securing the grant. Funds will be deposited and expensed from a defined budget code. A record signature copy of said agreements and any amendments shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Page 6 of 6 ends

Page 50 ends

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing & Community Services Subject: Revenue Grant Agreements: Funding Support from the State of California to Conduct Public Health Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt three Resolutions authorizing the City Manager or designee to submit grant agreements to the State of California, to accept the grants, and execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments to conduct public health promotion, protection, and prevention services for the following three revenue agreements:

1. Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health (MCAH) Program, in the projected amount of $377,000 for Fiscal Year 2026.

2. Tobacco Trust Fund: There is no match required, and this contract is expected to be for $600,000 for Fiscal Year 2026 through Fiscal Year 2027.

3. Women, Infant, Children Program There is no match required, and this contract is expected to be for $2,557,619 for Federal Fiscal Year 2026 through Federal Fiscal Year 2028 (10/1/26 – 9/30/28).

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley will receive funds in the estimated amount of $1,529,540 from the State of California for FY 2026 through the funding sources listed above. Each contract will have its own identifying contract number, and each source has a defined budget code:

1. Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health (MCAH) Program: The state establishes an annual cap on local revenue for this program and requires a local match. The precise amount of revenue the City earns is determined by the City’s level of match funding, program staff time-studies, and level of eligible services.

The City is estimated to provide $118,541 in matching funding revenue for FY 2026, drawing down $377,000 in state revenue.

Page 1 of 6 ends

Page 51 ends

Revenue Grant Agreements: Funding Support CONSENT CALENDAR from the State of California to Conduct Public Health Services July 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

2. Tobacco Trust Fund: There is no match required, and this contract is expected to be for $300,000 in FY 2026 and $300,000 for FY 2027.

3. Women, Infant, Children Program: There is no match required, and this contract is expected to be for $866,683 FFY 2026, $845,468 for FFY 2027 and $845,468 for FFY 2028.The total amount for FFY 2026 through 2028 is expected to be $2,557,619.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As a local health jurisdiction, the City of Berkeley provides a broad range of public health program services to the community, with the goals of addressing health inequities, promoting healthy environments and behaviors, protecting residents from disease, and preventing illness, disability, and premature death. In addition to the funding referenced in this report, the City has continuing multi-year public health grants with the State of California. The total additional anticipated revenue from these state grants is $1,522,468 in FY 2026.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley receives funding from many sources annually to complete work related to improving the health of the community. As a local health jurisdiction, the City is entitled to specific state funding to meet core public health objectives. The Public Health Division is committed to providing essential services to the community to prevent the spread of disease and to promote healthy environments.

The State establishes funding caps for the MCAH program, with actual revenue determined by city matching funds and service delivery. Revenue projections are based on recent year actual revenues in these programs, service-delivery staffing, eligible client populations, and available matching funds. These projections will enable the department to keep expenditures within actual revenues, by budgeting expenditures to realistic revenue projections.

Each grant serves a specific purpose in the department’s work towards improving the health of our community:

1. Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health (MCAH) Program develops and implements systems that protect and improve the health of women of reproductive age, infants, children, adolescents and their families and works to reduce the morbidity and mortality of pregnant African American women and their

Page 2 of 6 ends

Page 52 ends

Revenue Grant Agreements: Funding Support CONSENT CALENDAR from the State of California to Conduct Public Health Services July 22, 2025

Page 3 ends

infants. The MCAH program includes Berkeley’s Black Infant Health program, which provides groups and other support to pregnant and post-partum mothers and their infants.

2. Tobacco Trust Fund works to reduce death and disease caused by tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke.

3. The Women, Infant, Children (WIC) Program contributes to the Department’s work towards improving the health of our community by mitigating the negative health effects of poor nutrition among low-income women, infants and children by providing nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, breastfeeding support and referrals to health care services.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
These funds support vital services related to our mandates as a public health jurisdiction and local initiatives designed to address health inequities in Berkeley and improve the health of Berkeley residents. These non-competitive grants support the department’s mission and provide the City with funding to continue working to protect and improve community health.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
This funding is essential for the Public Health Division’s mission and goals. The Public Health Division assesses each funding source to ensure that it supports the City’s mission and goals. Staff did not identify an alternative action consistent with the City’s goals of advancing public health and social and racial equity.

CONTACT PERSON
Janice Chin, Manager, Public Health Division, HHCS, (510) 981-5121.

Attachments:

1. Resolution: MCAH Program

2. Resolution: Tobacco Trust Fund

3. Resolution: Women, Infant, Children Program

Page 3 of 6 ends

Page 53 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###–N.S.

GRANT AGREEMENT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE MATERNAL, CHILD, AND

ADOLESCENT HEALTH (MCAH)
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services, Public Health Division, is committed to developing systems that protect and improve the health of women of reproductive age, infants, children, adolescents and their families; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services, Public Health Division, is committed to reducing the morbidity and mortality of pregnant African American women and their infants; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services provides a broad range of needed public health program services to the community; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services works to promote healthy environments and behaviors, protect residents from disease, and prevent illness, disability, and premature death; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services seeks to eliminate health inequities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley should seek outside funding wherever possible to fund vital health services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to submit a grant agreement to the State of California for funding for fiscal year 2026 for the Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health (MCAH) program: to develop systems that protect and improve the health of women of reproductive age, infants, children, adolescents and their families and to reduce the morbidity and mortality of pregnant African American women and their infants; to accept the grant funds; execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments in line with the grant award, which may be larger or smaller than the projected award of $377,000; and implement the projects and appropriation of funding for related expenses, subject to securing the grant. A record signature copy of said agreements and any amendments shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Page 4 of 6 ends

Page 54 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###–N.S.

GRANT AGREEMENT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE TOBACCO TRUST FUND WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services, Public Health Division, is committed to reducing death and disease caused by tobacco use and exposure to second hand smoke; and
WHEREAS, second hand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency, The US Toxicology Program, and the International Agency fir Research on Cancer, a branch of the World health organization; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services provides a broad range of needed public health program services to the community; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services works to promote healthy environments and behaviors, protect residents from disease, and prevent illness, disability, and premature death; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services seeks to eliminate health inequities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley should seek outside funding wherever possible to fund vital health services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to submit a grant agreement to the State of California for funding for FY 2026 through 2027 for the Tobacco Trust Fund; to reduce death and disease caused by tobacco use and exposure to second hand smoke; to accept the grant funds; execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments in line with the grant award, which may be larger or smaller than the projected award of $600,000; and implement the projects and appropriation of funding for related expenses, subject to securing the grant. A record signature copy of said agreements and any amendments shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Page 5 of 6 ends

Page 55 ends

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

GRANT AGREEMENT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE WOMEN, INFANTS AND

CHILDREN PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing & Community Services, Public Health Division (HHCS/PHD), is committed to providing nutritious foods to supplement inadequate diets, nutrition education, and referrals to health care for pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk; and WHEREAS, HHCS provides a broad range of needed public health program services to the community; and
WHEREAS, HHCS works to promote healthy environments and behaviors, protect residents from disease, and prevent illness, disability, and premature death; and WHEREAS, HHCS seeks to achieve health equity; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley should seek outside funding wherever possible to fund vital health services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to accept State of California funding for federal fiscal years 2026 through 2028 for the Women, Infants and Children program: to provide nutritious foods to supplement inadequate diets, nutrition education, and referrals to health care for pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk; execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments; and implement the projects and appropriation of funding in the estimated amount of $2,557,619 for related expenses. A record signature copy of said agreements and any amendments shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Page 6 of 6 ends

Page 56 ends

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Janelle Rodrigues, Director of Human Resources Subject: Supplemental Military Leave Compensation Policy

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 63,646–N.S. to the City’s Supplemental Military Leave Compensation Policy to be retroactively effective from July 1, 2025, going forward in order to provide supplemental wages for employees called to involuntary active military service.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The financial impact will depend on the number of employees called to involuntary active duty and their respective City and military compensation. Based on past deployments, the additional cost is absorbed within the affected department’s existing personnel budget.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley has a long-standing commitment to supporting employees who serve in the military. Since the original adoption of this supplemental military leave policy by Resolution No. 63,646–N.S. in 2007, the City has offered supplemental military compensation to help offset income loss during active military duty. Most recently extended by Resolution No. 70,949–N.S., the policy is set to expire on June 30, 2025. Due to ongoing deployments and the continued need for support to deployed City staff and their families, staff recommend adopting the policy on an ongoing basis.

The supplemental military leave policy provides:

1. In addition to the 30 days fully paid annual military leave provided under the California Military and Veterans Code, the City will pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances to an amount equal to the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36 months of the initial call up order for employees who have at least one (1) year of employment with the City and who have been called up to involuntary active service.

However, if the twelve months have elapsed since the employee has returned from deployment and is redeployed, the employee will start a new cycle of Supplemental Military Leave Benefits as described above.

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 57 ends

Supplemental Military Leave Compensation Policy CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

2. The City will pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances in an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36 months of the initial call up order for employees with less than one (1) year in career service with the City and who have been called up to involuntary active service.

This action aligns with the City’s goal to attract and retain a talented and diverse City government workforce and ensures continued support for employees fulfilling military obligations.

BACKGROUND
Under California and federal law, the City provides baseline military leave benefits, including fully paid leave for up to 30 days per fiscal year and continuation of health and retirement benefits. The City's supplemental policy for the past 18 years expands upon these rights by offering benefits as described above.

Since the events of September 11, 2001, the City Council has adopted several resolutions on supplemental military leave compensation. The City’s policy on supplemental military leave compensation was last updated on April 24, 2007, and has been incorporated in Resolution No. 63,646-N.S. Since its initial adoption in 2007, the Council has consistently extended the policy through multiple resolutions in recognition of the unpredictable nature of military call-ups and in support of City staff and their families.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no environmental sustainability or climate impacts associated with this action.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Extending the policy demonstrates the City’s ongoing commitment to employees who serve in the military and ensures that they and their families receive consistent financial support during deployments.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Janelle Rodrigues, Director of Human Resources, (510) 365-5934.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 58 ends

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

ADOPTION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL MILITARY LEAVE COMPENSATION POLICY WHEREAS, since September 11, 2001, the City Council has adopted a series of resolutions establishing and extending a Supplemental Military Leave Compensation Policy to support employees involuntarily called to active military service; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley complies with California Military and Veterans Code Section 389 et seq., and the Federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. Sections 4301 et seq., by providing up to 30 days of fully paid military leave per fiscal year and continued health benefits during deployment; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 62,648– N.S. that provided that the City would pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances to an amount equal to the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36 months of the initial call up order for employees who have at least one (1) year of employment; and WHEREAS, this same Resolution No. 62,648–N.S. provided that the City will pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances in an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36-months of the initial call up order for employees with less than one (1) year in the career service with the City who have been called up to involuntary active service; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 63,646–N.S. that provided that the City would pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances to an amount equal to the employee’s regular salary for an aggregate period of 24-months that must be taken within 36-months for employees called for active military service and to extend the City’s supplemental military leave compensation benefit to May 31, 2008; and
WHEREAS, this same Resolution No. 63,646–N.S. provided that if 12 months have elapsed since the employee has returned from deployment and is redeployed, the employee will start a new cycle of supplemental military leave compensation benefits to provide a salary supplement for an aggregate of 24 months that must be taken within 36 months of the subsequent deployment; and
WHEREAS, this same Resolution No. 63,646–N.S. provided that the City will pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances in an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36 months of the initial call up order for employees with

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 59 ends

July 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

less than one (1) year in the career service with the City who have been called up to involuntary active service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted various resolutions to extend the Supplemental Military Leave Benefit on an annual basis, starting on April 24, 2007 (Resolution No. 63,646-N.S.); May 20, 2008 (Resolution No. 64,063-N.S.); April 21, 2009 (Resolution No. 64,398-N.S.); April 27, 2010 (Resolution No. 64,851-N.S.); April 26, 2011 (Resolution No. 65,239-N.S.); May 15, 2012 (Resolution No. 65,701-N.S.); May 7, 2013 (Resolution No. 66,124-N.S.); May 6, 2014 (Resolution No. 66,564-N.S.); May 12, 2015 (Resolution No. 67,017-N.S.); April 26, 2016 (Resolution No. 67,438-N.S.); May 15, 2017 (Resolution No. 67,963-N.S.; July 11, 2023 (Resolution No. 70,949-N.S.); and WHEREAS, the most recent extension of this policy was approved by Resolution No. 70,949-N.S. on July 11, 2023, which extended the policy through June 30, 2025; and WHEREAS, military reservists continue to face ongoing and extended involuntary deployments, requiring ongoing support from the City to reduce the financial burdens on employees and their families during military service.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Resolution No. 63,646-N.S. is hereby amended to extend on an ongoing basis the City’s Supplemental Military Leave Compensation Policy with a retroactive effective date from July 1, 2025, until such time as it is amended.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the policy shall continue to provide that:

Employees with at least one (1) year of service with the City shall be eligible to receive a salary supplement equal to the difference between their military compensation and their City salary for an aggregate period not to exceed twenty-four (24) months, to be used within thirty-six (36) months of the initial call-up order.

Employees with less than one (1) year of service shall be eligible to receive a salary supplement equal to one-half (½) of their regular City salary for the same period.

If twelve (12) months have passed since an employee returned from military deployment and is subsequently redeployed, the employee shall begin a new twenty-four (24) month benefit cycle.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 60 ends

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report (Assembly Bill 481)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal impacts of approving the report are limited to staff time for reporting and continuous training. Fiscal impacts related to specific equipment are detailed within the report.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Assembly Bill 481 mandates an annual report on law enforcement use of specified military equipment be provided to the governing body of the agency.

BACKGROUND
On May 11, 2021 the City of Berkeley adopted the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance, Ordinance NO. 7,760-N.S. The Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance requires the Police Department submit to Council for approval an annual report on the usage and deployment of specified equipment. The 2024 annual report pursuant to this ordinance was approved by the City Council on May 20, 2025.

On September 30, 2021, after the City of Berkeley adopted our City ordinance, Assembly Bill 481 was approved by California Governor Gavin Newsom, requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body (Mayor and City Council), by adoption of a military equipment use policy prior to funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment as defined in Assembly Bill 481. Like the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance, this bill required an approval process for the continued use of military equipment that law enforcement agencies already possessed.

In accordance with the assembly bill, the Berkeley Police Department authored Policy 709, Military Equipment policy, which was approved by the City Council on July 26, 2022.

Page 1 of 20 ends

Page 61 ends

2024 Annual Military Equipment Report CONSENT CALENDAR
Assembly Bill 481 July 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

Also similar to Berkeley’s Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance, Assembly Bill 481 requires law enforcement agencies to submit to the governing body an annual report for each type of military equipment they possess. The required information in the annual report per Assembly Bill 481 is similar to the City of Berkeley ordinance. However, Berkeley’s Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance requires the police department track and report on all cases where military equipment was deployed even if it was not used (50 incidents in 2024) whereas Assembly Bill 481 only requires the tracking of military equipment that was used (9 incidents in 2024, plus 7 uses of the Mobile Command Vehicle for Cal football games).

Additionally, the equipment required to be reported on slightly differ. Below is a table comparing the list of equipment required to be reported on per the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance and Assembly Bill 481. The differences appear at the end of both lists. Of note, the use of both OC Spray and 36” batons are reported via the department’s use of force reporting on the Transparency Hub and BPD Annual Report.

Police Equipment and Community Safety
Ordinance (City Ordinance)
Assembly Bill 481
 M4/Patrol Rifle
Associated .223 duty and
training rounds
 Remington 700 Precision Rifle
Associated .308 rounds
 Barret Model 99 Precision Rifle
Associated .50 rounds
 Penn Arms single 40MM launcher
 Milkor LTL 40 MM multi-launcher
Associated 40mm rounds
 FN 303 Launcher
Associated FN rounds
Associated FN Pava rounds
 Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile and
Oleoresin capsicum
 Light/sound distraction device
 Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD)
 (OC spray)
 36” batons

 M4/Patrol Rifle
Associated .223 duty and
training rounds
 Remington 700 Precision Rifle
Associated .308 rounds
 Barret Model 99 Precision Rifle
Associated .50 rounds
 Penn Arms single 40MM launcher
 Milkor LTL 40 MM multi-launcher
Associated 40mm rounds
 FN 303 Launcher
Associated FN rounds
Associated FN Pava rounds
 Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile and
Oleoresin capsicum
 Light/sound Diversionary Device
 Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD)
 Mobile Command Vehicle
 ReconRobotics Recon Scout XT Robots
 Andros Remotec HD-1 Hazardous Duty
Robot

Page 2 of 20 ends

Page 62 ends

2024 Annual Military Equipment Report CONSENT CALENDAR
Assembly Bill 481 July 22, 2025

Page 3 ends

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
It is required by law and policy that an annual report on military equipment be submitted to the City Council.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police, (510) 981-5700
Arlo Malmberg, Strategic Planning and Accountability Manager, (510) 981-5747 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Annual Military Equipment Report

Page 3 of 20 ends

Page 63 ends

2024 Annual Military Equipment Report CONSENT CALENDAR
Assembly Bill 481 July 22, 2025

Page 4 ends

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

ANNUAL REPORTING AND IMPACT STATEMENTS: POLICE EQUIPMENT AND

COMMUNITY SAFETY ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, California Governor Gavin Newsom passed Assembly Bill 481 governing the funding, acquisition and use of military equipment on September 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, Government Code 7071(a) requires all law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body (Mayor and City Council), by adoption of a military equipment use policy prior to funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Council approved Berkeley Police Department Policy 709, Military Equipment Use Policy, on July 26th 2022; and
WHEREAS, Government Code 7072 (a) requires any agency that receives approval for a Military Equipment Use Policy submit to the governing body an Annual Military Equipment Report.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it approves the Berkeley Police Department’s 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report.

Page 4 of 20 ends

Page 64 ends

1 2024 Annual Military Equipment Report

Page 5 of 20 ends

Page 65 ends

2 Contents
Ordinance Background and Objectives ........................................................................................................3 Equipment Inventory and Descriptions ........................................................................................................4 2024 Equipment Uses...................................................................................................................................7 Fiscal Impact ...............................................................................................................................................12

Page 6 of 20 ends

Page 66 ends

3 Ordinance Background and Objectives
On September 30, 2021, Assembly Bill 481 was approved by California Governor Gavin Newsom, requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body (Mayor and City Council), by adoption of a military equipment use policy prior to funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment as defined in AB 481. This bill required the same approval process for the continued use of military equipment that law enforcement agencies already possessed. In accordance with the assembly bill, the Berkeley Police Department authored Policy 709, Military Equipment Policy, which was approved by the City Council on July 26, 2022.

Furthermore, Assembly Bill 481 requires law enforcement agencies to submit to the governing body an annual report for each type of military equipment. State law requires that the Annual Report contain the following information:
(1) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. (2) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
(3) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. (4) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
(5) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (6) If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

Page 7 of 20 ends

Page 67 ends

4 Equipment Inventory and Descriptions
Below is a list and Berkeley Police Department inventory and equipment levels of the reportable equipment as defined in AB 481:
 Patrol Rifle (96)
o Associated .223 duty and training rounds (61,450)
 Less Lethal single 40MM launcher (20)
 Less Lethal Milkor LTL 40 MM multi-launcher (2)
o Associated 40mm rounds (450)
 Less Lethal FN 303 Launcher (8)
o Associated FN rounds (5,813)
o Associated FN Pava rounds (150)
 Oleoresin capsicum (handheld OC spray) (182)
 Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile and Oleoresin capsicum/ tear gas (300)  Remington 700 Precision Rifle (6)
o Associated .308 rounds (3,000)
 Light/sound distraction device (88)
 Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) (2)
 Barret Model 99 Precision Rifle (1)
o Associated .50 rounds (54)
 Mobile Command Vehicle (1)
 ReconRobotics Recon Scout XT Robots (2)
 Andros Remotec HD-1 Hazardous Duty Robot (1)
The following are product descriptions of the military equipment the Berkeley Police Department possesses:

Patrol Rifle
The “M4” was developed and produced for the United States government by Colt Firearms and is based on the original Armalite Rifle (AR) patent purchased by Colt in 1959. Although Colt owns the trademarked name “M4,” several other manufacturers offer similar firearms under various model names. The M4 and its variants fire 5.56×45 mm NATO (and .223 Remington) ammunition and are gas -operated, magazine -fed firearms with barrel lengths ranging from

11.5” to 16”.

The current BPD rifle ammunition is the .223 Remington—a rimless, bottlenecked cartridge developed in 1957 by Remington Arms and Fairchild Industries. One of the most popular cartridges, the .223 Remington is used by a wide range of semi-automatic and manual -action rifles, as well as handguns. While the military uses the similar 5.56×45 mm NATO cartridge, BPD employs the more common civilian .223 Remington for all training and duty purposes.

Page 8 of 20 ends

Page 68 ends

5 Penn Arms 40MM Single Launcher & Milkor LTL Multi-Launcher The 40 mm impact projectile was developed as an alternative to the 12-gauge bean bag round and other less focused less -lethal options. Early 12-gauge bean bag round designs had unpredictable flight patterns and could cause significant unintended injuries. The 40 mm foam baton round was created as a direct -fire projectile intended to minimize such risks. The Berkeley Police Department currently uses the CTS 4557 foam baton projectile and the Penn Arms L-140 single -shot launcher.

FN 303
Developed in 2003 by Fabrique Nationale de Herstal as a less -lethal option, the FN 303 is based on a concept from Monterey Bay Corporation. The development team included designers and researchers from two paintball -related companies. The FN 303 uses compressed air to propel a .68-caliber projectile, similar to those used in manufactured paintball guns.

Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile (CS) & (OC)
Chlorobenzylidene malononitrile, commonly known as CS, is one of the most widely used tear gases. It can be delivered as a liquid, gas, or solid and is designed to produce temporary discomfort by being vaporized or otherwise dispersed in the air. Law enforcement agencies rely on CS to manage combative suspects, control crowds, and handle barricaded subjects without resorting to higher levels of force. CS can be deployed via aerosol (the most common method), fogging, pyrotechnics, or blast expulsion; however, all methods are influenced by environmental factors such as wind, rain, temperature, and proximity. Under standard conditions, CS forms a white crystalline substance with low vapor pressure and poor water solubility.

Remington 700 Precision Rifle
The Remington 700 is a series of bolt -action rifles designed in 1962 by Remington Arms Company. The “700” designation refers to multiple models with varying parts, barrel lengths, stocks, and other components. The Precision Rifle model has long been used by law enforcement and remains an industry standard. The Berkeley Police Department employs a custom Remington 700 action chambered in the common .308-caliber round, featuring a 20-inch barrel, an Accuracy International chassis/stock, a Nightforce 3-15× magnified optic, and a bipod.

Light/Sound Distraction Device
Also known as diversionary, noise/flash, or light/sound devices, Light/Sound Distraction Devices have been available for about 40 years. They serve as safe and effective tools for law

Page 9 of 20 ends

Page 69 ends

6 enforcement during challenging tactical incidents. When activated, these devices produce loud noise, heat, and intense light to create an effective diversion.

Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD)
The LRAD is a high -intensity, directional acoustical array that provides long -range, crystal -clear communication. Essentially, it functions as a powerful loudspeaker.

Barrett Model 99 Precision Rifle
The Barrett Model 99 is a single shot, bolt action .50caliber rifle introduced in 1999. It is intended for emergency situations where there is a high potential for violence.

ReconRobotics Recon Scout XT Robots (Throw Bot)
The Recon Scout XT robot is intended to safely provide police officers valuable information during high-risk, rapidly evolving situations via real-time audio and video footage. It can be operated a distance away, creating space between the officer and potential danger, thus decreasing the likelihood of injury to those involved in the event, or even a violent encounter between police officers and a dangerous subject. This asset furthers our commitment to the sanctity of life by offering time and distance in critical incidents.

Andros Remotec HD-1 Hazardous Duty Robot
The Remotec HD-1 robot is used as a means to approach hazardous situations where a potentially lethal threat such as an explosive device exists. The Remotec HD-1 robot allows for the examination and manipulation of an object or potential explosive device without unnecessarily putting a bomb technician’s life at risk.

Mobile Command Vehicle (MCV)
This vehicle is used as a mobile command post for any large-scale events or as a communications center in the event the communications center in the Public Safety Building is inoperable. Some examples of large-scale events include Solano Stroll, Juneteenth, 4th of July, Cal Berkeley football games, critical incidents or natural disasters. In 2024, the MCV was utilized as a command post during the Cal Berkeley football games that took place in Berkeley.

Page 10 of 20 ends

Page 70 ends

7 2024 Equipment Uses
The equipment documented in this report provide the Berkeley Police Department with options that assist in critical incidents and bring dangerous situations to a safe resolution. While the Berkeley Police Department possesses the equipment listed above, officers de-escalated almost all the situations that might have otherwise warranted the use of it. The use of military equipment is governed by Berkeley Police Department Policies and local, state, and federal laws. The use of the military equipment is restricted to only officers who have been trained in the use of the specific equipment.

The Berkeley Police Department responded to 61,666 calls for service in 2024. Only one of the 61,666 incidents resulted in the use of less lethal tools. The table below lists all nine AB481- eligible equipment use incidents (plus seven uses of the Mobile Command Vehicle for Cal football games). Each row represents an incident in which a specific piece of equipment was used. These statistics illustrate the extremely rare instances that less lethal munitions and other military equipment are used in relation to overall contacts.

It should be noted BPD does not possess any drones, and reporting on the use of a drone in a mutual assistance capacity in Berkeley is the responsibility of the agency that provided the assistance. The Berkeley Police Department is not required to report on the mutual assistance drone usages to prevent double reporting, but are included here in the spirit of transparency.

Drone uses are also reported in the annual Surveillance Technology Report. # Equipment Used Summary of Deployment Beat

1. Recon Scout Robot Officers responded to a felony domestic violence call at a residence where the suspect initially
refused to come outside. The Recon Scout robot
was used to visually clear the house prior to
officer entry. The subject was detained without
incident.
10 2. Light/Sound Distraction
Device, LRAD, Drone,
Hazardous Duty Robot,
Recon Scout Robot
The Special Response Team responded to a
suspect who had threatened to kill himself
and others. SRT used an LRAD to call him out,
and threw light/sound distraction devices in
the yard. A drone provided overhead
surveillance. The hazardous duty robot and
Recon Scout robot were used to visually clear
the house prior to officer entry. The subject
complied and was detained without incident.

Outside of
Berkeley

Page 11 of 20 ends

Page 71 ends

8 3. Light/Sound Distraction
Device
Officers responded to a call about a man who
had been shot and was bleeding. The suspect
was last seen in a tent. Attempts at contact
and requests to exit were unsuccessful, and a
light/sound distraction device was deployed.

The subject emerged, complied, and was
detained without incident.
13 4. 40MM Launcher, FN
303 Launcher
Officers responded to reports of a shirtless
man on Telegraph Avenue with chest wounds,
carrying a sickle and a wooden stick. Both the
40MM and FN 303 launchers were used, and
the subject complied and was detained
without incident.
5 5. Light/Sound Distraction
Device
The Special Response Team responded to
arrest a suspect connected to a shooting.

Officers spotted him walking down the street
and used a light/sound distraction device to
distract him. The subject complied and was
detained without incident.

Outside of
Berkeley

6. Drone Officers responded to a violent armed robbery
involving multiple suspects. A drone provided
overhead surveillance. All subjects complied
and were detained without incident.
5 7. LRAD, Light/Sound
Distraction Device,
Drone
Officers responded to a barricaded suspect
situation in which the individual refused to
exit an RV. Officers gave voice commands
through the LRAD, and used light/sound
distraction devices. A drone provided
overhead surveillance. The subject complied
and was detained without incident.

Outside of
Berkeley

8. Light/Sound Distraction
Device, Drone
SRT served a high-risk warrant for shooting
suspects. Officers used multiple light/sound
distraction devices. A drone provided
overhead surveillance. The subject complied
and was detained without incident.
9 9. Drone Officers responded to an attempted catalytic converter theft. When neighbors intervened,
one of the suspects produced a handgun,
1

Page 12 of 20 ends

Page 72 ends

9 threatening the residents. One suspect was
apprehended immediately, while another fled
into the wooded area of Wildcat Canyon. A
drone was deployed to assist in the search for
the suspect, who was then detained without
further incident.

10. Drone During an SRT operation in Antioch related to a shooting incident during a vehicle theft
interruption, a drone provided overhead
surveillance. The subject complied and was
detained without incident.

Outside of
Berkeley

11. Drone, Recon Scout
Robot
While conducting a high-risk warrant service
in a burglary case, a drone provided overhead
surveillance. The Recon Scout robot was used
to visually clear the house prior to officer
entry. The subject complied and was detained
without incident.
3 12. LRAD, Light/Sound
Distraction Device
Officers conducted a warrant service
operation involving a suspect connected to
multiple gunshots in Berkeley. Officers gave
voice commands through the LRAD, and used
light/sound distraction devices. The subject
complied and was detained without incident.

Outside of
Berkeley

13. Mobile Command
Vehicle
The MCV was utilized as a command post
during the 7 Cal Berkeley football games that
took place in Berkeley.
7 An internal audit was conducted in order to gather and confirm data for this report. No violations of equipment use were identified, and no complaints regarding the above-listed equipment were submitted to the department.

Page 13 of 20 ends

Page 73 ends

10 Use Statistics
The table below displays the total number of uses for each specified piece of equipment in 2024.

Equipment Uses
Patrol Rifle 0
40MM Single Launcher 1
40MM LTL Multi-Launcher 0
FN 303 Launcher 1
FN Pava Impact Projectile 0
Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile and Oleoresin Capsicum 0 Precision Rifle 0
Light/Sound Distraction Device 6
Long Range Acoustic Device 3
Barret Model 99 0
Mobile Command Vehicle 7
ReconRobotics Recon Scout XT Robots 3
Andros Remotec HD-1 Hazardous Duty Robot 1
Drone 7

Page 14 of 20 ends

Page 74 ends

11 The chart below shows the breakdown of uses by incident type.

The map below shows the locations of the 5 equipment deployments by BPD in Berkeley (excluding the Mobile Command Post where the MCV is deployed near UC campus), with 4 deployments occurring in other Bay Area cities.

Page 15 of 20 ends

Page 75 ends

12 Fiscal Impact
Funding for all training and ongoing cost in military equipment are sourced from the Berkeley Police Department’s existing budget. The only military equipment that was purchased in 2024 was .223 ammunition and .308 ammunition.

The Berkeley Police Department conducts in-house training on all specialized equipment that the department possesses. This ensures officers are fully trained to utilize the tools in the department’s possession to safeguard our community. The cost of in-house training is staff time. Some of the training on specialized equipment must be conducted externally. The fiscal cost on external training related to military equipment in 2024 included expenses from Special Response Team training ($6,355.17), bomb technician training ($2,854), and less lethal instructor training ($1950.96). Additionally, 11 police recruits attended the police academy where they received Patrol Rifle training. The total cost of the police academy for those 11 recruits was $34,642.

M4/Patrol Rifle
Rifle prices, like other firearms, will range depending on current market demand and availability. While M4 rifles purchased several years ago cost between $1,000 and $1,200 each, current rifles cost between $1,400 and $1,600. It should be expected that these prices will fluctuate and likely increase over time.

Ammunition costs fluctuate with the costs of components (brass, primers, gunpowder, and bullets) and supply/demand. Current costs for .223 Remington range from $0.50 to $0.75 a round for training ammunition (55 grain) and $1.25 to $1.50 a round for duty ammunition (62 grain). 5,500 rounds of .223 ammunition were acquired in 2024 with a fiscal impact of $27,676.60.

Every officer that is authorized to carry a rifle on duty must attend a minimum 16-hour CA POST approved rifle instruction course before being authorized to carry the rifle on duty. This course may be administered by Berkeley Police Firearm Instructors or by other POST approved agencies. Tuition for the CA POST approved class is dependent on the hosting agency. If conducted in-house the cost only includes the officer’s hourly wage, range fee, and ammunition costs (all vary). Outside agencies charge between $25 to $500 depending on the range location and duration (some classes are 32-hours while POST only requires 16-hours.) Additionally, all officers who are issued a rifle receive specific 8-hour rifle training every two years by POST certified Berkeley Police Department Firearm Instructors.

Typical round count for such classes range between 800 rounds and 1200 rounds per student.

Additionally, all officers issued a rifle receive specific 8-hour rifle training every two years by a BPD firearm instructor which constitutes an additional 500 or so rounds per officer.

Page 16 of 20 ends

Page 76 ends

13 Maintenance costs vary depending on use over time. Traditionally, various springs and pins need to be replaced every five years and may cost between $3 and $30 per rifle. Other parts such as the barrel and bolt need to be replaced around ten years and range between $150 and $300 per rifle.

Penn Arms 40MM Single Launcher
Penn Arms 40MM single launchers purchased by the department cost $815.00 each. Ongoing cost for Penn Arms single launcher should be based on the projectiles used in training and on duty. This will fluctuate based on department trainings, projectile availability and events that unfold in the city and surrounding region.

Every officer authorized to deploy a less lethal launcher must pass a certification course administered by a Berkeley Police Department Firearms Instructor. The certification class consists of classroom, range qualification and scenario application if the venue allows. This class is largely handled in house; thus, the cost only includes staff time, range fees, and projectile costs, which all vary.

Maintenance costs vary depending on use. Generally, various springs and pins need to be replaced every 5 years which can cost $3 to $30.

Milkor LTL Multi-Launcher
Milkor LTL Multi-Launchers purchased by the department cost $3,950.00 each. The ongoing cost for the Milkor LTL launcher should be based on the projectiles used in training and on duty.

This will fluctuate based on department trainings, projectile availability and events that unfold in the city and surrounding region.

Every officer authorized to deploy a less lethal launcher must pass a certification course administered by a Berkeley Police Firearm Instructor. The certification class consists of classroom, range qualification and scenario application if the venue allows. This class is largely handled in house; thus, the cost only includes the officer’s hourly wage, range fees, and projectile costs which all vary.

Maintenance costs vary depending on use. Generally, various springs and pins need to be replaced every 5 years which can cost $3 to $30.

FN 303 and FN Pava Impact Projectile
FN 303s purchased by the department cost $800.00 each. Ongoing cost associated with the FN303 launcher should be based on the projectiles used in training and on duty. This will fluctuate based on department trainings, projectile availability and events that unfold in the city and surrounding region.

Page 17 of 20 ends

Page 77 ends

14 Every officer authorized to deploy a less lethal launcher must pass a certification course administered by a Berkeley Police Firearm Instructor. The certification class consists of classroom, range qualification and scenario application if the venue allows. This class is largely handled in house; thus, the cost only includes the officer’s hourly wage, range fees, and projectile costs which all vary.

Maintenance costs vary depending on use. Generally, O-rings need to be replaced every 3,000 rounds and cost $30 per kit.

Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile and Oleoresin Capsicum (“tear gas”) The cost for CS canisters ranges from $20.00 to $39.00 per unit. The cost for OC canisters ranges from $36.00 to $44.00 per unit. Training is conducted by a Police Officer Standard Training (POST) certified Berkeley Police chemical agent training officer. The cost of training is staff time.

Remington 700 Rifle
The initial cost to purchase this rifle with its associated components is approximately $10,000 dollars each. Their average life span is 10-years at which time it will likely need to be replaced.

Ongoing cost for all firearms should be based on the ammunition used in training and on duty and maintenance. This will fluctuate based on training.

The cost associated with training is the staff time, range fees, and cost of spent ammunition.

Special Response Team (SRT) members train once a month and, on average, each member shoots approximately 50-rounds. Currently, there are only 4 members shooting at each training day. This equates to approximately 2,400 rounds of ammunition being fired per year. This does not include special training days or attendance to training schools/classes. A single box of 20- rounds costs approximately $20 dollars or $1 dollar per round. Authorized and trained Berkeley Police armorers service and provide regular maintenance of the rifles. The cost of maintenance is staff time. In 2024, BPD purchased 7,000 rounds at a cost of $10,248.84.

Barrett Model 99 Rifle
The retail cost of the Barrett Model 99 Rifle is approximately $12,500. The Department of Justice provided the Barrett Modell 99 Rifle to the Berkeley Police Department in 2007. The ongoing cost related to this rifle is the cost of ammunition and training.

The ammunition has a retail cost of approximately $6 dollars per bullet; $60 for a box of 10 and $600 for a case of 10 boxes, plus shipping and handling. The cost associated with training is the staff time, range fees, and cost of spent ammunition.

Page 18 of 20 ends

Page 78 ends

15 Light/Sound Distraction Device
Diversionary Devices cost approximately $45 per unit. Purchases for these tools are made when inventory becomes low, based upon critical incident usage and Special Response Team trainings that incorporate live devices. In 2024, BPD expects to purchase 20 light/sound diversionary devices.

Only trained and qualified personnel are permitted to deploy diversionary devices. These trained Berkeley Police officers are typically members of the Berkeley Police Department Special Response Team who receive monthly training which includes training in the deployment of diversionary devices. The cost of training is staff time.

Long Range Acoustic Device (LRADS)
The LRAD 450XL and the LRAD 100X were purchased in 2018. The total cost for both the LRADs, rechargeable battery packs and accessories was $49,999. Training is conducted by Berkeley Police personnel who are trained in the use and procedures of the LRAD. The cost to train is staff time.

ReconRobotics Recon Scout XT
The initial cost for the Recon Scout XT robot was about $12,500 per unit in 2010. There are no ongoing costs associated with the use of the Recon Scout XT robot. Being that it is battery operated, there is a nominal cost associated with charging the Recon Scout XT robot’s batteries, and the batteries of the OCU (controller).

The Recon Scout XT robot is fairly simple to operate, thus there is no cost associated with training officers in its use. Generally, the Recon Scout XT robot is robust and does not need regular repair or service. The cost of training is staff time.

Andros Remotec HD-1 Hazardous Duty Robot
The Hazardous Duty Robot was purchased in 2008 for $214,496. Being that it is battery operated, there is a nominal cost associated with charging the robot. Maintenance of the Hazardous Duty Robot is conducted by the Berkeley Police Bomb Technicians.

Berkeley Police Bomb Technicians are trained during regular bomb squad training sessions and maintain their skills through training scenarios. The cost of training and maintenance is limited to staff time.

Mobile Command Vehicle

Page 19 of 20 ends

Page 79 ends

16 The Mobile Command Vehicle was purchased in 2003 for $230,800. The ongoing cost associated to the MCV is the cost of gasoline and maintenance of the vehicle. Both gasoline and maintenance are received at the City Corporation Yard. Training is conducted in-house, by the Berkeley Police personnel, who are trained in the operation of the vehicle. The training cost is staff time.

The expected useful lifespan of the MCV was 15 years and was eligible for replacement in 2018.

A replacement fund for the MCV currently amounts to approximately $368,000. The vehicle is still in functioning, but will need to be replaced in the near future.

Page 20 of 20 ends

Page 80 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: Surveillance Technology Ordinance Submission for Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution:

1. Accepting the attached Surveillance Acquisition Report for the Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System, pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (B.M.C.) Chapter 2.99.

2. Accepting the attached Surveillance Use Policy: Use of Internal Video Surveillance System (BPD Policy 1306)

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The internal surveillance camera system that is the subject of this request is part of a larger Public Safety Building (PSB) Detention Area Security System Renovation Project.

The Berkeley Police Department, with support from the Public Works Department, is currently in the bidding phase of a project to replace the jail control panel and to upgrade and expand the surveillance camera system. Portions of this project are contingent upon City Council approval of both a Surveillance Acquisition Report and a Surveillance Use Policy, as required by Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 2.99.

The attached resolution is limited to satisfying the requirements of BMC 2.99 by approving the Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy.

BACKGROUND
The Berkeley City Jail, located at 2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, was constructed in 2000. The jail is secured using a combination of a control panel, which controls the opening and closing of various entry/exit doors and cell doors, and a surveillance camera system. An operator in the control room monitors the safety of employees and detainees using this control panel system and the surveillance camera system. The current control panel system is 25 years-old, has exceeded its expected service life, and is now obsolete. Similarly, the surveillance camera system is composed of outdated analog and digital cameras, some over two decades old, with many areas of the jail lacking camera coverage. As part of a comprehensive redesign of the jail surveillance system, both the control panel and surveillance camera system require replacement.

Page 1 of 12 ends

Page 81 ends

Surveillance Technology Ordinance Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

The planned expansion will provide full recorded video coverage of the facility and integrate directly with the new control panel system. This resolution is intended to secure the required approvals under BMC 2.99, the City’s Surveillance Technology Ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identified environmental or climate impacts associated with the proposed project.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This project was anticipated to originally cost $500,000 and resources were made available to the Public Works Department in the FY2023 Capital Budget. However, due to extended project timelines, in order to implement the surveillance camera system, an additional $250,000 is needed. Given the structural deficit in the General Fund, these resources are not immediately available and the Police Department will need to secure these funds before moving to the construction phase. Public Works will be bringing an item to Council to contract with a vendor following the Request for Proposal process.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This Resolution will allow the Police Department to proceed with replacing the jail control panel and surveillance camera system. Integration of the upgraded surveillance camera system into the new control panel will enhance safety for both employees and detainees and ensure operational reliability within the Berkeley Jail facility.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
An alternative to approve the project would be to delay or forgo the replacement of the jail control panel and surveillance camera system. However, this option is not recommended due to significant operational and safety concerns. The current surveillance camera system lacks comprehensive coverage and relies on obsolete technology, limiting the Department’s ability to effectively monitor detainee movement, respond to incidents, and ensure accountability. Gaps in video coverage may also expose the City to liability in the event of disputes or critical incidents. Delaying this project would prevent integration of modern surveillance capabilities into the new control panel system, undermining operational efficiency and delaying much needed infrastructure upgrades for the Berkeley Jail.

CONTACT PERSON
Chief Jennifer Louis (510) 981-5700
Attachments:
1: Resolution approving Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy for the Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System
2: BPD Policy 1306: Surveillance Use Policy: Use of Internal Video Surveillance System 3: Surveillance Acquisition Report: Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System

Page 2 of 12 ends

Page 82 ends

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

APPROVING SURVEILLANCE ACQUISITION REPORT AND SURVEILLANCE USE

POLICY FOR THE BERKELEY CITY JAIL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2018, City Council adopted Ordinance NO. 7,592-N.S., the Surveillance Technology Use and Community Safety Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Jail has been in operation at 2100 Martin Luther King Junior Blvd. since 2000; and
WHEREAS, Renovation and redesign of the Jail Control Panel and Surveillance System in the Jail has become necessary due to obsolescence of the existing system; and WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department in collaboration with City of Berkeley Public Works undertook a PSB Detention Area Security System Renovation Project; and WHEREAS, the Surveillance Technology Use and Community Safety Ordinance requires Council review and approval of a Surveillance Acquisition Report describing the proposed surveillance technology; and
WHEREAS, the Surveillance Technology Use and Community Safety Ordinance requires Council review and approval of a Surveillance Use Policy for the proposed surveillance technology; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department has submitted the required Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy required by the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, $500,000 has been transferred to Public Works 501 Capital Improvement Fund in support of the PSB Detention Area Security System Renovation Project; and WHEREAS, additional funding will be requested in the FY 2026 budget process; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed these documents has considered and balanced the City’s interest in protecting public safety with its interest in protecting the privacy and civil rights of its community members; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Council approves of the Surveillance Acquisition Report Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System and Surveillance Use Policy 1306 and hereby approves of the acquisition and use of this surveillance technology in the Berkeley City Jail.

Page 3 of 12 ends

Page 83 ends

1 Surveillance Use Policy: Use of Internal
and External Video Surveillance Systems
Policy 1306

PURPOSE
This policy provides guidance for the use of City of Berkeley internal and external fixed video and audio security cameras by the Berkeley Police Department.

This policy only applies to fixed, overt, marked internal and external video surveillance systems utilized by the BPD in and on its facilities. It does not apply to mobile audio/video systems, covert audio/video systems or any other image-capturing devices used by the BPD. Department personnel shall adhere to the requirements covered in this policy.

This Surveillance Use Policy is legally enforceable pursuant to BMC 2.99.

ACCESS AND USE OF RECORDINGS
Only BPD members who have received training on this policy and have been granted access by an authorized administrator may access security camera data. This data may only be accessed to further a legitimate use purpose, as listed in this Policy.

Recordings may be accessed, reviewed, and used by authorized BPD personnel for specific criminal investigations and administrative purposes, for the following purposes:
a. To enhance security and safety for detainees and staff. b. To support the enforcement of City and Police Department policies and procedures. c. To prevent, deter, and identify illegal activity in Berkeley Police Department facilities, including the jail.
d. To document interactions involving City employees, detainees, or other individuals to safeguard all parties and address any potential misconduct.

Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of recorded surveillance footage is strictly prohibited.

PROHIBITED USES OF THE SECURITY SYSTEM
The following uses of the security camera system are strictly prohibited:
a. Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of surveillance footage.
b. Intentional use of cameras to invade individual privacy or to observe areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
c. Use of cameras in a discriminatory or unequal manner, including targeting individuals based on protected characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. d. Use of cameras to harass, intimidate or discriminate against any individual or group.

Page 4 of 12 ends

Page 84 ends

2 e. Sharing of surveillance footage or related data with federal immigration enforcement authorities for immigration enforcement, in accordance with the Berkeley Police Department’s Immigration Law Policy.

DATA COLLECTION
The cameras will film and store video and audio on encrypted servers. License plate and facial recognition data hardware is not installed on the cameras. The cameras and storage devices shall be wholly owned and operated/maintained by the City of Berkeley.

DATA ACCESS
Access to security cameras data shall be limited to authorized BPD personnel for the purposes described in this policy. Technical assistance may be provided by authorized personnel from the Public Works Department and Department of Information Technology as necessary. Information may also be shared in accordance with the third-party data sharing provisions outlined below.

BPD members seeking access to the video surveillance system shall obtain the approval of the Support Services Captain, or their designee.

Supervisors should monitor camera access and usage to ensure compliance with this policy, all other applicable department policies, and applicable laws. Supervisors should ensure that all access and use is properly documented.

DATA PROTECTION
All data transferred from the cameras and the servers shall be encrypted. Only authorized BPD personnel shall have access to data for the legitimate uses identified in this policy.

All system access including system log-in, access duration, and data access points is trackable and reportable by the authorized system administrator within the Public Works Department. All relevant recordings that are accessed or utilized will be collected in accordance with BPD Policy 802 (Property and Evidence) and retained pursuant to BPD Policy 804 (Records Maintenance and Release).

CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTION
The Berkeley Police Department is committed to efficient utilization of its resources and services in its public safety endeavors. The Department also recognizes the need to protect ownership and control over shared information and to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public, in accordance with federal and state law. Provisions of this policy, including data access, protection, retention, public access, and third-party data sharing serve to protect against any unauthorized use of video and audio security camera data. These procedures ensure that surveillance data is not used in any manner that would violate or infringe upon anyone’s civil rights or liberties, including but not limited to actions that may result in disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups.

DATA RETENTION
The video and audio security camera system will retain recordings in accordance with our Records Maintenance and Release and Property and Evidence policies. Recordings of incidents involving use of force by a police officer, a detention, arrest, or those relevant to a formal or informal complaint shall be retained for a minimum of two years and one month. Recordings relating to court cases and personnel complaints that are being adjudicated will be manually deleted at the same time other evidence associated with the case is purged in line with the Department’s evidence retention policy. Recordings

Page 5 of 12 ends

Page 85 ends

3 associated with administrative or civil proceedings shall be maintained until the matter is fully adjudicated, and then deleted consistent with the Department policy, and any applicable court orders.

All other data will be automatically deleted after the retention period by the System Administrator from the Public Works Department.

Any recording identified as evidence in a criminal proceeding shall be copied to an appropriate storage medium and booked into evidence in accordance with current BPD evidence procedures.

PUBLIC ACCESS
Requests for recordings from members of the public or the media shall be processed pursuant to the California Public Records Act and the Records Maintenance and Release policy.

Recordings that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the Records Maintenance and Release policy and any applicable legal requirements.

THIRD-PARTY DATA-SHARING
Requests for recordings from other law enforcement agencies shall be referred to the Support Services Captain or their designee and may only be released if they serve a legitimate California law enforcement purpose.

Data collected from the security camera system may be shared with:
 The District Attorney's Office for use as evidence in accordance with law governing criminal prosecution, in accordance with laws governing evidence;  Other law enforcement personnel actively engaged in an active criminal investigation;  Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process.

TRAINING
All department members authorized to operate or access the security camera system shall receive appropriate training. Training should include guidance on the use of cameras, associated software, review of this and other relevant BPD policies and procedures, Applicable federal and state laws regarding the use of video surveillance and privacy protections.

AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
The security camera system software generates a site log each time the system is accessed. The site log is broken down by server, device, user or general access. The site log is kept on the server for two years and is exportable for reporting purposes. System audits will be conducted by the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability on a regular basis.

BPD will enforce against prohibited uses of this policy pursuant to the Personnel Complaints policy or other applicable law or policy.

The audit shall be documented in the form of an internal memorandum to the Chief of Police. The memorandum shall include any data inconsistencies or errors found and outline corrective actions taken. After review by the Chief of Police and/or their designee, the memorandum and any associated documentation shall be placed into the Department’s annual report submitted to the City Council in compliance with BMC Section 2.99.020(2), published on the City of Berkeley website, and retained within the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability.

Page 6 of 12 ends

Page 86 ends

4 MAINTENANCE
It shall be the responsibility of the Public Works Department to facilitate and coordinate any updates and required maintenance to ensure continued operation and compliance with this policy.

Page 7 of 12 ends

Page 87 ends

Surveillance Acquisition Report:

Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System
Surveillance Camera Acquisition Report 1
This report is submitted in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 2.99 concerning the Acquisition and Use of Surveillance Technology. The Berkeley Police Department is updating the existing Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System.

1. Description (BMC 2.99.020(3)(a))
The Avigilon camera system consists of three main components: the camera, the server, and a remote information management system known as the Avigilon Control Center Client application (ACC).

The first component, the Avigilon camera, is a device that incorporates a video recording from an image.

The cameras are affixed within the City of Berkeley Public Safety Building, specifically in the Berkeley Jail hallways and detention cells. Existing cameras in the Jail will be updated, and additional cameras will be installed to enhance safety and coverage. Audio is a standard feature of the camera and will be enabled.

The second component of the system is the server. Once the Avigilon camera captures the imagery, a local device called a server, functions as a repository for the data. Servers are physically secured within the Jail facility and video recordings are stored securely within the City’s network. These servers are designed to store footage in real time for later retrieval and analysis. Data is transferred from the server into an information management system, Avigilon Control Center (ACC) application.1 1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=200320040AB839

Page 8 of 12 ends

Page 88 ends

Surveillance Acquisition Report:

Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System
Surveillance Camera Acquisition Report 2
The third component is the Avigilon Control Center Client application (ACC) which streamlines data management and allows users to access videos on one secure platform. Authorized users of the system can only access data stored on a server through the ACC application. The ACC application is located on the server and accessed solely through the City’s secured intranet by protected login credentials and password. The application does not allow users or administrators, the authorized administrator or system users to alter, manipulate, or edit any of the footage recorded by the server.

2. Purpose (BMC 2.99.020(3)(b))
The security cameras will be utilized for the following business purposes:
a. To monitor detainee activity to enhance security and safety for detainees and staff. b. To support the enforcement of City and Police Department policies and procedures. c. To prevent, deter, and identify illegal activity in Berkeley Police Department facilities, including the jail.
d. To document interactions involving City employees, detainees, or other individuals to safeguard all parties and address any potential misconduct.

3. Location (BMC 2.99.020(3)(c))
Security cameras encompassed by this report are inside the Berkeley Police Department Jail Facility, located at 2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley CA 94704 (Public Safety Building).

4. Impact (BMC 2.99.020(3)(d))
The primary purpose of the cameras is described in Section 2, above. The Berkeley Jail and Public Works Department will work to ensure that the video recordings are secured and only accessible to authorized personnel (namely, authorized Jail personnel and managers trained on the uses and data security components of the camera). The Department recognizes the balance between safety and privacy rights

Page 9 of 12 ends

Page 89 ends

Surveillance Acquisition Report:

Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System
Surveillance Camera Acquisition Report 3
in custodial settings. While detainees have a reduced expectation of privacy, the Berkeley Police Department is committed to safeguarding civil liberties and limiting access to recordings as required by law. The camera system lacks the hardware for facial recognition technology. Audio is a standard feature of the cameras and will be enabled to enhance safety.

The Berkeley Police Department Support Services Captain and Public Works Department will ensure responsible data management, transparency, and accountability, including the posting of video surveillance notices within the facility.

5. Mitigation (BMC 2.99.020(3)(e))
A comprehensive Surveillance Use Policy specific to this technology is included, outlining authorized uses, data handling, retention, and oversight, consistent with BMC 2.99.020(4). To minimize privacy risks, all recorded data will be stored in secure, non-publicly accessible locations. Access to the system is restricted to authorized personnel through secure login credentials managed by the City. Audit trails are automatically generated to log all system access and activity.

Data will not be used to unlawfully discriminate based on protected characteristics. Additionally, recordings will not be scanned, searched, or analyzed for the purpose of identifying individuals based on any such characteristics. Use of facial recognition technology is explicitly prohibited.

Employees are prohibited from retaining, duplicating, or distributing recordings except for legitimate law enforcement or administrative purposes as outlined in the Department’s Surveillance Use Policy.

The camera system complies with applicable laws including BMC Chapter 2.99 related to surveillance data handling. Signage will be posted to provide notice of surveillance operations within the facility.

6. Data Types and Sources (BMC 2.99.020(3)(f))
The camera system's use is limited to capturing video and audio recordings affixed within the Berkeley Jail. The camera system collects video recordings in high-resolution imagery that is stored securely on a local server and accessible by authorized users through the ACC application. As video images are recorded, the ACC application automatically stamps the video with the current date/time and the camera's identity.

7. Data Security (BMC 2.99.020(3)(g))
External users will not have access to the ACC application. The authorized administrator and designated staff will have access to video recordings. To gain system access, staff must obtain approval from system management. Authorized users will access the ACC application via a single sign-on and password administered by Information Technology. All system access including system log-in, access duration, and

Page 10 of 12 ends

Page 90 ends

Surveillance Acquisition Report:

Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System
Surveillance Camera Acquisition Report 4
data access points are accessible and trackable by the Berkeley Jail and Public Works authorized administrator. The application prohibits the authorized administrator and users from altering, manipulating, tampering with, or editing video recordings.

The Public Works Director or their designee shall appoint a member of the department as the authorized administrator to coordinate the use and maintenance of the camera system and the storage of recordings, including:

1. Establishing a system for downloading, storing, and securing recordings.

2. Designating personnel responsible for downloading recorded data.

3. Establishing a maintenance system to ensure the working order of surveillance cameras.

4. Monitoring the system to prevent tampering, deleting, and copying recordings.

5. Working in alignment with the State of California record retention policy, AB 839, to ensure an appropriate retention schedule is being applied to recordings and associated documentation.

6. Maintaining audit trails of all system access to video recording files, wherein access information for each file is logged using a secure log-in system. The ACC application associates an audit trail record with each user access information, thereby logging the date, time, username, and activity occurring during each video recording file access.

8. Fiscal Impact (BMC 2.99.020(3)(h))
Costs (fixed and ongoing) for the purchase and installation of the cameras are below. All camera servers are owned and maintained by the City of Berkeley.

Purchase and Installation Costs: $250,000.00. The annual anticipated maintenance and other ongoing costs, including compliance and other reporting and oversight requirements, is approx. $15,000.

9. Third Party Dependence and Access (BMC 2.99.020(3)(i)) Camera data is accessed by a secure network login and password and stored on servers located in the Jail and maintained by the Department of Information Technology. No third party has access to stored data.

However, the ACC platform is a proprietary technology which requires all the components (camera, software, and server) to be part of the Avigilon suite.

10. Alternatives (BMC 2.99.020(3)(j))
Elect not to upgrade the existing camera system and forgo the added safety and coverage benefits provided by the new cameras.

Page 11 of 12 ends

Page 91 ends

Surveillance Acquisition Report:

Berkeley City Jail Surveillance System
Surveillance Camera Acquisition Report 5

11. Experience of Other Entities (BMC 2.99.020(3)(k))
Security camera systems are standard in jail facilities throughout California and the United States. They are widely used to maintain staff and detainee safety and to ensure accountability within the custodial setting.

Page 12 of 12 ends

Page 92 ends

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Mental Health Commission
Submitted by: Ajay Krishnan, Chairperson, Mental Health Commission Subject: Appointment of Ian Hunt to the Mental Health Commission

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the recommendation for appointment of Ian Hunt to the Mental Health Commission. Mr. Hunt will represent the Special Interest Category (consumer), beginning a 3-year term on July 23, 2025, ending on July 22, 2028.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Mental Health Commission is authorized to be composed of thirteen members.

However, there are presently three vacancies on the Commission. The Mental Health Commission is actively seeking candidates with the ability to fulfill the state law duties for Commissioners, including reviewing and evaluating the community’s needs, services, facilities and special problems.

Approval of the recommended action will fill a vacancy and allow the Commission to move one step closer to having a full complement of commissioners to review and evaluate the community’s mental health needs, resources and programs.

BACKGROUND
California State law requires that appointments to the Mental Health Commission meet specific categories, who may serve up to nine years consecutively. Ian Hunt meets the category of special interest, Consumer. The special interest category includes direct consumers of public mental health services and family members of consumers, which together must constitute at least fifty percent, or seven, of the commission seats. Direct consumers and family members shall each constitute at least 20% of the commission membership.

The Mental Health Commission recommends Ian Hunt as a representative of the special interest appointment on the Mental Health Commission for the city of Berkeley for a three-year term. Ian Hunt is a former recipient of critical mental

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 93 ends

Appointment of Ian Hunt to the MHC CONSENT CALENDAR
July 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

health services and has been a resident of Berkeley since 2019. He has been involved in housing services, substance abuse and harm reduction support.

Mr. Hunt states that drug abuse resulting in homelessness is an important mental health issue in Berkeley and providing accessible service can make a difference.

He can provide insight and knowledge to the commission by sharing his unique personal lived experience.

The Mental Health Commission passed the following motions at the April 30, 2025, Special meeting:

Interview and vote for new applicant – Ian Hunt
M/S/C (Gu, Turner) Motion to accept Ian Hunt as a special interest, consumer applicant to send to city council
PASSED
Ayes: Gu, Opton, Sol, Teague, Turner; Noes: None; Abstentions: None; Absent: Jones, Krishnan, Tregub, Prichett

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the recommended action will allow the Mental Health Commission to move one step closer to having a full complement of commissioners to review and evaluate the community’s mental health needs, resources, and programs.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager concurs with the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.

CONTACT PERSON
Jamie Works-Wright, Commission Secretary, HHCS, 510-981-7721 Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 94 ends

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

APPOINTMENT OF IAN HUNT TO THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION WHEREAS, membership of the Mental Health Commission is composed of thirteen appointments by the City Council as a whole, including one appointment by the Mayor (or designee), seven special public interest appointments, and five public interest appointments; and
WHEREAS, with the ongoing implementation of the Mental Health Services Act, the City of Berkeley will need to have a full complement of appointees to the Commission to review and evaluate the community's mental health needs, resources, and programs and to fulfill its mandate; and
WHEREAS, Ian Hunt has been involved in receiving services in the City of Berkeley for
mental health needs and supporting community members; and WHEREAS, The Mental Health Commission at its April 30, 2025, Special meeting recommended the appointment of Ian Hunt.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council appoints Ian Hunt as a representative of the Special Interest category, (consumer) to complete his first term ending July 22, 2028.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 95 ends

Page 96 ends

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.

Page 1 of 76 ends

Page 97 ends

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

Page 2 of 76 ends

Page 98 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Memorandum
From: Chief Jen Louis Date: 2/18/2025
To: Berkeley City Council Public Safety Policy Committee Subject: Berkeley Police Department Response to the Police Accountability Board’s 2024 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
On February 23, 2021, City Council approved recommendations submitted by then-Mayor Arreguin's Fair and Impartial Policing taskforce. Since that decision, the department began reporting quarterly to Council, offering detailed updates as recommendations advanced from initial planning to completion.

Today, we provide substantial, near real-time data on our FIP efforts through the Transparency Hub and deliver a comprehensive account in our annual report. The Department is proud to have fully implemented the fourteens recommendations assigned by Council. Our commitment to transparent, fair, and impartial public safety remains unwavering.

This correspondence serves as a formal response to the Public Safety Policy Committee regarding the PAB’s 2024 FIP Implementation Report. Please note that we submitted a direct response to both the Director of Police Accountability (DPA) and PAB when we first received the report in April 2024. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our progress and address specific recommendations as we continue our work to ensure that policing in Berkeley remains fair, equitable, and effective.

Below is a detailed response organized by the categories of recommendations:

Recommendations to the Berkeley Police Department
Three-Prong Approach to Traffic Safety
PAB Recommendation:
 Adopt a definition of low-level traffic infractions consistent with SB 50.  Specify the mode of the party at fault within the Primary Collision Factors prong.  Define which unsafe driving calls merit a police response based on the fact that 13% of community calls result in a citation or arrest.
 Provide more concrete guidelines for the Community Caretaking prong, rooted in local data about severe collisions—or eliminate it if it remains too vague.  Include data in future updates showing whether this approach reduces low-level stops and narrows racial disparities.

BPD Response:

Since implementing our Three-Pronged Traffic Enforcement model, we have decreased equipment violation stops by 21% between 2022 and 2023 and reduced disparities in all discretionary vehicle stops.

Notably, the percentage of discretionary equipment violation stops involving Black individuals has declined from 29.49% in 2021 to 20.93% in 2023. While we remain open to future adjustments, we believe that our data-driven approach merits continued evaluation over time as we collect further evidence on its impact.

Page 3 of 76 ends

Page 99 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Memorandum
Evidence-Based Definition for Stops of Criminal Suspects PAB Recommendation:
 Establish an evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects and explain how precision- based policing, feedback loops, and accountability measures support this goal.

BPD Response:

Our department has long maintained that stops occur only when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed—a standard that is essential to protecting constitutional rights and maintaining public trust. We utilize precision-based policing by directing resources to high-need areas identified via crime trend analysis, coupled with robust feedback loops and regular reviews. This continuous, evidence-driven process ensures that our stops of criminal suspects, as well as traffic stops under our three-prong approach, adhere to the highest legal and ethical standards.

Enhanced Implicit Bias Training
PAB Recommendation:
 Ensure that BPD personnel receive intensive annual training dedicated to implicit bias.

BPD Response:

BPD continues to exceed the Council’s directives through our comprehensive “KIND” training program, which integrates principles of Constitutional, Humane, Impartial, Neighborhood and Community Oriented, and DEI-Centered responses into all facets of officer training—from tactics and de-escalation to communication. Our policies also mandate strict accountability for any biased conduct. We remain committed to fostering a work environment that minimizes bias and upholds public trust.

Early Intervention System (EIS)
PAB Recommendation:
 Focus EIS audits on officers with notable racial disparity indicators, assign a PAB observer, and ensure transparent audit findings.

BPD Response:

BPD is actively collaborating with both the PAB and the Berkeley Police Association on the procurement and implementation of a state-of-the-art Early Intervention System developed by Benchmark Analytics.

In February 2025, the department finalized a contract with Benchmark and began implementation. The system will continuously monitor 91 officer/incident variables—including incident context, sequence of events, behavioral patterns, and peer comparisons—to provide a nuanced assessment of officer performance. We look forward to refining our practices in consultation with PAB experts as this system is integrated.

Page 4 of 76 ends

Page 100 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Memorandum
Written Consent Searches
PAB Recommendation:
 Include in future FIP updates the number of consent searches and their effects on racial disparities.

BPD Response:

This recommendation has been fulfilled. Our current reporting on the Transparency Hub’s dashboards and open data portal as well as in our Annual Report includes data on consent searches. Academic standards favor yield rate ratios as a more appropriate measure for evaluating biased decision-making.

Accordingly, we do not plan to expand our reporting on this item further.

Warrantless Searches of People on Supervised Release
PAB Recommendation:
 Report on changes in search and arrest rates for individuals on supervised release under Policy 311.6, including any racial disparities.

BPD Response:

This recommendation is already fulfilled. Data on parole/probation searches is tracked and publicly available as part of our RIPA stop data that we publish and update daily on the Transparency Hub. No additional reporting is planned on this matter.

Profiling by Proxy
PAB Recommendation:
 Provide details on dispatcher guidance regarding profiling by proxy and evidence that these protocols have curtailed racial bias in responses.

BPD Response:

Our existing protocols as documented in the Communications Center Operations Manual and Policies 401 and 1105.5 address profiling by proxy. Given that it is generally impossible to discern the race of a 911 caller in most scenarios, the overall departmental training efforts related to implicit bias and other KIND training, we do not anticipate expanding training or protocols on this topic.

Business Cards
PAB Recommendation:
 Ensure that business cards are distributed as mandated by the Council directive.

BPD Response:

This recommendation has been fulfilled. Business cards containing information on how to submit a complaint and other relevant resources are in active circulation.

Page 5 of 76 ends

Page 101 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Memorandum
RAHEEM.org
PAB Recommendation:
 Make resources on police-civilian encounters publicly available on the department’s website, directly the public to a platform such as RAHEEM.org.

BPD Response:

The Department completed this recommendation early in the implementation process, providing a direct link on our City of Berkeley webpage Make a Commendation or Complaint | City of Berkeley to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) page Know Your Rights | Stopped by Police | ACLU The decision was intentional, to link to an organization that is internationally recognized, that has been in existence since the 1920’s, and is made up of “more than 1.1 million members, 500 staff attorneys, thousands of volunteer attorneys, and offices throughout the nation, the ACLU of today continues to fight government abuse and to vigorously defend individual freedoms including speech and religion, a woman’s right to choose, the right to due process, citizens’ rights to privacy and much more.” While we appreciate the continued suggestion of RAHEEM.org, that organization has been discredited as a fraudulent site (as noted in a number of New York Times articles, with the first appearing on August 25, 2024, as well as a November 2025 Washington Post article on the DC attorney general’s office lawsuit for fraud).

Information on submitting complaints is printed on our business cards and is also prominently posted on the city’s website at multiple locations.

Additional Considerations
We would like to reiterate that BPD has fulfilled all 14 FIP recommendations that were assigned to the department. These reforms have involved significant policy changes, resulting in fewer stops, balanced search yields, and ongoing updates on our Transparency Hub. Although the PAB report restates several recommendations, we note that many proposed measures—such as additional data collection (e.g., the race of 911 callers) and direct oversight of training—exceed the PAB’s stated Charter direction or rely on data that is not feasibly collectible.

Our reforms rest on robust data collection and continuous evaluation and ensure that our practices maintain the highest legal and ethical standards. Our training needs are continuously driven by legal mandates, timely legal updates, data analysis, audits, and early intervention efforts. These mechanisms ensure that we are providing training exactly where it is needed. Currently, our assessments show that our existing training adequately addresses these standards and no additional training measures regarding stay-away orders are warranted at this time. For instance, nearly every officer has completed a 40-hour Crisis Intervention Training course, and our Annual Report already provides evidence-based metrics on implicit bias and racial disparities.

Furthermore, while the report acknowledges external factors driving racial disparities, it continues to hold BPD fully accountable for outcomes influenced by broader social issues. We believe a collaborative approach that recognizes both department-level initiatives (such as our new Early Intervention System and rigorous evidence-based analyses of officer behavior) and the larger social context is necessary to achieve lasting change.

Page 6 of 76 ends

Page 102 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Memorandum
Conclusion
The Berkeley Police Department remains fully committed to fair and impartial policing. We value our ongoing collaboration with the Police Accountability Board and the Public Safety Policy Committee. Our reforms—ranging from the Three-Pronged Traffic Enforcement model to comprehensive KIND training and the upcoming Early Intervention System—demonstrate our dedication to continuous improvement and community trust.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this follow-up response. We look forward to continued dialogue and collaboration to ensure that Berkeley’s policing reflects our shared commitment to justice and equity.

Cc:

Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Hansel Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability
Josh Cayetano, Police Accountability Board Chair
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Page 7 of 76 ends

Page 103 ends

2020 Milvia Street, Ste. 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-4950 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/dpa

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Police Accountability Board
Submitted by: Hansel A. Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability Subject: Police Accountability Board Report: Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation

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

Page 8 of 76 ends

Page 104 ends

Police Accountability Board Report: Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025
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

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

Page 9 of 76 ends

Page 105 ends

Police Accountability Board Report: Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025
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.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On May 8, 2025, the Public Safety Policy Committee adopted the following action:

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.

SUMMARY
This report formally assesses the Berkeley Police Department's (BPD) progress in implementing the Fair and Impartial Policing (FIP) directives adopted by the Berkeley City Council in February 2021. The Mayor’s Working Group developed these directives on Fair and Impartial Policing following two years of consultations with experts and BPD representatives. The directives were established in response to findings in the 2018 Center for Policing Equity (CPE) report, which identified significant racial disparities in BPD's stops, arrests, and searches, particularly affecting Black and Latino/a individuals.

The report includes an analysis of BPD's efforts to implement the FIP policies, focusing on whether these efforts have successfully reduced racial disparities in policing practices.

It acknowledges the BPD's progress in certain areas, such as a slight reduction in racial disparities in vehicle stops. Still, it highlights concern regarding the increase in disparities in pedestrian stops and the ongoing pronounced disparities in arrests and searches.

The PAB initially submitted this report to the City Council for presentation at the October 15, 2024 Regular Meeting. During the PAB meeting on September 25, 2024, the PAB

Page 10 of 76 ends

Page 106 ends

Police Accountability Board Report: Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025
voted to request the withdrawal of the item 1, a request that was granted by the Agenda and Rules Committee on September 30, 2024. 2 Notable findings of this report include, but are not limited to:
 The BPD has completed the implementation of some FIP Council directives, establishing implementation programs for others, and appears not to have begun implementing some directives.
 Racial disparities in vehicle stops by the BPD have decreased slightly since the CPE report but remain high.
 Racial disparities in pedestrian stops have substantially increased.  Racial disparities in arrests and searches remain pronounced.  Consent searches have decreased, but racial disparities in consent searches remain high.
 The percentage of stops for equipment and other non-safety-related infractions declined from 24.8% of all traffic stops in 2022 to 19% in 2023.  A full Early Intervention and Risk Management System is in the very early stages.  Enhanced implicit bias training has not yet begun.

Recommendations include, but are not limited to:
 The BPD's quarterly reports on the implementation of FIP should focus on policy modifications and outcomes, specifically whether and how those policy reforms have impacted racial disparities.
 The three-pronged approach to traffic enforcement should be reviewed and further oriented towards reducing low-level, non-safety-related stops.  As per the Council’s FIP directive, annual enhanced implicit bias training should be institutionalized.
1 The motion carried with 6 ayes in favor, 0 noes, and 2 PAB members absent. Police Accountability Board Regular Meeting Minutes for September 25, 2024: [link] 2 Berkeley City Council Agenda and Rules Committee Special Meeting Minutes for September 30, 2024:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-minutes/09-30%20Minutes%20- %20Agenda%20Committee.pdf

Page 11 of 76 ends

Page 107 ends

Police Accountability Board Report: Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025
 A full Early Intervention and Risk Management System should be adopted as soon as possible. In the meantime, random audits of officers should be replaced with targeted audits of "outliers."
 Full accountability must be ensured for officers whose speech or behavior demonstrates racial animus or other bias and "damages the mission" of the Berkeley Police Department.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Implementing the PAB’s recommendations will incur costs related to staff time, technology requirements, and maintenance of such technology.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On February 23, 2021, the Berkeley City Council unanimously approved a set of policy recommendations submitted by the Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing (FIP). As part of this decision, the Police Review Commission (PRC) and its successor, the Police Accountability Board (PAB), were tasked with monitoring and evaluating the Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) implementation of FIP directives. These directives require the BPD to provide quarterly updates to the City Council on the progress of their implementation. To comply with the Council Directive, the Police Accountability Board established a subcommittee on August 4, 2021, to monitor the progress of these reports.

BACKGROUND
The purpose of the PAB is to promote public trust through independent, objective civilian oversight of the Berkeley Police Department, provide community participation in setting and reviewing Police Department policies, practices, and procedures, and offer a means for prompt, impartial, and fair investigations of complaints brought by members of the public against sworn employees of the Berkeley Police Department.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The PAB presents these recommendations to the BPD, the PAB, and the City Council, aiming to enhance the progress made in implementing the FIP recommendations, ensure that all directives are fully addressed, and set the expectation that future BPD updates include an analysis of racial disparity outcomes.

Page 12 of 76 ends

Page 108 ends

Police Accountability Board Report: Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR July 22, 2025

CONTACT PERSON
Hansel A. Aguilar, Director of Police Accountability, Office of the Director of Police Accountability (510) 981-4950
Attachments:
1: Police Accountability Board Report: Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation

Page 13 of 76 ends

Page 109 ends

2024
Approved* by the Police Accountability Board on
April 24, 2024
*(6 Aye Votes and 1 Nay Vote)
Meeting Link:
https://tinyurl.com/PAB-FIP-Report-Approval
Police Accountability Board Report:

Fair and Impartial Policing
Implementation

Page 14 of 76 ends

Page 110 ends

1 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Fair and Impartial Policing Statistical Profile ................................................................................................................... 6 Policy and Practices Directive and Reforms ................................................................................................................ 10 Reducing stops for low-level infractions and focusing on safety in traffic stops. ................................ 10 Clear, evidence-based definition of stops of criminal suspects. ................................................................. 14 Only use race and ethnicity as determining factors together with other clear criteria. ................. 15 Enhanced Implicit Bias Training ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Early Intervention System (EIS) ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Written consent search forms ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Warrantless searches of people on supervised release status ...................................................................... 18 Profiling by proxy ................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Resources on police-civilian encounters. ................................................................................................................. 20 Fire racist officers identified through social media and other media screens ...................................... 20 Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data ....................................................... 20 Make resources on police-civilian encounters publicly available such as through RAHEEM.org ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 21 Recommendations to the Berkeley Police Department .................................................................................. 21 Recommendations to the Police Accountability Board .................................................................................. 23 Recommendations to the Berkeley City Council ................................................................................................. 24 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Appendix 1. Berkeley Police Department 2024 Annual Report “Tests for Bias” .................................... 25 Appendix 2. PAB Data Workbook ................................................................................................................................ 27 Attachment List ........................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Attachment 1: Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing. Proposal to City Council.

February 23, 2021 ....................................................................................................................................................................29 Attachment 2: Working Group Recommendations Passed by Council. February 23, 2021 ............43 Attachment 3: Summary of BPD Quarterly Updates on Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation .......................................................................................................................................................................49 Attachment 4: BPD Three-Pronged Approach to Traffic Enforcement ......................................................58 Attachment 5: Berkeley Police Department Memorandum Titled: “PD Response to PAB FIP Implementation Report” .....................................................................................................................................................60

Page 15 of 76 ends

Page 111 ends

2 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
List of Figures
Figure 1 Likelihood of stops for Black/African Americans Compared to White Individuals ............... 7 Figure 2 Percent of Arrest by Race/Ethnicity (April 1, 2021 to October 31, 2023) .............................. 9 Figure 3 Percent of Searches by Race/Ethnicity (April 1, 2021 - October 31, 2023) ........................ 10 Figure 4 Consent Searches by Race/Ethnicity ........................................................................................ 18 List of Tables
Table 1 Number of Stops of Non-Berkeley Residents vs. Berkeley Residents by Race/Ethnicity. ...... 8 Table 2 Number of Arrest by Race/Ethnicity for Reporting Period. ....................................................... 9 Table 3 Percentage of Stops for Equipment Violations and Other Low-Level Infractions ............... 14

Page 16 of 76 ends

Page 112 ends

3 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Introduction
On February 23, 2021, the Berkel ey City Council (City Council or Council) unanimously passed the package of policy recommendations that the Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing (FIP) forwarded to City Council after two years of meetings with experts and Berkeley Police De partment (BPD) representatives (See Attachments 1 and 2) . As part of that package, the Police Review Commission (PRC) and its successor the Police Accountability Board (PAB) were assigned responsibility for “monitoring and assessing” BPD implementation of the FIP directives. The directives included a requirement for quarterly updates from the BPD to City Council on implementation progress. A chart summarizing the BPD updates from June 2021 to October 2023 is provided in Attachment 3.

The goal of the M ayor’s Fair and Impartial Working Group was to discuss ways to address racial disparities in BPD stops, arrests, and searches, as presented to the Berkeley community in the 2018 Center for Policing Equity ( CPE) report 1 commissioned by the Council. That report found that, given the city’s population demographics, Black motorists were 6.5 times more likely to be stopped by Berkeley police than White motorists and that Black pedestrians were 4.5 times more likely to be stopped than White pedestrians.

The PAB recognizes the ongoing efforts taken by the BPD to implement the Fair and Impartial Policing mandates, as represented in the quarterly updates from Chief Louis. This PAB report , submitted pursuant to the PAB’s directive to monitor FIP implementatio n, is an independent assessment of progress to date.

The focus of this assessment is not only on BPD changes in written policy, but also on whether progress has been made in reducing racial disparities in BPD stops, arrests, and searches.
1 Center for Policing Equity. The Science of Justice: Berkeley Police Department, National Justice Database City Report. May 2018. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley-CPE-Report-May-2018.pdf

Page 17 of 76 ends

Page 113 ends

4 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Before proceeding, it is important to note that a finding of racial disparities does not, by that fact alone, indicate racial bias among individual police officers or the institution. Disparity is not synonymous with bias or discrimination. A measurement of racial dispari ty simply indicates an inequality or disproportion among or between various races on a particular variable (such as police stops), whatever the source of that inequality. Bias, on the other hand, can be defined as individual or institutional prejudice against a particular group, which may lead to disparities. This report focuses on racial disparities, as did the Mayor's Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing and City Council's directives. Several factors may account for such disparities. These factors include, but are not limited to, socio-economic inequalities associated with race; cultural factors; institutional decision making; and, finally, individual officer bias. These factors may act independently of each other or in interaction with each other, amplifying their potential impact. It is not our goal to untangle the complex web of factors responsible for those disparities, nor is it within the scope of our work--or our ability, given data and resource limitations --to do so. Instead, the goal is to establish policies and practices that have the potential to reduce disparities and curtail the impact of any potential bias.

Key findings include, but are not limited to:
• The BPD has completed implementation of some FIP Council directives, is in the proces s of establishing implementation programs for other FIP directives, and appears not to have begun implementation of others. • Racial disparities in vehicle stops by the BPD have decreased slightly since the CPE report, but remain high
• Racial disparities in pedestrian stops have substantially increased • Racial disparities in arrests and searches continue to be pronounced • The number of consent searches has decreased, but racial disparities in consent searches remain high

Page 18 of 76 ends

Page 114 ends

5 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
• The percentage of stops for equipment and other non -safety related infractions declined from 24.8% of all traffic stops in 2022 to 19% in 2023 • A full Early Intervention and Risk Management System is in very early stages • Enhanced implicit bias training has not begun
Recommendations include, but are not limited to:
• The BPD quarterly reports on implementation of FIP should focus not only on policy modifications, but on outcomes, specifically the issue of whether and how those policy reforms have impacted racial disparities • The three-pronged approach to traffic enforcement should be reviewed and further oriented towards reducing low-level, non-safety related stops • Annual enhanced implicit bias training should be institutionalized, as per the Council’s FIP directive
• A full Early Intervention and Risk Management System should be adopted as soon as possible. In the meantime, random audits of officers should be replaced by targeted audits of “outliers”
• Full accountability must be ensured for officers whose speech or behavior demonstrates racial animus or other bias and “damage[s] the mission… of the Berkeley Police Department”
Our report begins with recent statistics on stops, arrests, and searches. As we will see, a pattern of racial disparities remains since the CPE issued its report in 2018. While the racial disparity in vehicle stops has fallen slightly, racial disparities in pedestrian stops has increased substantially. The fact of racial disparities is not an abstract or academic issue. Racial disparities in policing have a serious impact on the lives of many Black and Latino/a people.

Page 19 of 76 ends

Page 115 ends

6 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
The report then includes a discussion of the status of BPD’s implementation efforts, as well as questions that emerge from Chief Louis’s quarterly updates2. We conclude with recommendations for the BPD, the PAB, and the Council, with the goal of more effectively addressing racial disparities.

Related to the issue of the meaning of disparities, t he BPD presented their Annual Report to City Council on March 12, 2024. As part of that report, they included “tests for bias” in traffic stops, searches, and use of force. We have examined the analyses presented in that report and note several fundamental challenges to the ir conclusion that BPD traffic stops, searches, and use of force are “race-neutral.” See Appendix 1 for a brie f discussion of the PAB’s concerns with the BPD analysis.

Fair and Impartial Policing Statistical Profile
The BPD data that were derived from the Department’s Transparency Hub and analyzed by the ODPA and the PAB reveal little progress in reducing racial disparities in stops since the CPE report was released in 2018. That report showed that for the period 2012 -2016, Black motorists were 6.5 times more likely to be stopped than White motorists based on Berkeley demographics, and Black pedestrians in 2015 -2016 were 4.5 more likely to be stopped than White pedestrians.
2 In addition to direction to the Berkeley Police Department to implement reforms, the February 2021 City Council action included referral of some FIP recommendations to the public safety reimagining process, and others to be “taken up by the PAB”. This report does not address recommendations that were referred to the reimagining process. The report substantively addresses one of the three recommendations referred to the PAB (annual implicit bias training).

Page 20 of 76 ends

Page 116 ends

7 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Berkeley Police Department statistics show that from April 1, 2021 to October 31, 20233, of the 13,620 stops of bicyclists, motorists and pedestrians,

45.73% were White individuals, 44.77% were Black individuals, and 20.81% were Latino/a individuals.4 Based on Berkeley population figures5, Black motorists were

5.8 times more likely to be stopped by Berkeley police than White motorists. The racial disparity has worsened for pedestrian stops, with Black pedestrians now 8.3 times more likely to be stopped than White pedestrians.6 Figure 1 Likelihood of stops for Black/African Americans Compared to White Individuals 3 The April 1, 2021 date was chosen in consideration of the fact that the FIP directives were issued by Council on February 23, 2021. The end date of October 31, 2023 was used because we initiated this analysis in December 2023 and used the data then available. October 3, 2023 was the date of the last full quarterly update from the BPD. Unless otherwise noted, the data in this report covers the period from April 1, 2021 to October 31, 2023. 4 Occasionally, small differences will appear in the data presented here and those in the BPD Transparency Hub.

These differences, which are minor and do not affect the percentages or ratios reported, are due to periodic data updates or modifications made in the BPD Transparency Hub. All the analyses reported are derived from data in our “Data Notebook” which is available in Appendix 2.
5 Population data sources from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP05 (2022).:
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP5Y2022.DP05?g=040XX00US06_160XX00US0606000&tid=ACSDP5Y2022.DP0 5 6 In order to calculate the greater likelihood of Black motorists or pedestrians being stopped than White individuals, we divided the number of stops of each race/ethnicity by their numbers in the Berkeley population.

6.5 4.55.79 8.29
Vehicles Pedestrians
Race Disparities in Berkeley Police Stops:

Likelihood of stops for Black/African Americans Compared to White Individuals
2015-2016 2021-2023

Page 21 of 76 ends

Page 117 ends

8 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Looking at overall stop data for Berkeley residents only, a significant racial disparity persists. Black people residing in Berkeley were 6.55 times as likely to be stopped as their White counterparts. The Table below shows the absolute number of bicycle, pedestrian and vehicle stops, by race, for residents and non-residents of Berkeley.

Table 1 Number of Stops of Non-Berkeley Residents vs. Berkeley Residents by Race/Ethnicity.

Race/Ethnicity
Stops of Non-Berkeley
Residents, 2021-2023
Stops of Berkeley
Residents, 2021-2023
Black 1615 2814
Hispanic/Latino(a) 1212 955
White 1626 3112
Other 1109 1177
Total 5562 8058

With respect to arrests, of 2, 202 arrests in this period, Black people were

50.47 percent of the total, White people 34.45 percent, and Latino/as 1 5.08 percent. This means th at, based on population figures, Black people were 10. 4 times as likely to be arrested as White people in Berkeley, and Latinos were twice as likely. Looking at these data a different way, Black people were 6.47 times more likely to be arrested than their population would suggest, White people were . 62 times less likely, and Latino/as 1.25 times more likely to arrested.

Page 22 of 76 ends

Page 118 ends

9 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Figure 2 Percent of Arrest by Race/Ethnicity (April 1, 2021 to October 31, 2023) The Table below shows the absolute number of arrests by race.

Table 2 Number of Arrest by Race/Ethnicity for Reporting Period.

Race/Ethnicity Number of Arrests
Black 1021
Hispanic/Latino(a) 305
White 697
Other 179
Grand Total 2202
With regard to searches, of the 2, 421 searches conducted by the BPD during the period of April 1, 2021 to October 31, 2023, Black individuals were 46.55 percent of the total, White individuals were 3 1.47 percent, and Latino/as were

13.26 percent. This indicates that Black individu als were 10.5 times more likely to be searched compared to White individuals, while Latino individuals were 1.9 46%
32%
14%
8%
Percent of Arrests by Race/Ethnicity
April 1, 2021 - October 31, 2023
Black/African
American
White
Hispanic/Latino(a)
Group1

Page 23 of 76 ends

Page 119 ends

10 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
times more likely.7 Alternatively, Black individuals were 5.97 times more likely to be searched than expected based on their population represen tation, White individuals were 0.57 times less likely, and Latino/as were 1.10 times more likely.

Figure 3 Percent of Searches by Race/Ethnicity (April 1, 2021 - October 31, 2023) Policy and Practices Directive and Reforms
Reducing stops for low-level infractions and focusing on safety in traffic stops.

The FIP recommendation regarding traffic stops was to “prioritize safety in traffic stops” and “discontinue stops for minor offenses.” The FIP Working Group saw this as a way to reduce racial disparities and eliminate pretextual traffic stops.

The motion approved by the City Council was to “Implement a new evidence - based traffic enforcement model that emphasizes safety as the primary reason for traffic stops, rather than merely ad dressing minor offenses.” Neither the Mayor’s Working Group nor the Council provided a clear definition of “minor 7 Similar to our calculations for stops and arrests, to determine the greater likelihood of Black and Latino/a individuals than White individuals to be searched, we divided the number of searches of Black, Latino/a and White individuals by their respective numbers in the population. 47%
13%
31%
9%
Percent of Searches by Race/Ethnicity
April1, 2021 - October 31, 2023
Black/African American Hispanic/Latino(a) White Other

Page 24 of 76 ends

Page 120 ends

11 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
offenses.” The PAB recommends that the BPD adopt the definition utilized in Senate Bill 50, as outlined in the footnote below.8
The BPD is using a 3-pronged approach to traffic safety (“Primary Collision Factors”; “Community Reports”; and “Community Caretaking”) to fulfill the Council directive (See Attachment 4 for BPD Special Order 1106.2). Quarterly BPD updates report that implementation of this recommendation is complete.

The first prong of BPD’s three -pronged approach, known as “Primary Collision Factors” or PCF, is generally excellent and data-driven at the local level.

This prong consists of factors that commonly lead to fatal or severe c ollisions in Berkeley, including unsafe speed, disregarding pedestrian right -of-way at crosswalks, failure to yield for turns, red light violations, and stop sign violations.

One important update to this prong would be to specify not only the violation but also the mode of the party at fault (e.g., stop sign violations by drivers are a common cause of fatal and severe collisions in Berkeley, but stop sign violations by bicyclists are not, and the PCF categories should reflect this). It is expected that most , if not all, stops should occur in response to these well - documented safety issues, following the Council’s directive.

8 In 2023, a Bill was introduced in the California Legislature, SB50 (“An Act to Amend Sections 21 and 21100 of, and add Section 2804.5, to the Vehicle Code”), that stipulated that “notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer shall not stop or detain the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction…”. The Bill, which was tabled after a third reading and may be re -submitted this year, defined a “low -level infraction” as “a violation related to the registration of a vehicle or vehicle equipment,” as specified; “a violation related to the positioning or number of license plates when the rear license plate is clearly displayed…”; “a violation related to vehicle lighting equipment not illuminating, if the violation is limited to a single brake light, headli ght, rear license plate, or running light or a single bulb in a larger light of the same,” as specified; “a violation related to vehicle bumper equipment,” as specified; “a violation related to bicycle equipment or operation,” as specified.

Page 25 of 76 ends

Page 121 ends

12 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
The second prong (“Community Reports”) consists of “responding to calls from community members” and includes such things as “possible DU I driver (i.e., car reportedly swerving)”; “driver fallen asleep at red light”; “a variety of unsafe driving incidents”; “crime with get-away vehicle description.” While some of these community calls no doubt require an immediate response, the category is broad and opens the door to potential profiling by proxy. At a minimum, 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.

The City Audi tor’s data analysis 9 shows that only 13% of calls from community members resulted in a citation or arrest, compared to 42% of officer - initiated stops. To effectively reduce the potential for profiling by proxy, analysis of this 13% should be conducted to determine what types of community calls are most likely to yield a law enforcement response crucial to public safety. The PAB recommends that this prong then be substantially reformulated based on the data analysis of which types of calls for service result in enforcement actions and which are more likely to open the door to profiling by proxy.

The third prong, “Community Caretaking,” is the least specific and consists of three examples: “seatbelt violations”; “distracted driving (hands -free law)”; and “DUI” . As described by the BPD, these are not primary collision factors according to the California Highway Patrol because they are not the proximate cause of a collision. Because this prong is open-ended and consists only of several examples, it allows for maximum discretion with no real parameters.

The PAB recommends more specificity in this prong and that its components be based on Berkeley data rather than national statistics, as BPD did for Prong 1 (Primary Collision Factors, or PCFs). Specifically, the ana lysis should

9 Data Analysis of the City of Berkeley’s Police Response, 07/02/2021 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Data-Analysis-Berkeley-Police-Response.pdf

Page 26 of 76 ends

Page 122 ends

13 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
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.

In addition to further clarification and specification of factors and policies related to prongs two and three, future BPD updates to Council should include statistical information enabling an analysis of the impact of the three -prong approach on reducing or eliminating stops for low-level offenses in a manner that supports an overall assessment, as well as an understanding of the impact of the approach on reducing racial disparities.

The PAB analysis of vehicle stops reveals that little progress has been made on reducing racial disparities. Given this finding, careful scrutiny of the three - pronged approach needs to be undertaken, with future BPD updates analyzing disparity outcomes and focusing on their reduction, as appropriate.

Our analysis of BPD raw data on traffic stops 10 in 2022 (when the three - pronged approach was established) and the first three quarters of 2023 reveals that the number of traffic violation stops increased fro m 2883 in 2022 to 3297 in the first three quarters of 2023. The percentage of stops for equipment and other such low-level infractions declined from 24.8% in 2022 to 19% in 2023. While the percentage of low-level stops thus declined, their numbers are still relatively high

10 For this calculation, we included all vehicle stops for 2022 and for the first three quarters of 2023. Th e BPD data include the primary reason for each stop. From these raw data we were able to count all stops for low -level equipment violations or other non-safety related violations, for example misplaced registration tags, failure to dim beams, faulty window installation, etc. The BPD data included a few categories—such as those relating to improper parking, trespassing, bicycle helmet infractions, littering, and vehicle theft—that were not appropriate to include in these counts of traffic violations. We excl uded those few categories (n=79 for 2022; n=70 for 2023) from our calculations.

Page 27 of 76 ends

Page 123 ends

14 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
despite the three -pronged approach and the directive that such stops be minimized.

Table 3 Percentage of Stops for Equipment Violations and Other Low-Level Infractions Year Traffic Stops % of Stops for Equipment violations and other low- level infractions
2022 2883 24.8%
2023 3297 19%

Clear, evidence-based definition of stops of criminal suspects.

The FIP Working Group recommended “us[ing] a clear, evidence -based definition for stops of criminal suspects.” This was not meant to be primarily about traffic stops but all stops of criminal suspects, including motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Following this recommendation, Council directed the BPD to amend policies “reaffirming and clarifying that the Berkeley Police Department will use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects.” The Department’s quarterly updates state that the BPD “is establishing a precision based policing model that considers data and public safety. This model aims to re duce the number of stops that studies have shown had minimal impact on public safety.” The PAB appreciates the BPD June 2023 and October 2023 update statement that “ensuring that we implement approaches that identify and work to reduce racial disparities will be a cornerstone to our evidence -based approaches.” However, without more specifics about the department’s “precision-based policing model” and “a feedback loop with information flowing both ways”, it is difficult to assess whether these additions hav e the potential to reduce racial disparities. More specificity in this context is particularly critical as the data presented in this report indicate that racial disparities remain high.

The BPD June and October 2023 updates also state that this “feedback loop … creates an accountability measure.” Does this mean there is

Page 28 of 76 ends

Page 124 ends

15 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
accountability for racial disparities? If so, what does it consist of? The next BPD update should include greater specificity regarding precision -based policing, feedback loops, and accountability measures. Further, and significantly, none of the BPD updates have included a definition of what constitutes legitimate stops for criminal suspects, evidence -based or otherwise. Although the BPD indicated that this recommendation was implemented as of September 2022, a definition is still outstanding.

Only use race and ethnicity as determining factors together with other clear criteria.

BPD updates indicate that this recommendation has been completed because formal policies, state law, and the Constitution prohibit using race as the defining factor in making stops, arrests, and searches. The PAB is concerned that the BPD suggests no change is needed; the question is not whether BPD policies or state or federal law allow the use of race as a defining factor—clearly, they do not. The question is how to prevent discretionary actions in the field from inadvertently introducing race as the determining factor. Most important, how are race and ethnicity used as determining factors “together with other clear criteria”? Future updates should include more specificity on this important question of how race and ethnicity may be used with other factors. Examples may be useful here.

Enhanced Implicit Bias Training
The FIP directives passed by Council “require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police.” The BPD updates state that there has been “ongoing training in topics such as implicit bias, racial profiling…”. The PAB has been informed by the BPD that “The topic of bias is covered as a subtopic throughout various trainings” such as de-escalation and tactical communication. This likely falls short of the enhanced annual implicit bias training that was called for in the Council directive. Full compliance with the Council directive requires that the BPD insta ll

Page 29 of 76 ends

Page 125 ends

16 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
annual intense implicit bias training, not the less intensive approach to implicit bias as a subtopic to other materials as currently practiced.

Early Intervention System (EIS)11
An effective EIS was a central component of the FIP recommendations, and the focus—as with the FIP program as a whole -- was on racial disparities. As the Working Group stated in its presentation to Council in February 2021, an effective Early Intervention System would “involve identifying officer outliers in stops, searches, and use of force and their outcomes and examining the reasons for racial disparities.” Racial disparities take a back seat in the BPD quarterly updates, including in its description of an amended EIS program. Beyond this important omission, BPD updates have been inconsistent across quarterly reports with regard to how this directive has been implemented (See Attachment 3).

After relatively minor tweaking, the BPD reported that the EIS directive had been completed.

Additionally, recent updates report that periodic audits of several randomly chosen officers have been added to the EIS process. While audits of a few randomly chosen officers may occasionally be useful, the intent of the FIP was to focus on “outliers”, a neutral term of art that refers to officers whose performance on certain indicators is outside the BPD average. As the focus of the FIP was on racial disparities, in the case of EIS it is important to focus on those units or officers for whom stops are disproportionately numerous and/or racial dispari ties most pronounced. The allegations of racism, disdain for the unhoused, and implicit

11 The PAB acknowledges the Council's allocation of funding for designing and implementing a comprehensive Early Intervention and Risk Management System (EIRMS). However, the $100,000 appropriation for the evaluation, design and implementation of an EIRMS is unlikely to be sufficient. Therefore, the budget for the EIRMS should be augmented to support not only its design but its near-term implementation.

Page 30 of 76 ends

Page 126 ends

17 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
arrest quotas in the Downtown Bike Force have drawn attention to the importance of such a directed focus when doing EIS audits.

In April 2023, City Council referred $100,000 to the June 2023 budget to hire a consultant for the design and help with implementing a new Early Intervention and Risk Management System. It will take some time before that project is complete. In the interim, 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. In addition, a designated PAB Member should serve as an EIS observer . With regard to the latter, the PA B is pleased that observation by a PAB Member has recently been agreed to by the Chief.

Written consent search forms
The PAB is pleased that this has been implemented (Policy 311.3). An understanding of the implementation process and its effect would be im proved by the inclusion of data in the quarterly BPD reports. Dr. Frank Baumgartner and his team (2018) found that in North Carolina, consent searches declined by 75% in cities that required written permission.

PAB analysis of BPD data reveals that the number of consent searches decreased from 188 in 2021, to 123 in 2022, and 69 through the first three quarters of 2023.

While the number of consent searches has gone down since the introduction of written consent forms, racial disparities in these discretion ary searches remain high. In 2021, 44% of consent searches were of Black individuals, 32% were of White individuals, and 16% were of Latinos. Two years later, the respective percentages were 43%, 30%, and 19%. In other words, while the absolute number of p eople of color undergoing consent searches has decreased with the

Page 31 of 76 ends

Page 127 ends

18 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
implementation of written consent forms, the racial disparities in these discretionary searches have not.12
Figure 4 Consent Searches by Race/Ethnicity

Warrantless searches of people on supervised release status BPD Policy 311.6, as adopted with agreement between the PRC and the BPD and incorporated into the FIP directives, limited warrantless searches of people on supervised release status unless there was reasonabl e suspicion that they had committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime. This policy was modified by City Council on July 26, 2022, to make a distinction between people on supervised release for violent crimes (who would be subject

12 These racial disparities in consent searches are roughly comparable to the disparities in all searches. As we saw above, for the period 2021 through the first three quarters of 2023, there were 2507 searches, with 47% of these searches Black people, 32% White people and 13% Latinos.

Source: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-04-11 Item 25 Referral 100%2C000 to the June%2C 2023.pdf
44% 43%
16%
19%
32%
30%
8% 8%
2021 2023
Consent Searches by Race/Ethnicity
Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Other

Page 32 of 76 ends

Page 128 ends

19 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
to warrantless searches) as opposed to non-violent crimes (for whom reasonable suspicion would be required for a search).

The Department under Chief Greenwood had considered the violent/non- violent distinction a challenging one to make in practice and recommended the “reasonable suspicion” standard for all searches of people on supervised release.

Have officers found it difficult to implement the “violent”/“non-violent” distinction as Chief Greenwood had suggested? What is the impact of this policy revision on numbers of, and racial disparities in, arrests and searches of people on probation and parole? Future BPD updates should continue to address what, if any, impact this 2022 change in policy has had on racial disparities.

Since introduction of the 311.6 policy c hange in 2020, BPD data no longer included “probation or parole search” as a category. This made sense since those searches were no longer permissible (absent reasonable suspicion). However, since the modification in 2022, probation and parole searches (an d other supervised release searches) were allowed if the individual was on probation or parole for a violent offense. Therefore, BPD data should once again include these searches in their data.

Profiling by proxy
According to Chief Louis’s June 2023 update, the Communications Manual “has been amended to address handling cases involving profiling by proxy.” Further, dispatchers “are instructed to be cognizant and screen for profiling by proxy calls.” More specifics need to be provided. Exactly what does the “instruction” consist of? What has the effect been on racial disparities in departmental response to calls for service? As detailed in the City Auditor’s report cited above, law-enforcement actions are lower in stops initiated by the public than in office r-initiated stops. This suggests that more targeted dispatcher instructions and call-screening for profiling by proxy may be necessary.

Page 33 of 76 ends

Page 129 ends

20 Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation Report
Resources on police-civilian encounters.

The PAB is pleased that the business card directive has been fulfilled. That provision was to ensure that business cards with information on how to commend police officers or file misconduct complaints were distributed upon each officer/civilian encounter. However, the body-worn camera footage that the PAB has received in conjunction with individual misconduct complaints does not seem to show any distribution of business cards as directed by Council.

Fire racist officers identified through social media and other media screens
BPD Policy 1029 (“Employee Speech, Expression, and Social Networking”) stipulates that employees of the BPD whose speech or expression “tends to compromise or damage the mission, function, or reputation…of the Berkeley Police Department” will be held accountable. Two issues arise here: 1) The FIP recommendation included media scans to ensure consistency with this policy, yet this proactive approach does not seem to have been implemented; 2) The FIP recommendation was that “racist officers identified through social media…” shall be fired. The current Policy 1029 is not specific and requires only “accountability”.

Thus, it is not clear if this FIP directive has been implemented. One way to move forward on this directive would be to be more specific on what exactly “accountability” means in this context and what preliminary steps would be taken prior to an officer’s termination.

Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data As noted in the BPD quarterly reports, a Transparency Hub was developed that provides raw data through an Open Data Portal. While this allows members of the public who have the time and ability to analyze the data, the BPD’s Data Analyst should provide more detailed analysis of these data with a focus on racial disparities, as we have done in this report.

Page 34 of 76 ends

Berkeley City CouncilJuly 22, 2025

Berkeley City Council
July 22, 2025