Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, September 9, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

Page 163 ends

Internal

WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE DIVISION

WILDFIRE HOME PROTECTION PLAN WORKSHEET
A PERSONALIZED GUIDE TO MEETING THE 2026 FIRE CODE

Property Address:______________________ Resident Name:_________________________ Inspector(s):__________________________________________ Date:___________________ Resources you Qualify for:

 Resident Assistance Program
 Home Hardening Mesh
Program
 Eucalyptus Understory
Program

Plan to address hazards in Ignition Zone 0 (0-5 ft. from a structure) Priority items to be completed by May, 2026 (From structure out and ground up):
 Ground
Cover
 Shrub
Removal
 Limb Trees/Hedges
within 5’
 Limb Trees
(10’ of roof)
 Remove Hedges
 Move combustible
storage
 Re-pot plants into 5
gal. Containers
 Replace/Remove combustible
gates/fences within 5’
Other: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Items to be addressed in the next phase of work (After 2026):
✓ __________________________________________________________________ ✓ __________________________________________________________________

(continued on next page)

Visit berkeleyfiresafe.org/programs, or
email [email protected]

Page 6 of 8 ends

Page 164 ends

Internal

WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE DIVISION

Plan to address hazards in Ignition Zone 1 (5-30 ft. from a structure) Priority items to be completed by May, 2026 (From structure out and ground up):
 Shrub Spacing:
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
 Remove Ladder Fuels:
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
 Separate Contiguous Fuels
(Hedges, etc):
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
Other:
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Items to be addressed in the next phase of work (After 2026):
✓ __________________________________________________________________ ✓ __________________________________________________________________ ✓ __________________________________________________________________ Other notes:

Page 7 of 8 ends

Page 165 ends

Internal

WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE DIVISION

FOLLOW UP FORM (IF NEEDED)

Date:

Inspector Name:

Resident Name:

Best Form of Resident Contact:

Information Needed:

Office Response:

Page 8 of 8 ends

Page 166 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/

INFORMATION CALENDAR
September 9, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: David Sprague, Fire Chief
Subject: Update on the 2019 Berkeley Fire Prevention Division City Audit

INTRODUCTION
In May 2019, the City Auditor submitted a report to the City Council evaluating the Berkeley Fire Department’s Fire Prevention Division (FP). The audit aimed to improve the Division’s inspection program, enhance customer service, and reduce the risk of fire and related emergencies. A total of eleven recommendations were issued.

As of a status update in November 2022, two of the eleven recommendations had been dropped, seven were either started or partially implemented, and two had not yet been initiated.

The City Auditor’s standard practice is to close all audits after five years. Delays in implementation stemmed primarily from the COVID-19 pandemic, which redirected Fire Prevention personnel to pandemic-related response duties.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
While the official audit was closed, Council requested that the City Manager report back with updates on the remaining feasible recommendations within the audit.

This work supports the City’s Strategic Plan goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

BACKGROUND
The Fire Prevention Division reports to the Deputy Fire Chief of Support Services, who in turn reports to the Fire Chief. The Division’s scope includes planning, organizing, and executing fire prevention programs; conducting fire and arson investigations; enforcing codes; abating hazards; offering public fire safety education; and reviewing development plans.

The Division is staffed by:
 1 Fire Marshal
 1 Deputy Fire Marshal

Page 1 of 10 ends

Page 167 ends

Internal
Update on the 2019 Berkeley Fire Prevention Division City Audit INFORMATION CALENDAR September 9, 2025

Page 2 ends

 2 Plans Examiners
 5 Fire Inspector/Investigators
 1 Management Analyst

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
This item does not directly affect environmental sustainability or climate goals. However, fire prevention efforts align with the broader objective of community resilience and environmental safety.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
No Council action is required at this time. The Fire Department will continue implementing the audit recommendations where feasible.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no immediate fiscal impacts from this report. Any future resource needs related to audit recommendation implementation will be brought forward through the appropriate budget processes.

CONTACT PERSON
David Sprague, Fire Chief (510) 981-3473
Attachments:
1: Fire Prevention Audit Update Detail

Page 2 of 10 ends

Page 168 ends

1 This is an overview of each audit recommendation. While the Audit may be closed and the auditor has not reviewed the information below, the Department is working to continue evaluation and implementation of many of the items.

Finding 1: Fire Not Meeting Inspection Mandates Due to Extensive Code Requirements

1.1 Recommendation: Fire analyze the short- and long-term impact of putting forth a change to the Berkeley Municipal Code to reduce the types or frequency of fire prevention inspections. (On Going)
Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Started) In the next code adoption cycle (Fall/Winter 2025), the Department is planning to bring a proposal to amend Berkeley Municipal Code to be in alignment with the California Health & Safety requirements which do not require all occupancies to be inspected on an annual basis.

Detail: In the next code adoption cycle (Fall/Winter 2025), the Department is planning to bring a proposal to amend Berkeley Municipal Code Section 12.50.040 – Applicability [of Fire Inspection Program] – “The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all commercial, industrial and institutional buildings and properties in the City of Berkeley and to residential structures of three units or more. (Ord. 5462-NS § 4, 1982)” to be in alignment with the California Health & Safety requirements which do not require all occupancies to be inspected on an annual basis.

The Fire Prevention Division (FP) has been tracking new construction on an annual basis since 2019.

In 2019, there were 47 projects with 3000 projected dwelling units under construction or in plan review. In 2024, there are 83 projects with 6,400 projected dwelling units.

Despite two additional FTE added to FP and creating a new Wildland Urban Interface Division (WUI) that completes vegetation management inspections, this increased construction inspection workload has reduced the available time for annual fire prevention.

The division is currently analyzing the list of annual inspections and determining which businesses need to be inspected by which resources. This analysis is on-going with the strategy of redistributing the most complex State mandated inspections amongst the full time sworn Fire Inspectors and away from Fire Suppression personnel who lack the time and level of training to ensure their completion at a high level of expertise.

Further, the Division has reorganized its inspection districts by assigning an individual Sworn Fire Inspector to each Suppression

Page 3 of 10 ends

Page 169 ends

2 Finding 1: Fire Not Meeting Inspection Mandates Due to Extensive Code Requirements response district. This change will allow for Sworn Suppression personnel to have a direct point of contact within their first due fire response district when in need of a coordinated effort or a referral to the FP Division based upon an atypical circumstance that is outside of their bandwidth. This also will directly increase the efficiency of each Sworn Fire Inspector as they will now have most if not all of their Mandated Annual inspections within a single fire station’s first due.

This will allow for a better knowledge of their first due area and ability to get work done without extended travel in between inspection sites.

Lastly, all “H” (Hazardous Materials) occupancies have been assigned to a Sworn Fire Inspector who has vast knowledge and experience in this highly specialized area. This change has already begun to pay dividends as some incredibly dangerous conditions have been discovered during routine inspections and facility after facility has been identified without having proper fire protection coverage and the appropriate permits per the CFC. The hope is to complete this strategic migration throughout the remainder of the calendar year.

Page 4 of 10 ends

Page 170 ends

3 1.2 Recommendation: Fire perform a workload analysis to quantify the staff needed now, and in the future, to comply with the local requirements. (On Going) Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Completed) Two additional FTE have been added, but an additional workload analysis may be conducted if the pace of construction/development sustains or increases.

Detail: An internal analysis was completed and the Council approved the re-organization of the Fire Prevention Division in 2022.

Fire Prevention staffing has increased from One Sworn and Two Civilian Inspectors to Five Sworn Inspectors.

Additionally, the Department launched the Wildland Urban Interface Division that has taken over all the vegetation management work and over 9,200 inspections that was previously the responsibility of Fire Prevention.

However, the Department may perform another workload analysis due to the volume at which construction/development has increased.

In 2019 there were approximately 47 projects with 3000 projected dwelling units under construction or in plan review. In 2024, there are approximately 83 projects with 6,400 projected dwelling units.

With the implementation of a new Developmental systems software and Fire Record Management System (FRMS) in the coming year, the Department will have the ability to have a more streamlined and organized data collection process to quantify both workload and work hours which we will cross reference with the current budget and new fee schedule being adopted this summer 2025 to drive a further need to conduct an additional workload analysis.

Page 5 of 10 ends

Page 171 ends

4 Finding 2: Fire Replies on Incomplete Data to Manage Inspections

2.1 Recommendation: Fire, in consultation with Planning and Information Technology Departments, develop a process for sharing information property changes and additions between Fire and Planning’s database platforms. (Completion by end of 2025)
Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Dropped) The current Fire Record Management software cannot be configured to improve this process. The Department is planning a procurement process for CY2025-26.

Detail: The Fire Department engaged with Information Technology (IT) and the Fire Record Management System (FRMS) software vendor in an attempt to devise and implement a technology fix or workaround to allow the automated update of property owner database records. Based on feedback from IT and the FRMS software vendor, these efforts have not yielded any positive results and the vendor has indicated they are not making further efforts to implement such a change.

The Department is pursuing a procurement process for FRMS software in the 2025-26. This change will pay dividends quickly for both the efficiency of a mobile inspection platform, as well as a streamlined billing platform.

2.2 Recommendation: Fire work with both the database’s software vendor and the Information Technology Department to strengthen controls over the database, including:
o Assess the needs for required fields for processing an inspection, such as unit, shift, inspector name, address, violation details, and violation location.
o Format drop-down menus for inspection status, inspection type, and violation status. Format the options available for the violation code numbers and violation description fields. (Completion by end of 2025)
Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Dropped) The current Fire Record Management software cannot be configured to improve this process. The Department is planning a procurement process for CY2025-26.

Detail: The Fire Department has engaged with the Information Technology Department (IT) and the Fire Record Management System (FRMS) software vendor to explore the implementation of various technology fixes. Based on feedback from IT and the software vendor, implementing other types of changes called for would

Page 6 of 10 ends

Page 172 ends

5 Finding 2: Fire Replies on Incomplete Data to Manage Inspections constitute extensive customization of the software. While it may be feasible to customize the software package in some instances, these customizations often negatively impact the software’s stability, the ability of the software vendor to support the software, and requires extensive staff support to maintain the software package after customization.

Based on the potential pitfalls and limitations associated with further customizing the software, the Department has determined that the benefits of the Recommendation do no outweigh the risks and limitations imposed by those Recommendations. The Fire
Department understands the spirit and intent of the
Recommendations. Assessments of potential future Fire Record Management System software packages can use the contents of the Recommendations to help inform the City’s assessment of candidate software packages.

Page 7 of 10 ends

Page 173 ends

6 Finding 3: Fire Staff Do Not Have Enough Support to Get Inspections Done

3.1 Recommendation: Fire Prevention coordinate work plans with Suppression for all mandated prevention inspections. These should take into consideration the volume and nature of the other work Suppression performs. (Completed)
Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Started) An analysis of annual fire prevention inspections completed by each engine company on each shift during Fiscal Year 2024 was delivered to the Deputy Fire Chiefs and Fire Chief in August 2024.

The Department has also assigned a senior member of the FP team to work on updating policies and procedures that will be completed by the end of 2025.

These policies and procedures are a work in progress but a significant amount of work has been completed including updates to the following policies and procedures:
 Fire Investigations procedures
 Operations Fire Investigations policy
 Fire Alarm checklist
 Knox Box checklist and requirements
 Special Events checklist
 Fire Prevention Division Program update
 False Alarm policy and procedure
 Administrative Citation policy and procedure
 Vehicle Procedure
 Tool Cache inventory and purchase for Fire Investigations

3.2 Recommendation: Fire create a risk assessment plan to identify those properties that are most at risk of a fire. (Completed)
Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Completed) The Community Wildfire Prevention Plan was completed in April 2023 and the Department is working through the associated action plan.

Detail: The Community Wildfire Prevention Plan was completed in April 2023. Substantial work to rebuild and enhance the City’s inspection and enforcement program has been underway all with aim of reducing the risk of wildfire.

For fire inspection activities within the built-environment, the State of California’s mandates for fire inspection already establishes a fire risk assessment model and establishes fire prevention inspection

Page 8 of 10 ends

Page 174 ends

7 Finding 3: Fire Staff Do Not Have Enough Support to Get Inspections Done priorities on a state-wide basis. The State’s mandates specify which types of occupancies are required to be inspected, and on what frequency. The State’s priorities are the product of many inputs including national and state-wide fire loss history and trends, trends in developing fire hazards and risks, and to some extent societal and political sensitivities.

3.3 Recommendation: The Fire Chief will issue a General Order to the Department on the importance and necessity of performing Fire Prevention Inspections. (Complete by August 2025)
Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Started) The Department has assigned a senior member of the FP team to work on updating policies and procedures that will be completed by the end of 2025.

3.4 Recommendation: The Fire Marshal and Suppression Management jointly develop a communication plan between Fire Prevention and Suppression. (Completion by July 2026)
Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Started) The Department has been working to streamline communications between Fire Prevention and Suppression.

Additional work has yet to be done on developing the role of the Shift Fire Inspectors.

This program will be revamped in the Fall of 2025 with changes projected to take effect in July of 2026 contingent on labor negotiations, training and budget capacity.

3.5 Recommendation: Fire revise the Fire Prevention Inspection training to provide hands- on training, using experienced Suppression staff, on how to conduct inspections and interact with residents and community members during inspections. (On Going)
Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Completed): Fire Prevention staff re-designed the annual fire inspection training for Suppression.

The Department has assigned a senior member of the FP team to work on updating policies and procedures that will be completed by the end of 2025.

3.6 Recommendation: Fire develop and distribute educational information to property owners prior to the beginning of the inspection cycle to provide information on the Fire Prevention Inspection program, common violations, and any upcoming inspections for that area of the City. (Completed)

Page 9 of 10 ends

Page 175 ends

8 Finding 3: Fire Staff Do Not Have Enough Support to Get Inspections Done Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Completed) The Department has hired an FTE Communications Specialist who is working in conjunction with other staff to keep webpages updated and send annual information via email and US Mail to residents about the City’s inspection programs.

Detail: In March 2023, the Fire Department, in conjunction with the City Manager’s Office, hired a full-time employee as a
Communications Specialist. Their duties include the development and delivery of education and outreach materials, including fire inspection, vegetation management, and other fire-related materials.

Starting in 2021, the Fire Department began annual direct outreach to and the transmittal of educational materials to the entire population of Berkeley Fire Zones 2 and 3. This outreach was conducted in preparation for the annual defensible space inspections.

Revamping of the City’s website for the fire department has been substantially completed and is considered a living document to provide access to the community on all facets of fire safety, including the fire inspection program.

3.7 Recommendation: Fire create a process for issuing, tracking, and following up on Administrative Citations for properties with repeat or high-risk violations, including revenue collections and tracking. That process should collaborate with other City work units that perform enforcement activities to provide consistency. (Completed) Status as of June 11, 2025 BLUF: (Completed) The Department has procured and implemented a new digital citation software.

Detail: The Department worked to procure and onboard a new digital citation software that the WUI Division is actively using for the first inspection cycle in FY25. This platform is currently being implemented within FP.

The Property Collaborative Review team (PCR) meets once a month to discuss properties on the team’s list that are either in need of a notice of violation and order to abate letter or in need of follow-up such as enforcement or re-inspection.

Page 10 of 10 ends

Page 176 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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
September 9, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 2328 Channing Way Way/#LMSAP2025-0004

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

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC/Commission) has approved a Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) for the subject Landmark property. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period, which began after the notice was mailed on August 25, 2025.

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

To do so, a Council member must move this Information Item to Action and then move to set the matter for hearing on its own. Such action must be taken within 15 days of the mailing of the Notice of Decision, or by September 9, 2025. Such certification to Council shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal.

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

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

Page 1 of 36 ends

Page 177 ends

Notice of Decision: 2328 Channing Way/#LMSAP2025-0004 INFORMATION CALENDAR September 9, 2025

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

CONTACT PERSON
Allison Riemer, Senior Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7433 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMSAP2025-0004/2328 Channing Way

Page 2 of 36 ends

Page 178 ends

Attachment 1, Part 1

L A N D M A R K S

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

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: July 7, 2025
DATE NOTICE MAILED: August 25, 2025
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: September 9, 2025
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): September 10, 20251 2328 Channing Way – The Luttrell House
Structural Alteration Permit (#LMSAP2025-0004) to modify LMSAP2021- 0002 to add an above-ground PG&E transformer at the front of a City Landmark property.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the Structural Alteration Permit request.  Applicant Devi Dutta-Choudhury, AIA
Devi Dutta Architecture
928 Carleton Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
 Property Owner Inn June “Allen” Jo
1398 Trailside Court
San Jose, CA 95138
ZONING DISTRICT: Residential Southside Mixed Use (R-SMU) 1 Pursuant to BMC Chapter 3.24, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, which has the same effect as an appeal. In most cases, the Council must certify the LPC decision during the 15-day appeal period. However, pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if any portion of the appeal period falls within a Council recess, the deadline for Council certification is suspended until the first Council meeting after the recess, plus the number of days of the appeal period that occurred during the recess, minus one day. If there is no appeal or certification, the Use Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.

Page 3 of 36 ends

Page 179 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-0004
2328 Channing Way
Mailed: August 25, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation.

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

FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPROVED PLANS ARE ATTACHED

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

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

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

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

2. Submit the required fee (checks and money orders must be payable to ‘City of Berkeley’):
a. The basic fee for persons other than the applicant is $3,000. This fee may be reduced to $1,000 if the appeal is signed by persons who lease or own at least 50 percent of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or at least 25 such persons (not including dependent children), whichever is less. Signatures collected per the filing requirement in BMC Section 3.24.300(A) may be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee, so long as the signers are qualified. The individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.

Page 4 of 36 ends

Page 180 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-0004
2328 Channing Way
Mailed: August 25, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

b. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $6,000.

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

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

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

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

1. If you challenge this decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Landmarks Preservation Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 5 of 36 ends

Page 181 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-0004
2328 Channing Way
Mailed: August 25, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website.

Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Allison Riemer, at (510) 981-7433 or [email protected]. All project application materials may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, 3 rd Fl., during regular business hours.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Project Plans
ATTEST:

Anne Hersch, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Devi Dutta, 928 Carleton Street, Berkeley 94710
Inn June “Allen” Jo, 1398 Trailside Court, San Jose 95138

Page 6 of 36 ends

Page 182 ends

Attachment 1, Part 2
Findings and Condition s

1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420

2328 Channing Way
Structural Alteration Permit (#LMSAP2025-0004) to modify LMSAP2021- 0002 to add an above -ground PG&E transformer at the front of a City Landmark property.

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

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

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

Evidence: The proposed project does not require a change of use. The property will retain the existing residential use.

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

Evidence: The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. No distinctive materials will be removed or altered to accommodate the transformer.

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

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken

Evidence: The transformer will not resemble or replicate designs from the property’s historic period.

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

Ev
idence: The subject property does not feature changes that have acquired significance in their own right.

Page 7 of 36 ends

Page 183 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2328 CHANNING WAY – #LMSAP2025-0004 JUNE 5, 2025 Page 2 of 11

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

Evidence: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that characterize this property will not be affected by the addition of the transformer.

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

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

Evidence: As conditioned herein, if deteriorated historic features will be affected by this request, then they would be repaired or replaced to match the materials, design, and finishes of the original items.

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

Evidence: The applicant does not propose chemical or physical treatments. However, standard conditions of approval require any chemical or physical treatments to be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

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

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

Evidence: The project does not have the potential to affect any archaeological resources because the applicant proposes no substantial excavation. Standard conditions of approval apply.

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

Evidence: The proposed scope will not destroy historic materials, features, or have lasting impact to the spatial characteristics of the property. The transformer would not be readily visible from vantage points within the public right way.

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

Ev
idence: If the trans former were removed in the future, it would not permanently impair the integrity or essential form of the site.

Page 8 of 36 ends

Page 184 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2328 CHANNING WAY – #LMSAP2025-0004 JUNE 5, 2025 Page 3 of 11

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.260, approval of permit applications pursuant to this section may be granted only upon determination that the proposal conforms to the criteria set forth in paragraphs 1.

1. For permit applications for construction, alteration or repair:
(a) For applications relating to landmark sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the ext
erior architectural features of the landmark and, where specified in the designation for a publicly owned landmark, its major interior architectural features; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site, as viewed both in themselves and in their setting.

Evidence: The l
ocation of an above ground transformer will not impact the historic features of the Luttrell House. The previously approved restoration scope has proceeded per approved plans, consistent with the approved Structural Alteration Permit, LMIN2021- 0002. T he transformer location and related screening have been designed to include a simple vertical wood slat painted fence, with 2 horizontal cross rails offset from the ends of the fence boards. This style of fencing is one that could have been found in the era the home was built, in 1889.
(b) For applications relating to property in historic districts, the proposed work shall not adver
sely affect the exterior architectural features of the subject property or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including facade, setback and height; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the distric t. The proposed work shall also conform to such further standards as may be embodied in the designation of the historic district.

Evidence: N/A
. The subject is not located in a historic district.
(c) For applications relating to structure of merit sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the architectural features if architectural merit is the basis for designation; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special cultural, educational or historical interest or value if that is the basis for designation.

Evidence: N/A
. The site is a designated City Landmark and not a Structure of Merit.

Page 9 of 36 ends

Page 185 ends

Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
Ju ly 7 , 2025

Page | 4

I. General Administrative Conditions

Regulation Source

Timing/
Implementation

Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Project Approval . This Structural Alteration Permit approval is for 2328 Channing Way, as substantially shown and described on the project plans dated April 15, 2025, except as required to be modified by conditions herein and plans as presented to the Landmarks Preservation Commission on June 5, 2025 (“Approval Date.”). For any condition herein that requires preparation of a Final Plan where the project applicant has submitted a conceptual plan, the project applicant shall submit final plan(s) in substantial conformance with the conceptual plan, but incorporate the modifications required by the conditions herein for approval by the City.

City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning

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

City of Berkeley
BMC Sections

23.404.060
On-Going Land Use Planning

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

City of Berkeley

On-Going Land Use Planning

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

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

23.404.060. B.4
On-Going Land Use Planning

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

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

23.404.080
On-Going Land Use Planning

Page 10 of 36 ends

Page 186 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2328 CHANNING WAY – #LMSAP2025-0004 July 7, 2025 Page 5 of 11
l

I. General Administrative Conditions

Regulation Source

Timing/
Implementation

Enforcement/ Monitoring

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

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

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

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

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

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

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

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

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

Page 11 of 36 ends

Page 187 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2328 CHANNING WAY – #LMSAP2025-0004 July 7, 2025 Page 6 of 11
l

I. General Administrative Conditions

Regulation Source

Timing/
Implementation

Enforcement/ Monitoring
and agents. The permittee’s duty to defend the City shall not apply in those instances when the permittee has asserted the Claims, although the permittee shall still have a duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City.

II. At Building Permit Submittal

Regulation Source

Timing/Implementation

Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Conditions of Approval on Building Permit Plan Submittal Structural Alteration Permit. The Conditions of Approval for this Structural Alteration Permit shall be printed on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit pursuant to this Structural Alteration Permit, under the title ‘Structural Alteration Permit Conditions.’

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

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

Please designate
the name of this individual below:

 Project Liaison ____________________________________________________ Name Phone #

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

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

City of Berkeley
BMC Chapter 19.37
At Building Permit
Submittal
Building & Safety Division
III. During Construction
Regulation Source

Timing/ Implementation

Enforcement/ Monitoring

Page 12 of 36 ends

Page 188 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2328 CHANNING WAY – #LMSAP2025-0004 July 7, 2025 Page 7 of 11
l

A. Building & Safety Division
1 Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and Noon on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety

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

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety

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

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety

IV. During Construction
B. Land Use Planning

Regulation Source

Timing/ Implementation

Enforcement/ Monitoring

Page 13 of 36 ends

Page 189 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2328 CHANNING WAY – #LMSAP2025-0004 July 7, 2025 Page 8 of 11
l

1. Paleontological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP 1995,1996]). The qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find. The paleontologist shal l notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

City of Berkeley During Construction Land Use Planning

2. Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected. The project applicant and project construction contractor shall notify the City Planning Department within 24 hours. The City will again contact any tribes who have requested consultation under AB 52, as well as contact a qualified archaeologist, to evaluate the resources and situation and provide recommendations. If it is determined that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. If the resource cannot be avoided, additional measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource and to address tribal concerns may be required.

City of Berkeley During Construction Land Use Planning

3. Archaeological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), “provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” should be instituted. Therefore:

A. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant and/or lead agency shall consult with a qualified archaeologist, historian or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find.

City of Berkeley During Construction Land Use Planning

Page 14 of 36 ends

Page 190 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2328 CHANNING WAY – #LMSAP2025-0004 July 7, 2025 Page 9 of 11
l

B. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project proponent and/or lead agency and the qualified professional would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City of Berkeley. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by the qualified professional according to current professional standards.

C. In considering any suggested measure proposed by the qualified professional, the project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is necessary or feasible in light of factors such as the uniqueness of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.

D. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation measures for cultural resources is carried out.

E. If significant materials are recovered, the qualified professional shall prepare a report on the findings for submittal to the Northwest Information Center.

IV. During Construction
C. During Construction: Public Works

Regulation Source

Timing/ Implementation

Enforcement/ Monitoring

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

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

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

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

Page 15 of 36 ends

Page 191 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2328 CHANNING WAY – #LMSAP2025-0004 July 7, 2025 Page 10 of 11
l

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

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

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

V. Structural Alteration Permit Conditions

Regulation
Source

Timing/
Implementation

Enforcement/ Monitoring

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

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

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

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

3. Equipment. Any above ground or roof equipment, such as transformer(s), utilities, fire apparatus, air conditioning units, compressors, etc. shall be shown to scale on the architectural drawings of the building permit set of drawings in both plan and elevation, in order to determine if additional screening and SAP may be required.

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

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

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

Page 16 of 36 ends

Page 192 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2328 CHANNING WAY – #LMSAP2025-0004 July 7, 2025 Page 11 of 11
l

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

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

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

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

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

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

Page 17 of 36 ends

Page 193 ends

DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N CO

SITE PLAN & LANDSCAPE
1/16"=1'-0"

LUTTRELL HOUSE RESTORATION & NEW BUILDING

MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUS USE PERMIT/STRUCTURAL
ALTERATION PERMIT #ZP2020-0052
2328 CHANNING WAY, BERKELEY, CA

ARCHITECT

DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE
928 CARLETON STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94710
510-705-1937
[email protected]
OWNER

ALLEN JO
1398 TRAILSIDE COURT
SAN JOSE, CA 95138
408-209-1203
[email protected]

DESCRIPTION
ADDITION OF ABOVE GROUND TRANSFORMER TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT;

PARTIAL REDUCED SETBACK AT REAR YARD
SHEET LIST:

CO COVER
A0 SITE PLAN
A0.2 REVISED LOT COVERAGE
A0.3 RENDERINGS
A0.4 HISTORIC SIGNAGE CONTENT
A0.7 PHOTOS (FORMER)
A1 BASEMENT/GROUND FLOOR PLAN
A2 1ST FLOOR PLAN
A3 2ND FLOOR PLAN
A4 3RD FLOOR PLAN
A5 4TH FLOOR PLAN
A6 ROOF PLAN
A7 SECTION
A8 WEST ELEVATION
A9 NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS
A10 EAST ELEVATION
SHEET LIST, CONTD:

L1 PLANTING PLAN
L2 PLANT LIST
SITE
L3 FENCE DETAILS
Attachment 1, Part 3

Page 18 of 36 ends

Page 194 ends

T T T T R R R R

C C C RC
T
REF.

DW
REF. DW
REF.REF.

DW
S9°08'52"E 135.00
N9°08'52"W 135.00
S80°50'48"W 50.00
N80°50'48"E 50.00'

BENCHMARK
+224.50'
3 STORY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE
1-2 STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING:

ALZHEIMER'S SERVICES OF THE EAST BAY

CHANNING WAY

HISTORIC

LUTTRELL
SINGLE
FAMILY
HOME
NEW 5-STORY
BUILDING, 13

RESIDENCES

ACCESSIBLE RAMP

COVERED WALKWAY

ELEVATOR
UNIT A3 STACK
5 STORIES
UNIT A2 STACK
5 STORIES
UNIT 1A STACK
3-STORIES

WATER METERS,
S.C.D.
(E) STREET TREE
WELL

SIDEWALK

EXISTING COASTAL LIVE OAK TREES,

REFER TO ARBORISTS REPORT FOR

PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION AND

OBSERVATION REQUIRED DURING

CONSTRUCTION

ABOVE GROUND TRANSFORMER
PER PG&E REGULATIONS, S.E.D.

AND S.C.D.; APPROXIMATE SIZE

SHOWN DASHED

IRRIGATED PLANTING SHOWN
HATCHED, S.L.D. * S.C.D.

PERMEABLE PAVING TYP, S.C.D

LOWER LEVEL
PATIO

RAINWATER DOWNSPOUTS AND

STORMWATER TREATMENT
AREA, TYP. S.C.D.

METAL FENCE WITH GATE,

SEE ELEVATION
TRANS.

DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N A0

SITE PLAN & LANDSCAPE
1/16"=1'-0"
PATH

PLANTING SHONW IN GREEN, SEE

LANDSCAPE PLAN
8'-0"
5'-0"
8'-0"
3'-10"
4'-3"
4'-0"6'-8"
1"
33'-11"5'-5"
8'-0"32'-7"3'-8"85'-11"5'-0"
34'-1"
10'-10"
17'-10"

OPEN SPACE

PAVED PATHGROUNDCOVER

GROUNDCOVER
4'-9"
5'-9"
5'-1"
10'-7" WOOD FENCE

Page 19 of 36 ends

Page 195 ends

SETBA
CK
8' - 0" 34' - 0"
SETBA
CK
8' - 0"

SETBACK
5' - 0"122' - 0"8' - 0 1/4"
5' - 4 1/4" 28' - 3" 16' - 4 3/4"
135' - 0 1/4"
50' - 0"

EXISTING HOUSE ON

NEW FOUNDATION

NEW BUILDING

EXTERIOR BALCONIES

TOTAL SITE

EXISTING HOUSE

NEW BUILDING

EXTERIOR BALCONIES
6750 SF
836 SF
2391 SF
334 SF
3561 SF

52.7%
135' - 0 1/4"
MAX
55%
SCALE: 0
ZONING SUBMITTAL R2
32'16'8' 4' 1/24/223/32" = 1'-0"A0.2
2328 Channing Way
Devi Dutta Architecture Inc.

SITE COVERAGE
10'-10"

21.35 sf
8'-0"

ADDED AREA
30SF x 2 = 60 SF
3561 SF ORIGINALLY APPROVED AREA
+ 25.5 SF TRANSFORMER
+ 82 SF BUILDING AREA
= 107.5 SF TOTAL ADDED LOT COVERAGE
TOTAL = 3668.5 SF/ 6750 LOT AREA
= 54.3% LOT COVERAGE
TRANSFORMER: 25.5 SF
4'-3"
6'-0"
3'-0"
10'-0"

ADDED COVERAGE AREA,
2/4/25 LPC MODIFICATION
REV 2/4/25
ADDED AREA 22 SF

Page 20 of 36 ends

Page 196 ends

DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N A0.3

RENDERINGS
1/16"=1'-0"

HISTORIC SIGNAGE,
SEE A0.4

METAL FENCE, PER ORIGINALLY

APPROVED DESIGN

WOOD SCREEN AT

TRANSFORMER

ENCLOSURE
FRONT VIEW 1, NORTHEAST
FRONT VIEW 2, NORTHWEST

Page 21 of 36 ends

Page 197 ends

DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N A0.4

HISTORIC SIGNAGE
1/16"=1'-0"
SIGN IMAGE OPTIONS:

CAPTAIN LUTTRELL'S FIRST SHIP
SIGN IMAGE OPTIONS:

HISTORIC AREA MAPS
SIGN IMAGE OPTIONS:

IRA BOYNTON, BUILDER
The Luttrell House is one of a handful surviving local buildings attributed to or known to havebeen designed by Ira A. Boynton (1844–1921), a Maine-born pioneer builder who practiced inBerkeley from 1877 until 1900. In 1889, the year of construction of the Luttrell House, Boyntonand his partner, Carlos Reuben Lord, built 29 structures, including the Peralta Park Hotel and sixhouses in the new Peralta Park subdivision, where the Julius Alfred Lueders House1 and theAnita Fallon House,2 are still standing.The present house was constructed for Captain James F. Luttrell (1858–1899) and his wife, Cecilia(1856–1934). The captain was a well-known figure in Pacific maritime circles, and his namefrequently appeared in the San Francisco newspapers during the 1890s. Commanding tradingships on the South Pacific islands route, Captain Luttrell served as an important source of newsabout activities in the South Seas islands and reports on other captains and ships plying the PacificOcean. Mrs. Luttrell accompanied her husband on some of his voyages.

SIGN TEXT:

Page 22 of 36 ends

Page 198 ends

N
SCALE: 08 1643 2
Zoning Submittal
1/32" = 1'-0"A0.7 11.14.2019
2328 CHANNING WAY
Devi Dutta Architecture Inc.

SITE PHOTOS

A,B - EXISTING FRONT OF HOUSE C - EXISTING BACK OF HOUSE D - EXISTING REAR STAIRWAY

E - EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND ADJACENT BUILDING F - EXISTING DRIVEWAY G - EXISTING REAR YARD 1/32" = 1'-0"
1 SITE PLAN KEY MAP
B
CDA G
E
F

Page 23 of 36 ends

Page 199 ends

T T T T
C C CC
T
REF.

REF. DW
R6'-5 5/8"
R3'-7 5/8"
REF.REF. DW
S9°08'52"E 135.00
N9°08'52"W 135.00
S80°50'48"W 50.00
N80°50'48"E 50.00'

BENCHMARK
+224.50'
FEC
FEC
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N A1

BASEMENT
3/32"=1'-0"

BIKE PARKING
ELEC.

LAUNDRY
TRASH
UNIT A1
2 BRCOVERED WALKWAY
UNIT A2
2 BR
UNIT A3
4 BR

OPEN SPACE
300 SF

HISTORIC HOUSE BASEMENT

LANDING
3'-8"NEW BUILDING
12'-6"
24'-1"
ELEV.

SCREENED

TRANSFORMER, SEE SITE

PLAN FOR DIMENSIONS
benchbenchbench
stepssteps
egress

PAVERS AND NATIVE

PLANTING AT GRADE,

SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN

Page 24 of 36 ends

Page 200 ends

REF. DW
REF.REF.

DW
S9°08'52"E 135.00
N9°08'52"W 135.00
S80°50'48"W 50.00
N80°50'48"E 50.00'

BENCHMARK
+224.50'
REF.

FEC
FEC
LIVING
ROOM

KITCHEN
UNIT B1
2 BRCOVERED WALKWAY
UNIT B2
2 BR
UNIT B3
4 BR
ELEV.

PORCH

BEDROOM
HISTORIC HOUSE3'-8"NEW BUILDING
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N A2
1ST FLOOR PLAN
3/32=1'-0"

Page 25 of 36 ends

Page 201 ends

REF. DW
REF.REF.

DW
S9°08'52"E 135.00
N9°08'52"W 135.00
S80°50'48"W 50.00
N80°50'48"E 50.00'

BENCHMARK
+224.50'
REF.

FEC
FEC
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N A3
2ND FLOOR PLAN
3/32"=1'-0"

BEDROOM
UNIT C1
2 BRCOVERED WALKWAY
UNIT C2
3 BR
UNIT C3
4 BR
HISTORIC HOUSE3'-8"NEW BUILDING
ELEV. BEDROOM

BEDROOM

Page 26 of 36 ends

Page 202 ends

REF.

REF.REF.

DW
S9°08'52"E 135.00
N9°08'52"W 135.00
S80°50'48"W 50.00
N80°50'48"E 50.00'

BENCHMARK
+224.50'
FEC
FEC
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N A4

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
3/32"=1'-0"
ATTIC

ROOF DECK
490 SF

COVERED WALKWAY
UNIT D2
3 BR
UNIT D3
4 BR

HISTORIC HOUSE
sink
3'-8"NEW BUILDING
ELEV.
14'-0 1/2"
31'-6 1/2"
countercounter

EDGE OF GABLE

ROOF ABOVE

BALCONY ABOVE

Page 27 of 36 ends

Page 203 ends

REF.

REF.REF.

DW
S9°08'52"E 135.00
N9°08'52"W 135.00
S80°50'48"W 50.00
N80°50'48"E 50.00'

BENCHMARK
+224.50'
FEC
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N A5

FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
3/32"=1'-0"

COVERED WALKWAY
UNIT E2
3 BR
UNIT E3
4 BR
HISTORIC HOUSE ROOF3'-8"NEW BUILDING
ELEV.

BALC.
67 SF

ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW
6'
10'-5"
6'-8 1/2"

Page 28 of 36 ends

Page 204 ends

S9°08'52"E 135.00
N9°08'52"W 135.00
S80°50'48"W 50.00
N80°50'48"E 50.00'

BENCHMARK
+224.50'
FEC
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:

PROJECT NUMBER project name
N A6

ROOF PLAN
3/32"=1'-0"
ELEV.

MECH.

ELEV
MACH.

SOLAR ARRAY

ROOF BELOW

ROOF DECK
BELOW

PENHOUSE
ROOF

STAIR ROOF

Page 29 of 36 ends

Page 205 ends

finish grade 223.66
263.27 (p) peak
219.77'
220.80
222.9
256.52 (p) peak
225
200
FLOOR 2, T.O. GYPCRETE
EL. + 229.40'
FLOOR 3, T.O. GYPCRETE
EL. + 238.50'
FLOOR 4, T.O.GYPCRETE
EL. + 247.60'
FLOOR 5, T.O. GYPCRETE
EL. + 256.70'
ROOF, T.O.DECK
EL. + 265.70'
ROOF, T.O.PARAPET
EL. + 267.03'
FLOOR 1, T.O.CONCRETE
EL. + 220.80'
ROOF, T.O.PARAPET
EL. +
FLOOR 0, T.O.CONCRETE
EL. + 219.77'
1ST FLOOR, EXISTING HOUSE
EL. + 228.5'
2ND FLOOR, EXISTING HOUSE
EL. + V.I.F.

ATTIC LEVEL, EXISTING HOUSE
EL. + V.I.F.

ERV
ERV
ERV
ERV

DROPPED CEILING

BATHROOMLIVINGBATHROOM

BATHROOM

KITCHEN

KITCHEN
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
A7

SECTION
3/32"=1'-0"
UNIT A3UNIT A2UNIT A1
44'-1 3/4" BUILDING HEIGHT
UNIT B3UNIT B2UNIT B1
UNIT C3UNIT C2UNIT B1
UNIT D3UNIT D2ROOF DECK
UNIT E3UNIT E2
ATTIC

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
TRASH
PORCH
ELEC.

ELEV.

ROOF
50'-10" MAX HEIGHT

NEW BUILDINGHISTORIC HOUSE

Page 30 of 36 ends

Page 206 ends

2ND FLOOR,

EXISTING HOUSE
EL. + V.I.F.

ATTIC LEVEL,

EXISTING HOUSE
EL. + V.I.F.

Luttrell House
est. 1889
2328
2328
A1-E3
1SOUTH ELEVATION
3/16"=1'-0" 2NORTH ELEVATION
3/16"=1'-0"
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
A9

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
3/32"=1'-0"

NEW SCREENED

TRANSFORMER

ENCLOSURE

NEW BUILDING BEYOND

RESTORED HISTORIC

HOUSE, RELOCATED TO

FRONT OF PROPERTY

HISTORIC INFORMATION
SIGNAGE, SEE A.04

METAL FENCE

SHOWN DASHED
SEE A/L3, 6'-0" HEIGHT
SEE B/L3, 5'-0" HEIGHT

Page 31 of 36 ends

Page 207 ends

NEW EXISTING PAINTED METAL RAILING

DESCRIPTIONHATCH

ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF

VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT SIDING

MAINTAIN AND RESTORE EXISTING PAINTED WOOD SIDING,

V-GROOVE TO MATCH EXISTING HISTORIC SIDING

FIBER CEMENT SIDING

CUSTOM FABRICATED METAL SCREEN
DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N A8

WEST ELEVATION
3/32"=1'-0"

Page 32 of 36 ends

Page 208 ends

7'-51
2"
263.27 (p) peak
256.52 (p) peak
2ND FLOOR,

EXISTING HOUSE
EL. + V.I.F.

ATTIC LEVEL,

EXISTING HOUSE
EL. + V.I.F.
44'-11
2" BUILDING HEIGHT TOP OF PARAPET
50'-91
2" MAX BUILDING HEIGHT TOP OF PENTHOUSE
40'-101
2" PEAK HEIGHT HISTORIC HOUSE, V.I.F.
29'-81
2" AVERAGE HEIGHT
28'-21
2"
1EAST ELEVATION

DEVI DUTTA ARCHITECTURE3/7/25 SCALE:
1910 2328 Channing Way
N A10

EAST ELEVATION
3/32"1'-0"

Page 33 of 36 ends

Page 209 ends

L1 PLANTING PLAN

Page 34 of 36 ends

Page 210 ends

L2 PLANT LIST

Page 35 of 36 ends

Page 211 ends

FENCE SECTION
3/4"=1'-0" 6'-0"
3"
2 X 6 CAP1.
12" DIA.
3 4
5 2
6 7
8 9
2 X 4 STRINGER (TOP AND

2. FINISH GRADE

CONCRETE FOOTING

AND TOE OF SLOPE WHERE

6. 5.
1 X 4 TRIM (TOP AND

3. BOTTOM)

GRAVEL BASE

COMPACTED SUBGRADE
NOTES:

FOR PAINTED FENCE: WOOD

9. 8.

7. 1 X 6 VERTICAL BOARDS
(BUTT JOINTED)
3 1
2 SPRUCE WITH PRESSURE

TREATED DOUGLAS FIR
POSTS.

FENCE: WOOD TO BE CEDAR

FOR NATURAL OR STAINED
W/ REDWOOD POSTS.
24"
USE 6 X 6 KING POST WHERE

WOOD FENCE ABUTS TUBULAR

STEEL FENCE, MASONRY WALLS,
AND CHANGE IN DIRECTION.

10. 11.

TO BE LOCATED AT TOP
4 X 4 POST @ 8'-0" O.C.4.

SELF-CLOSING
(3) HEAVY DUTY HINGES

GATE LATCH, LOCKABLE

SELF-CLOSING
OCCURS

WOOD FENCE
3/8"=1'-0"

FENCE ELEVATION
4 6
6'-0"

BOTTOM)
A
1%

PROPERTY LINE

PROJECT
SITE
PUBLIC
R.O.W.
12 12. LOCATE FENCE & FOOTING
OUTSIDE OF R.O.W.

TUBULAR STEEL FENCE B
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"

ELEVATION VIEW

SECTION VIEW
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
LEGEND

1. 2" SQ. TUBULAR STEEL POST, 11 GA. MIN.

2. 1-1/2" x -1-1/2" TUBULAR STEEL TOP RAIL, 11
GA. MIN.

3. 3/4" SQ. TUBULAR STEEL PICKETS @ 4"
MAXIMUM O.C., EQUAL SPACE, (4" MAX.

CLEAR BETWEEN). WELD TO TOP AND
BOTTOM RAIL, 14 GA. MIN.

4. 1-1/2" x -1-1/2" TUBULAR STEEL BOTTOM
RAIL, 11 GA. MIN.

5. COMPACTED SUBGRADE

6. FINISH GRADE

7. SINK POST INTO FOOTING

8. CONCRETE FOOTING
8' O.C. MAX.
4" O.C. MAX.

EQUAL SPACE
4" MAX.

CLEAR
5'-0" MIN. (TYP.).
5'-0" MIN. (TYP.)
4" MAX.

CLEAR
3"
MIN.
1%
NOTES:
• ALL WELDS TO BE CONTINUOUS AND
GROUND SMOOTH.
• ALL EXPOSED SURFACES SHALL RECEIVE
ONE (1) COAT HIGH SOLIDS PRIMER AND
ONE (1) COAT ELECTROSTATIC PAINT OR
POWDER COAT. COLOR: BLACK.
• ALL CONNECTORS, FASTENERS AND OTHER

HARDWARD TO BE HOT DIPPED
GALVANIZED.
3 2
1 4
7 8
6 3
2 1
4 55
36" MIN.

FOOTING
DEPTH
6" 6"

PROPERTY

PROJECT
SITE
PUBLIC
R.O.W.

9. LOCATE FENCE & FOOTING
OUTSIDE OF R.O.W.
9 LINE
L3 FENCE DETAILS

Page 36 of 36 ends

Page 212 ends

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

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

Page 1 of 25 ends

Page 213 ends

Notice of Decision: 2135 Martin Luther King Jr. Way (Civic Center Park) / INFORMATION CALENDAR #LMSAP2025-0005 September 9, 2025

Page 2 ends

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

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

CONTACT PERSON
Marytonae Sanchez, Assistant Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7419 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMSAP2025-0005/2135 Martin Luther King Jr. Way

Page 2 of 25 ends

Page 214 ends

Attachment 1, Part 1

L A N D M A R K S

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

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: July 7, 2025
DATE NOTICE MAILED: August 25, 2025
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: September 9, 2025
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): September 10, 20251 2135 Martin Luther King Jr. Way – Civic Center Park
Structural Alteration Permit (#LMSAP2025-0005) to modify LMSAP2023- 0001 at the Civic Center Park to replace six (6) benches at the upper plaza of the park, located on a City Landmark property within the Civic Center Historic District.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the Structural Alteration Permit request.  Applicant Evelyn Chan, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Department 1947 Center Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
 Property Owner City of Berkeley
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple-Family Residential District (R-3) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation.
1 Pursuant to BMC Chapter 3.24, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, which has the same effect as an appeal. In most cases, the Council must certify the LPC decision during the 15-day appeal period. However, pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if any portion of the appeal period falls within a Council recess, the deadline for Council certification is suspended until the first Council meeting after the recess, plus the number of days of the appeal period that occurred during the recess, minus one day. If there is no appeal or certification, the Use Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.

Page 3 of 25 ends

Page 215 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-0005
2135 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Mailed: August 25, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPROVED PLANS ARE ATTACHED

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

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

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

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

2. Submit the required fee (checks and money orders must be payable to ‘City of Berkeley’):
a. The basic fee for persons other than the applicant is $3,000. This fee may be reduced to $1,000 if the appeal is signed by persons who lease or own at least 50 percent of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or at least 25 such persons (not including dependent children), whichever is less. Signatures collected per the filing requirement in BMC Section 3.24.300.A may be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee, so long as the signers are qualified. The individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.
b. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $6,000.

Page 4 of 25 ends

Page 216 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-0005
2135 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Mailed: August 25, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

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

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

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

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

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

Page 5 of 25 ends

Page 217 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-0005
2135 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Mailed: August 25, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Marytonae Sanchez, at (510) 981-7419 or [email protected]. All project application materials may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, 3 rd Fl., during regular business hours.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Project Plans
ATTEST:

Anne Hersch, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Evelyn Chan, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Department, 1947 Center Street, Berkeley

Page 6 of 25 ends

Page 218 ends

Attachment 1, PART 2
Findings and Condition s

1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420

2135 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Structural Alteration Permit (#LMSAP2025-0005) to modify LMSAP2023- 0001 at the Civic Center Park to replace six (6) benches at the upper plaza of the park, located on a City Landmark property within the Civic Center Historic District.

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

Evidence: The proposed project does not require a change of use. The property will remain a municipal park.

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

Evidence: The project proposes the re
moval and replacement of six benches. The
installation of benches with a new design and materials are to address compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including structural and safety hazards.

However, replacement is limited to the upper plaza, will not affect any of the other Civic Center Park’s character-defining features, including setting, topography and spatial organization, avoiding wholesale alteration of the park with these features intact.

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

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

E
vidence: The proposed benches will not resemble or replicate designs from the park’s historic period, and will not result in a false sense of historical development.

Page 7 of 25 ends

Page 219 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 2 of 11

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

Evidence: The subject property does not feature changes th at have acquired significance
in their own right.

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

Ev
idence: The features of Civic Center Park will be considerably retained and preserved, with the limited-scope of the project affecting the six benches at the upper plaza only.

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

Evidence: As stated under the analysis of SOI Standard 2, six existing benches will be
replaced with benches of differing design and materials. However, the project includes salvaging any concrete and wood materials from the existing benches to repair other existing park benches. Thus, the proposal will aid in the City’s ability to repair, rather than replace, the remaining benches throughout the Park.

Evidence: The project does not propose chemical or physical treatments. Standard conditions of approval would require any chemical or physical treatments to be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

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

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

Evidence: The project will not affect any archaeological resources as it does not require any excavation. Standard conditions of approval include preserving and protecting unexpected discoveries during project construction.

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

Evidence: The proposed scope of work wil
l introduce a new bench design with new and
differentiated materials that are not currently or historically present in the park. The new work will be entirely different from the existing benches.

Page 8 of 25 ends

Page 220 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 3 of 11

Evidence: If the proposed benches were removed in the future, it would not permanently impair the essential form and integrity of Civic Center Park.

1. For permit applications for construction, alteration or repair:
(a) For applications relating to landmark sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the ex
terior architectural features of the landmark and, where specified in the designation for a publicly owned landmark, its major interior architectural features; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site, as viewed both in themselves and in their setting.

Evidence: The
proposal to replace the six benches in the upper plaza of Civic Center Park will not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the City Landmark because all other character-defining features including setting, topography, and spatial organization, would be retained through the site. With these features preserved, Civic Center Park will retain its historical integrity in use, identity, and form. (b) For applications relating to property in historic districts, the proposed work shall not adv
ersely affect the exterior architectural features of the subject property or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including facade, setback and height; nor shall the proposed wor k adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. The proposed work shall also conform to such further standards as may be embodied in the designation of the historic district.

Evidence: T
he effects of the project are limited to the upper plaza in Civic Center Park , which is at the center of the site. Surrounding properties will be unaffected by the proposed replacement, and the project will not adversely affect neighboring structures and surroundings.

The 1997 landmark designation recognizes the benches within the park to possibly have the appearance of the original design and construction of the Civic Center Park, or are replicas of the original design. Th
e special character of features within the park are
associated with the City Beautiful movement, Works Progress Administration- era and the Golden Gate International Exposition from 1939 to 1940. As effects of the replacement is limited in scope and much of the park’s features are retained, the project will not adversely affect the property’s special character overall.

Page 9 of 25 ends

Page 221 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 4 of 11

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

Evidence: N/
A. The site is a designated City Landmark Park and not a Structure of Merit.

Page 10 of 25 ends

Page 222 ends

Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
July 7 , 2025

Page | 5

I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Project Approval. This Structural Alteration Permit approval is for 2135 Martin Luther King Jr. Way , as substantially shown and described on the project plans dated May 28, 2025, except as required to be modified by conditions herein and plans as presented to the Landmarks Preservation Commission on J uly 7, 2025 (“Approval Date.”). For any condition herein that requires preparation of a Final Plan where the project applicant has submitted a conceptual plan, the project applicant shall submit final plan(s) in substantial conformance with the conceptual plan, but incorporate the modifications required by the conditions herein for approval by the City.

City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning

City of Berkeley
BMC Sections

23.404.060
On-Going Land Use Planning

City of Berkeley

On-Going Land Use Planning

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

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

23.404.060. B.4
On-Going Land Use Planning

Page 11 of 25 ends

Page 223 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 6 of 13

I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring

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

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

23.404.080
On-Going Land Use Planning

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

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

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

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

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

7. Hold Harmless. The permittee agrees as a condition of approval of this application to indemnify, protect, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless, the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements (collec tively, City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning

Page 12 of 25 ends

Page 224 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 7 of 13

I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the approval of this application, any actions taken by the City related to this entitlement, or any environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 210000 et seq., for this entitlement and related actions. The indemnification shall include any Claims that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the permittee, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents. The permittee’s duty to defend the City shall not apply in those instances when the permittee has asserted the Claims, although the permittee shall still have a duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City.

II. At Building Permit Submittal

Regulation Source

Timing/Implementation

Enforcement/ Monitoring

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

Page 13 of 25 ends

Page 225 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 8 of 13

Please designat
e the name of this individual below:

 Project Liaison ____________________________________________________ Name Phone #

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

3. Construction and Demolition Diversion. The applicant shall submit a Construction Waste Management Plan that meets the requirements of BMC Chapter 19.3 7 including 100% diversion of asphalt, concrete, excavated soil and land-clearing debris and a minimum of 65% diversion of other nonhazardous construction and demolition waste.

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

III. During Construction
A. Building & Safety Division
Regulation Source Timing/Implementation

Enforcement/ Monitoring

1 Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and Noon on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety

2. Construction Hours- Exceptions. It is recognized that certain construction activities, such as the placement of concrete, must be performed in a continuous manner and may require an extension of these work hours. Prior to initiating any activity that might require a longer period, the developer must notify the Zoning Officer and request an exception for a finite period of time. If the Zoning Officer approves the request, then two weeks prior to the expanded schedule, the developer shall notify businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site describing the expanded construction hours. A copy of such notice and methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the City for review and approval. The project shall not be allowed more than 15 extended working days.

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety

Page 14 of 25 ends

Page 226 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 9 of 13

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

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety

IV. During Construction
B. Land Use Planning
Regulation
Source
Timing/
Implementation

Enforcement/
Monitoring

The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

City of Berkeley During Construction Land Use Planning

Page 15 of 25 ends

Page 227 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 10 of 13

City of Berkeley During Construction Land Use Planning

A. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered dur
ing ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant and/or lead agency shall consult with a qualified archaeologist, historian or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find.

B. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project proponent and/or l
ead agency and the qualified professional would meet to determine the appropr iate
avoidance measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City of Berkeley. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by the qualified professional according to current professional standards.

City of Berkeley During Construction Land Use Planning

Page 16 of 25 ends

Page 228 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 11 of 13

D. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project si te while mitigation measures for cultural resources is carried out.

E. If significant materials are recovered, the qualified professional shall prepare a report on the findings for submittal to the Northwest Information Center.

IV. During Construction
C. During Construction: Public Works

Regulation
Source
Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

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

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

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

Page 17 of 25 ends

Page 229 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 12 of 13

V. Structural Alteration Permit Conditions Regulation
Source
Timing/
Implementation

Enforcement/
Monitoring

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

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

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

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

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

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

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

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

7. Bench Design (added by the LPC). Develop a custom bench design that:

A. Meets ADA accessibility and durability standards, and B. Reflects the historic character of the original bench, including unpainted concrete and horizontal panel seating.

City of
Berkeley
Within 6 months
of the July 7, 2025
Landmarks
Preservation
Commission meeting
Land Use Planning

Page 18 of 25 ends

Page 230 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2135 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY – #LMSAP2025-0005 JULY 7, 2025 Page 13 of 13

8. Alternatives (added by the LPC). Applicant to return to the Landmarks Preservation Commission to present the new custom design alternatives alongside alternative benches.

City of
Berkeley
Within 6 months
of the July 7, 2025
Landmarks
Preservation
Commission meeting
Land Use Planning

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

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

Page 19 of 25 ends

Page 231 ends

Autodesk Docs://Civic Center Park Plaza-COB-24-11933/CivicCenterParkPlaza-Landscape-R23.rvt7/19/2024 4:19:20 PM G3.00
Existing
Benches
Attachment 1, part

Page 20 of 25 ends

Page 232 ends

BERKELEY CITY HALL
2180 MILVIA STREET

ALLSTON WAY

CENTER STREET

FLAGSTONE PAVING
• 60% LARGER STONES
(30"X36"), 40%

NOMINALLY SMALLER,
• JOINTS PER 2/LSK4
• CUTTING, SHAPE,

LAYOUT TO MATCH

EXISTING, PER SPECS
AND FIELD REPORT #4

CONCRETE PAVING

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO

SIDEWALK ALONG ALLSTON WAY
W
COMPANION SEAT - SEE FURNISHING LAYOUT 3/LSK 4

WHEELCHAIR SPACE

PRIMARY ENTRANCE

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE

DIRECTIONAL SIGN MOUNTED

TO (E) CITY SIGN POST
9'-8"

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE

DIRECTIONAL SIGN MOUNTED

TO (E) CITY SIGN POST

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE

DIRECTIONAL SIGN MOUNTED

TO (E) POST, SEE SUBMITTAL
023

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL IN
FLAGSTONE PAVING:
• WITHIN THIS 10' WIDE AREA, THE PATH

OF TRAVEL SHALL BE AS WIDE AS
POSSIBLE, AND 4'-0" WIDE MINIMUM
• THE PATH CONNECTING TO
WHEELCHAIR SPACE MUST BE 5'

WIDE WHERE DIMENSIONED
• THE RATIO OF PAVER SIZES IN THE
PATH OF TRAVEL SHOULD BE 40%
LARGER PAVERS AND UP TO 60%

SMALLER PAVERS
• THE DESIGN INTENT OF THESE

PARAMETERS IS TO ESTABLISH A

CODE-COMPLIANT PATH OF TRAVEL

THAT VISUALLY BLENDS IN WITH THE
OVERALL PAVING PATTERN. 10'-0"

EDGE OF FOUNTAIN
CLR.
5'-0"
CLR.3'-0"
MIN.
5'-8"
10'-0"
SEE G2.00 FOR GENERAL NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS, PATH OF TRAVEL LEGEND MORTAR JOINTS, 1"-1.5" TYPICAL TO

ACHIEVE ADA COMPLIANCE
NOTES:

1. WHERE NEW CONCRETE MEETS EXISTING CONCRETE ELEMENTS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STEPS, PAVING, AND

EXISTING VERTICAL SURFACE OF WALLS AND FOUNTAIN), AND WHERE NEW CONCRETE MEETS NEW FLAGSTONE PAVING, USE AN EXPANSION JOINT.

2. FOR PAVER PATTERN, PRODUCTS, AND COLORS, SEE SPECIFICATIONS.

3. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVE MOCK-UP IN FIELD, SEE SPECS.

4. INSTALLER TO KNOCK DOWN HIGH POINTS OF FLAGSTONE TO ACHIEVE ADA COMPLIANT SURFACE, NO HIGH POINTS GREATER THAN 1/4" HIGH.

5. NO GAPS, AIR POCKETS, OR VOIDS TO BE PRESENT UNDER FLAGSTONE.

6. IF TREE ROOTS ARE ENCOUNTERED, SEE NOTES ON SHEET L1.00 REGARDING REVIEW OF BED PREPARATION AND PAVING INSTALLATION.

FLAGSTONE PAVING
#3 REBAR 18"OC BOTH WAYS

CONCRETE SUBSLAB

MORTAR SETTING BED

CLASS II AGGREGATE
BASE, COMPACTED TO 95%

SUBGRADE
COMPACTED TO 95%
4"

CONTRACTOR TO KNOCK DOWN HIGH POINTS TO

MEET ACCESSIBILITY CODE
6"
(E) CONCRETE ELEMENTS
EXPANSION JOINT: 3/8" WIDE WITH EXPANSION

JOINT FILLER, SEAL TOP OF JOINT WITH CAULK
1"
MIN.
1 1/2"
1'-0 1/2"

AT (E) VERTICAL CONCRETE ELEMENTS AT (E) PLANTING AREAS MULCH AT EDGE OF PLANTING 3
L7.02
(E) PLANTING

SUBGRADE
1/4" RADIUS AT ALL EXPOSED EDGES
CLR.
3"

SLURRY BOND COAT

TILE INSTALLATION MORTAR

TO ALLSTON
WAY

ALIGNMENTS UPDATED TO
MATCH PRODUCTS, PER RFI 21
3'-6"

TO CENTER
STREET

TO BERKELEY CITY HALL,
2180 MILVIA STREET
CLR
.
8"
CLR.1'-3" CLR.
1'-3"
CLR.
1'-3" CLR.1'-3"
BENCH, TYP. - MOUNTING PER
RFI 21
RECEPTACLE, TYP. - MOUNTING
PER RFI 21
ENI
DEC. 31, 2024
Date
Renewal Date
Signature
D
ENSE
CIL

P ARCHITECT

LANDSCA E

TERRAGR
3704#THTAC
E
FILA

AINROTATS
CFOE

L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T S
tel 510.465.1284 url PGAdesign.com
444 17th Street Oakland CA 94612
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

DATE:

SHEET TITLE

DRAWING STATUS
STAMP
Date Description
2/15/23 Structural Alterations
Permit Application Set
7/7/23 90% CD Permit Set
7/18/24 CD Permit Resubmittal
CITY PLAN NUMBER: 8277
CITY FILE NUMBER: 406-220
7/18/2024
JULY 18, 2024
Autodesk Docs://Civic Center Park Plaza-COB-24-11933/CivicCenterParkPlaza-Landscape-R23.rvt5/20/2025 2:29:36 PM As indicated
LSK4
PM CG

PATH OF TRAVEL

AND PAVER JOINT
DETAIL
Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park - Upper Plaza Improvements City of Berkeley
Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park
2151 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley, CA 94704

REVISION SCHEDULE
No
. Date Description
4 5/19/20
25 LSK 004
1" = 20'-0"
1 LSK4
LSK-4 SITE PLAN PATH OF TRAVEL
3" = 1'-0"
2 LSK4
LSK4-FLAGSTONE PAVING
1" = 10'-0"
3 LSK4
LSK4-FURNISHING LAYOUT

Page 21 of 25 ends

Page 233 ends

ALLSTON WAY

ALIGN NEW FLAGSTONE PAVING

WITH OUTER FACE OF WALLS

AND (E) EDGE OF CONCRETE
PAVING, TYP.

COORDINATE PATH LAYOUT WITH GRADING
PLAN L4.00 TO MEET ACCESSIBLE GRADES
2 L3.00

LAYOUT ENLARGEMENT PLAN A -

NW CORNER

ALIGN BENCHES AND TRASH

RECEPTACLES EVENLY AS
SHOWN. VIF W. CITY'S

REPRESENTATIVE

RE-INSTALL

INFORMATIONAL

PLAQUE TO ALIGN WITH

CENTER OF TOP STEP
4 L7.01
V.I.F. BACK EDGE OF TOP
CONCRETE STEP; PROTECT

AND MAINTAIN WHEN

REPAVING FLAGSTONE AND

CONCRETE
3'-6"

TO CENTER STREET

TO BERKELEY CITY HALL,
2180 MILVIA STREET
N.I.C.
13'-6"
33'-6" 20'-0"
11'-0"
31'-0" 24'-0"
10'-8"
14'-1" 4'-10"
1'-5" 1'-5" 22'-0"
13'-4" 6'-0"
4'-6"

WHERE CONCRETE MEETS

FLAGSTONE, NARROW PAVING BY
1-1/2" FROM (E) PAVING EDGE

PLACEMENT OF WASTE
RECEPTACLE, SIM 2/L3.00

AT CENTERPOINT OF NEW

PAVING EDGE, NARROW BY
1-1/2" FROM (E) PAVING EDGE
4'-0"
3'-3"
20'-7"
15'-0"
16'-6"
37°
54° 103'-9"
8°
5'-10"
14'-7"
103°
90°

AT CENTERPOINT OF CONCRETE

PAVING EDGE, NARROW BY
1-1/2" FROM (E) PAVING EDGE
7'-7" 63°
5'-4"
4°
204'-3"
87'-0"
23°
7'-0"

ON BOTH SIDES, NARROW PAVING BY
1-1/2" FROM (E) PAVING EDGE
9'-3"
2'-1"
2'-6"
81°
4'-6"
11'-2"

AT CENTERPOINT OF CONCRETE
PAVING EDGE, NARROW BY 1-1/2"

FROM (E) PAVING EDGE

ALIGN NEW FLAGSTONE PAVING

WITH (E) EDGE OF CONCRETE
RAMP, TYP.
4'-9"
2'-9"
18'-7"
4'-9"
4'-0"
2'-9"
3 L3.00

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT B

SOUTH HEADER

POINT OF BEGINNING WHERE PLAY

SURFACING HEADER MEETS (E) LAWN
7'-0" 7'-0"
8'-1"

TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE GATE

FOR TEMPORARY CHAIN LINK FENCE

TO BE LOCATED HERE

LAYOUT LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

POINT OF BEGINNING

CENTERLINE

LIMIT OF WORK
ALIGN

LAYOUT NOTES

1. DIMENSIONS ARE FROM OUTSIDE FACE OF WALLS, UNLESS OTHERWISE

NOTED, AND CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND MAJOR EXCAVATION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALING.

2. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ANGLES TO BE RIGHT ANGLES, ARCS WHICH

APPEAR TANGENT AND UNIFORM ARE TO BE TANGENT AND UNIFORM,

LINES WHICH APPEAR PARALLEL ARE TO BE PARALLEL, AND ITEMS WHICH

APPEAR CENTERED TO BE CENTERED, MAINTAIN LINES TRUE, LEVEL, PLUMB, AND SQUARE.

3. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO GRADING PLANS FOR GRADING AND

DRAINAGE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF WALKS AND OTHER SITE ELEMENTS.

4. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO APPROVE LAYOUT IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FORMS OR GRADING FOR LANDSCAPE WORK.

5. CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE ELECTRICAL JUNCTION BOXES FOR LIGHTS IN PLANTING AREAS UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. LAYOUT TO BE
APPROVED BY THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO TRENCHING.

6. CONTRACTOR SHALL CAREFULLY REVIEW LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLANS

AND NOTES TO IDENTIFY LOCATIONS WHERE PIPE, SLEEVES, SAND BED

OR CONDUIT MUST BE PLACED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FORMWORK FOR INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE, OTHER PAVING, OR WALLS.

7. THE DESIGN INTENT ALONG CONCRETE PATHWAYS IS TO NARROW

SLIGHTLY WHERE CALLED OUT TO ACCOMMODATE FORMWORK AND
REDUCE IMPACT ON EXISTING TREE ROOTS.

PAVING TO BE CLEAR OF

LIGHT POST BASE
(E) TREE TO REMAIN -

APPROXIMATE LOCATON OF
TRUNK
(E) UTILITY BOX TO BE

ADJUSTED TO HEIGHT OF

PAVING AS NEEDED

CONCRETE
PAVING
9"
2'-6"
1'-8"
(E) WASTE RECEPTACLES TO
BE SURFACE MOUNTED, TYP.

FLAGSTONE
PAVING

WHERE CONCRETE MEETS

FLAGSTONE, NARROW
CONCRETE PAVING BY 1-1/2"

AWAY FROM (E) PAVING EDGE
13°
13°
132°
20°
40°
20°
48°
4'-0"
8'-4"
13'-7"
8'-4"
4'-0"
30'-5"
12'-5"
ENI
DEC. 31, 2024
Date
Renewal Date
Signature
D
ENSE
CIL

P ARCHITECT

LANDSCA E

TERRAGR
3704#THTAC
E
FILA

AINROTATS
CFOE

L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T S
tel 510.465.1284 url PGAdesign.com
444 17th Street Oakland CA 94612
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

DATE:

SHEET TITLE

LAYOUT PLAN
Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park - Upper Plaza Improvements City of Berkeley
Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park
2151 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
1" = 10'-0"L3.00
1 LAYOUT PLAN
0 5 10 15 25ft
3/8" = 1'-0"L3.00
2 LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT A - NW CORNER
1/4" = 1'-0"L3.00
3 LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT B - SOUTH HEADER
SEE SHEET G2.00 FOR GENERAL
NOTES AND L1.00 FOR PRESERVATION
NOTES.

REVISION SCHEDULE
No
. Date Description
(E) Benches, proposed to be
replaced with new benches.

See attached pictures on the
second page for reference.

Existing Bench
Proposed New Bench
Proposed New Bench

Page 22 of 25 ends

Page 234 ends

Picture 3: Exposed bolt, protrusion
and strangulation hazard
Picture 4: Exposed bolt, spalling concrete
Picture 5: Excessively wide gaps in
seat and back supports
Picture 1: Crack in concrete end, concrete spalling, and protrusion hazard Picture 2: Damaged concrete ends supporting wood slats, failure hazard Picture 7: Wood slats, constantly damaged, safety hazard Picture 6: Crack in backrest stem, exposed bolt,
protrusion hazard
Picture 8: Spalling concrete base, crack in backrest
stem, failure hazard
Picture 9: Protruding bolts, spalling concrete
end, safety hazard
Picture 10: Shims needed to support/stabilize
wood slats, safety hazard

Page 23 of 25 ends

Page 235 ends

Page 24 of 25 ends

Page 236 ends

Page 25 of 25 ends

Page 237 ends

Page 238 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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
September 9, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jen Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: Update on Implementation Progress of Citygate’s Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department

BACKGROUND
The Citygate Workload and Organizational Study, delivered in September 2024, presented a menu of 54 recommendations and 74 key findings stemming from an in- depth analysis of the department's workload, staffing, organizational structure, and overtime management. The Citygate report has been instrumental in helping the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) set strategic priorities and continues to serve as a valuable guide for the department's ongoing efforts to enhance efficiency, optimize resource deployment, and improve service delivery to the Berkeley community. These recommendations are meant to be used as a suite of options that will inform our operational and strategic decisions over the long term, rather than a prescriptive checklist for immediate full completion. This approach allows the department to remain fiscally responsible and strategically adaptive, particularly in light of the City's structural deficit.

To provide context on the scope of these recommendations and our approach:
 14 recommendations are either already completed (such as the Bike Team realignment detailed below) or represent ongoing departmental work that aligned with Citygate's findings (e.g., continuous recruitment efforts, ongoing data analysis).
 18 of the recommendations call for the creation of new staff positions.  12 additional recommendations, while not requiring new positions, would necessitate new funding for implementation (e.g., for technology, equipment, or specific programs).
 The remaining 10 recommendations have been identified as low priority, would require significant existing staff time to implement (which is currently constrained), or involve potential long-term labor negotiation considerations.

Page 1 of 159 ends

Page 239 ends

Page 2 ends

Outlined below are significant achievements that have been implemented to date in direct response to the Citygate recommendations.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
BPD has made significant progress, with 14 of the 54 recommendations now complete or representing ongoing work that was already aligned with Citygate's findings. These achievements have been accomplished through the strategic reallocation of existing resources.

Select In-Progress & Completed Initiatives:
 Use of Force Reporting Policy Review
o BPD has a comprehensive review and update of our Use of Force reporting policy well underway and hopes to launch new edits soon. This is a critical area highlighted by Citygate, which suggested aligning our reporting thresholds for certain lower-level force incidents with common practices in comparable agencies, while ensuring full compliance with state and federal law and maintaining robust accountability. The Department is committed to a transparent process and will provide the Police Accountability Board (PAB) with advance notice before the implementation date so that their input can be considered on version edits.  Realigning Resources for Enhanced Community Engagement o Consistent with Citygate's analysis on optimizing divisional structures, the Bike Team has been realigned under the Community Services Bureau (CSB). This move is intended to increase CSB's capacity to address community concerns and improve operational oversight within that bureau.  Implementing Alternative Response Models – Community Service Officers (CSOs)
o The Patrol CSO program is now operational, a key step towards addressing varied calls for service more efficiently. The Department is pleased to report that three Community Service Officers have successfully completed their comprehensive training program. These CSOs are now independently responding to appropriate low-risk calls for service in the field, such as taking reports for non-emergency incidents, recovering stolen vehicles and found property, and assisting with traffic control. This initiative directly supports Citygate’s recommendation to utilize CSOs to handle tasks not requiring a sworn police officer, thereby allowing sworn officers to focus on higher priority calls and proactive policing efforts.  Establishing a Flex Team
o The establishment of a specialized Flex Team, as recommended by Citygate, to address emerging crime trends and specific public safety issues remains a priority. In a key step toward its formation, the

Page 2 of 159 ends

Page 240 ends

Page 3 ends

recruitment for the team’s Sergeant is now underway. The full deployment of this team is contingent upon achieving the necessary sworn staffing levels to support this initiative without compromising core patrol functions.

Until then, the Flex Team sergeant will lead operations in collaboration with Patrol, the Bike Team, and CSB Area Coordinators.

Key Upcoming Initiatives
BPD will be continuously evaluating and implementing additional Citygate recommendations as resources and staffing levels permit. Key upcoming initiatives include:
 Enhanced Online Reporting System
o The Department is preparing for the forthcoming rollout of an enhanced online reporting system. This initiative aims to provide a more convenient and accessible option for the public to report specific non-injury crimes and incidents. This will, in turn, free up patrol officer time for higher priority calls, proactive policing, and community engagement. We are also actively exploring the feasibility of expanding the categories of reports that can be submitted online to further improve efficiency and public service.  Real-Time Crime Analyst
o In alignment with Citygate’s recommendation around crime analysis, BPD will soon be interviewing for a full-time Program Manager to lead the development and implementation of real-time analysis capabilities. This position will support both the Patrol Division and Investigations Division by rapidly operationalizing data to provide actionable intelligence to officers in the field and detectives working active cases.

These initial steps, guided by the Citygate report, are aimed at optimizing resource allocation, enhancing community service, and improving operational efficiency. Moving forward we will continue to refine staffing levels and incorporate the Citygate assessment into future budgetary decision-making processes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The actions outlined in this update have been implemented through strategic resource reallocation and within existing budgetary frameworks.

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

Page 3 of 159 ends

Page 241 ends

Page 4 ends

CONTACT PERSON
Chief Jen Louis (510) 981-5700
Captain Kevin Schofield (510) 981-5815

ATTACHMENTS

1. Citygate Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department

Page 4 of 159 ends

Page 242 ends

C I T Y O F B E R K E L E Y , C A

W O R K L O A D O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S T U D Y

O F T H E P O L I C E D E P A R T M E N T
S E P T E M B E R 4 , 2 0 2 4
6 0 0 C O O L I D G E D R I V E , S U I T E 1 5 0
F O L S O M , C A 9 5 6 3 0
P H O N E : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 5 8 - 5 1 0 0
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 9 8 3 - 2 0 9 0
W W W . C I T Y G A T E A S S O C I A T E S . C O M

P O L I C E S E R V I C E S

Page 5 of 159 ends

Page 243 ends

This page was intentionally left blank

Page 6 of 159 ends

Page 244 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Table of Contents Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Policy Choices Framework .............................................................................................................................. 1 General Summary of Citygate’s Assessment .................................................................................................. 2 Challenge #1 ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Challenge #2 ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Citygate’s Recommendations and Goals ......................................................................................................... 4 Organizational Summary ................................................................................................................... 5 Operations Division (Patrol) ............................................................................................................. 6 Support Services Division ................................................................................................................. 6 Investigations Division ...................................................................................................................... 7 Professional Standards Division ........................................................................................................ 8 Citygate Recommendations and Funding Priorities ........................................................................................ 8 Section 1—Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 17

1.1 Report Organization ........................................................................................................................ 17

1.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................. 18

1.2.1 Project Scope .................................................................................................................... 18

1.2.2 Project Methodology ......................................................................................................... 19

1.2.3 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 19

1.3 City of Berkeley Profile .................................................................................................................. 20

1.3.1 Demographics ................................................................................................................... 20

1.3.2 University of California, Berkeley .................................................................................... 21

1.3.3 City Crime Data ................................................................................................................ 22 Section 2—Organizational Review ........................................................................................................................... 25

2.1 Mission, Vision, Values, and Priorities ........................................................................................... 25

2.2 Staffing and Attrition....................................................................................................................... 26

2.3 Employee Survey ............................................................................................................................ 27

2.3.1 Employee Survey Key Findings ....................................................................................... 27

2.3.2 Employee Survey Recommendations ............................................................................... 28

2.4 Organizational Structure.................................................................................................................. 28

2.5 Police Beat Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 30

2.5.1 Police Beat Structure......................................................................................................... 30

2.5.2 Police Beat Service Demand ............................................................................................. 31

2.5.3 Police Beat Findings ......................................................................................................... 33

2.5.4 Police Beat Recommendations .......................................................................................... 33

2.6 Benchmark Analysis........................................................................................................................ 34

2.6.1 Staffing Benchmark .......................................................................................................... 34

2.6.2 Rank Structure Benchmark ............................................................................................... 35

Page 7 of 159 ends

Page 245 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Page ii Table of Contents

2.6.3 Crime Rates and Clearances Benchmark .......................................................................... 36

2.6.4 Perspective for Berkeley ................................................................................................... 38

2.7 Overtime Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 38

2.7.1 Sworn Officers .................................................................................................................. 39

2.7.2 Professional (Civilian) Staff ............................................................................................. 42

2.7.3 Overtime and Policy ......................................................................................................... 44

2.7.4 Overtime Findings ............................................................................................................ 46

2.7.5 Overtime Recommendations ............................................................................................. 47 Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review ...................................................................................................... 49

3.1 Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability ............................................................................ 49

3.2 Creation of a new Deputy Chief’s Position ..................................................................................... 49

3.3 Administrative and Fiscal Services ................................................................................................. 49

3.3.1 Administrative and Fiscal Services Finding ..................................................................... 51

3.3.2 Administrative and Fiscal Services Recommendation ..................................................... 51

3.4 Internal Affairs Bureau .................................................................................................................... 51

3.4.1 Police Accountability Board ............................................................................................. 52

3.4.2 Internal Affairs Bureau Finding ........................................................................................ 54

3.4.3 Internal Affairs Bureau Recommendation ........................................................................ 54 Section 4—Operations Division Review ................................................................................................................... 55

4.1 Patrol Coverage ............................................................................................................................... 55

4.2 Bike Team ....................................................................................................................................... 56

4.3 Community Services Bureau ........................................................................................................... 56

4.4 Patrol Response Time Analysis ....................................................................................................... 57

4.4.1 Understanding Fractile versus Average Measurement ..................................................... 57

4.4.2 Patrol Response Time ....................................................................................................... 59

4.5 Incident Data Review ...................................................................................................................... 60

4.5.1 Patrol Utilization ............................................................................................................... 60

4.6 Patrol On-Scene Time ..................................................................................................................... 64

4.6.1 Calls for Service ................................................................................................................ 64

4.7 Additional Operational Demands on Patrol .................................................................................... 74

4.7.1 Booking/Jail Delays .......................................................................................................... 74

4.7.2 Ancillary Duties/Training ................................................................................................. 75

4.7.3 Video Retrieval ................................................................................................................. 75

4.7.4 Use of Force Reporting ..................................................................................................... 75

4.7.5 Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) Reporting ........................................................ 85

4.7.6 Equipment Ordinance Reporting ...................................................................................... 85

4.7.7 Miscellaneous Service Call Reporting .............................................................................. 85

4.8 The ICMA “Rule of 60” .................................................................................................................. 85

4.8.1 Resource Allocation .......................................................................................................... 86

4.8.2 Workload Efficiency ......................................................................................................... 87

4.8.3 Applying the Rule of 60 .................................................................................................... 87

Page 8 of 159 ends

Page 246 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Table of Contents Page iii

4.9 Operations Division Findings and Recommendations .................................................................... 88

4.9.1 Findings............................................................................................................................. 88

4.9.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 89 Section 5—Investigations Division Review .............................................................................................................. 91

5.1 Division Overview .......................................................................................................................... 91

5.1.1 Youth Services Unit .......................................................................................................... 95

5.1.2 School Resource Officer ................................................................................................... 95

5.1.3 Crime Scene Unit .............................................................................................................. 95

5.1.4 Investigations Division Findings ...................................................................................... 96

5.1.5 Investigations Division Recommendations....................................................................... 97

5.2 Traffic Bureau ................................................................................................................................. 98

5.2.1 Current Staffing and Responsibilities ............................................................................... 99

5.2.2 Education Programs ........................................................................................................ 101

5.2.3 Traffic Stops.................................................................................................................... 101

5.2.4 Deployment Locations .................................................................................................... 102

5.2.5 Enforcement Details and Related Grants ........................................................................ 102

5.2.6 Use of Social Media ........................................................................................................ 103

5.2.7 Collision Data ................................................................................................................. 103

5.2.8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision Statistics ..................................................................... 103

5.2.9 Office of Traffic Safety Review ..................................................................................... 107

5.2.10 Parking Enforcement ...................................................................................................... 108

5.2.11 Traffic Bureau Findings .................................................................................................. 109

5.2.12 Traffic Bureau Recommendations .................................................................................. 110 Section 6—Professional Standards Division Review ............................................................................................ 113

6.1 Division Overview ........................................................................................................................ 113

6.1.1 Personnel and Training ................................................................................................... 113

6.1.2 Recruiting ........................................................................................................................ 114

6.1.3 Policy and Planning ........................................................................................................ 114

6.1.4 Audit and Inspection ....................................................................................................... 115

6.1.5 Professional Standards Division Findings ...................................................................... 116

6.1.6 Professional Standards Division Recommendations ...................................................... 116 Section 7—Support Services Division Review ....................................................................................................... 117

7.1 Division Overview ........................................................................................................................ 117

7.2 Berkeley Public Safety Center (Jail) ............................................................................................. 117

7.2.1 Public Safety Center (Jail) Findings ............................................................................... 120

7.2.2 Public Safety Center (Jail) Recommendations ............................................................... 120

7.3 Technology Unit ............................................................................................................................ 121

7.3.1 Technology Unit Findings .............................................................................................. 121

7.3.2 Technology Unit Recommendations............................................................................... 122

7.4 Property Room .............................................................................................................................. 122

7.4.1 Property Room Findings ................................................................................................. 123

Page 9 of 159 ends

Page 247 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Page iv Table of Contents

7.4.2 Property Room Recommendations ................................................................................. 124

7.5 Records Unit .................................................................................................................................. 124

7.5.1 Records Unit Findings .................................................................................................... 125

7.5.2 Records Unit Recommendations..................................................................................... 126

7.6 Communications Center ................................................................................................................ 126

7.6.1 Standards and Best Practices .......................................................................................... 128

7.6.2 Communications Center Findings................................................................................... 130

7.6.3 Communications Center Recommendations ................................................................... 130 Section 8—Summary of Personnel Priorities and Findings and Recommendations ......................................... 131

8.1 Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 131

8.1.1 Employee Survey ............................................................................................................ 131

8.1.2 Police Beat ...................................................................................................................... 132

8.1.3 Overtime ......................................................................................................................... 132

8.1.4 Administrative and Fiscal Services ................................................................................. 133

8.1.5 Internal Affairs Bureau ................................................................................................... 133

8.1.6 Use of Force .................................................................................................................... 133

8.1.7 Operations Division ........................................................................................................ 133

8.1.8 Investigations Division ................................................................................................... 135

8.1.9 Traffic Bureau ................................................................................................................. 136

8.1.10 Professional Standards Division ..................................................................................... 136

8.1.11 Public Safety Center (Jail) .............................................................................................. 137

8.1.12 Technology Unit ............................................................................................................. 137

8.1.13 Property Room ................................................................................................................ 138

8.1.14 Records Unit ................................................................................................................... 138

8.1.15 Communications Center.................................................................................................. 138

8.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 139

8.2.1 Employee Survey ............................................................................................................ 139

8.2.2 Police Beat ...................................................................................................................... 139

8.2.3 Overtime ......................................................................................................................... 140

8.2.4 Administrative and Fiscal Services ................................................................................. 140

8.2.5 Internal Affairs Bureau ................................................................................................... 140

8.2.6 Use of Force .................................................................................................................... 140

8.2.7 Operations Division ........................................................................................................ 140

8.2.8 Investigations Division ................................................................................................... 142

8.2.9 Traffic Bureau ................................................................................................................. 143

8.2.10 Professional Standards Division ..................................................................................... 144

8.2.11 Public Safety Center (Jail) .............................................................................................. 144

8.2.12 Technology Unit ............................................................................................................. 145

8.2.13 Property Room ................................................................................................................ 146

8.2.14 Records Unit ................................................................................................................... 146

8.2.15 Communications Center.................................................................................................. 147

Page 10 of 159 ends

Page 248 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Table of Contents Page v
Table of Tables
Table 1—Recommendations and Funding Priorities ..................................................................................................... 9 Table 2—Berkeley Demographic Percentages by Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................ 20 Table 3—Berkeley Part I Crime Data (2018–2023) .................................................................................................... 23 Table 4—Historical Sworn Staffing Levels ................................................................................................................. 26 Table 5—Berkeley Police Department Attrition.......................................................................................................... 26 Table 6—Calls for Service by Beat (2018–2023) ........................................................................................................ 32 Table 7—Benchmark: Agency Staffing ....................................................................................................................... 34 Table 8—Benchmark: Rank Structure ......................................................................................................................... 35 Table 9—Benchmark: Rank Structure ......................................................................................................................... 36 Table 10—Benchmark: Crime Rates ........................................................................................................................... 36 Table 11—Benchmark: Violent Crime Clearance Rates ............................................................................................. 37 Table 12— Benchmark: Property Crime Clearance Rates .......................................................................................... 37 Table 13—Overtime: Patrol/Operations ...................................................................................................................... 39 Table 14—Overtime: Police Court Pay – Patrol/Operations ...................................................................................... 40 Table 15—Overtime: Hazardous Duty – Patrol/Operations ........................................................................................ 40 Table 16—Overtime: Investigations – Detectives / Crime Analyst............................................................................. 40 Table 17—Overtime: Investigations – Traffic ............................................................................................................. 40 Table 18—Overtime: Professional Standards – Policy and Audit ............................................................................... 41 Table 19—Overtime: Professional Standards – Personnel and Training..................................................................... 41 Table 20—Overtime: Chief’s Office – Administrative and Fiscal Services................................................................ 41 Table 21—Overtime: Chief’s Office – Internal Affairs ............................................................................................... 41 Table 22—Overtime: Support Services – Communications Center ............................................................................ 42 Table 23—Overtime: Support Services – Jail .............................................................................................................. 42 Table 24—Overtime: Support Services – Records/Subpoena ..................................................................................... 42 Table 25—Overtime: Support Services – Communications Center ............................................................................ 43 Table 26—Overtime: Support Services – Jail .............................................................................................................. 43 Table 27—Overtime: Investigations – Parking Enforcement ...................................................................................... 43 Table 28—Overtime: Investigations – Detectives/Crime Analyst............................................................................... 43 Table 29—Overtime: Support Services – Records/Subpoena ..................................................................................... 44 Table 30—Overtime: Investigations – Traffic ............................................................................................................. 44 Table 31—Overtime: Professional Standards – Personnel and Training..................................................................... 44 Table 32—Patrol Team Coverage of Week ................................................................................................................. 55 Table 33—Utilization by Unit Type: Occupied and Available Hours ......................................................................... 61 Table 34—Public-Generated CFS – Incidents and Committed Hours (2021) ............................................................. 62 Table 35—Public-Generated CFS – Incidents and Committed Hours (2022) ............................................................. 63 Table 36—Public-Generated CFS – Incidents and Committed Hours (2023) ............................................................. 64 Table 37—Most Frequent Call Responses by Call Type and Year ............................................................................. 65 Table 38—Alarms/Security: 55,327 Total Incidents ................................................................................................... 66 Table 39—Complaints/Code Violations: 64,754 Total Incidents ................................................................................ 67 Table 40—Vehicle Incidents: 30,354 Total Incidents ................................................................................................. 68

Page 11 of 159 ends

Page 249 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Page vi Table of Contents
Table 41—Property Incidents: 22,969 Total Incidents ................................................................................................ 69 Table 42—Public Assistance: 16,370 Total Incidents ................................................................................................. 69 Table 43—High Risk – Individual Safety: 12,177 Total Incidents ............................................................................. 70 Table 44—High Risk – Public Safety: 2,171 Total Incidents ...................................................................................... 71 Table 45—Welfare: 17,621 Total Incidents................................................................................................................. 71 Table 46—Categories of Force by Use (2024) ............................................................................................................ 77 Table 47—Berkeley Sworn Personnel Allocation ....................................................................................................... 86 Table 48—Investigations Division and Personnel ....................................................................................................... 91 Table 49—Criminal Case Clearances (2019–2022) .................................................................................................... 93 Table 50—Case Reports .............................................................................................................................................. 93 Table 51—Traffic Unit Staffing................................................................................................................................... 99 Table 52—Parking Enforcement Unit Staffing.......................................................................................................... 100 Table 53—Traffic Collision Investigations (2019–2023) .......................................................................................... 100 Table 54—Traffic Citations (2019–2023) ................................................................................................................. 101 Table 55—Jail Staffing .............................................................................................................................................. 117 Table 56—Communications Center Overtime Hours ................................................................................................ 127 Table of Figures
Figure 1—Part I Crimes Categories ............................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 2—Berkeley Police Department – Current Organizational Structure .............................................................. 29 Figure 3—Berkeley Police Department – Proposed New Organizational Structure ................................................... 29 Figure 4—Current Beat Structure (14 Beats)............................................................................................................... 30 Figure 5—Former Beat Structure (16 Beats) ............................................................................................................... 31 Figure 6—Internal Affairs Bureau Allegations (2023) ................................................................................................ 53 Figure 7—Fractile versus Average Response Time Measurements ............................................................................ 58 Figure 8—Utilization: Total Hours by Starting Task .................................................................................................. 61 Figure 9—Patrol: Public-Generated Priority 1 Calls for Service (2020–2023) ........................................................... 72 Figure 10—Patrol: Officer-Initiated Calls for Service (2020–2023) ........................................................................... 73 Figure 11—Vehicle Incidents (2020–2023)............................................................................................................... 102 Figure 12—Berkeley Traffic Collisions by Primary Cause (2021–2023) ................................................................. 104 Figure 13—Berkeley Fatal Collisions by Primary Cause (2021–2023) .................................................................... 104 Figure 14—Injury Collisions by Day of Week by Hour (2021–2023) ...................................................................... 105 Figure 15—Bicycle Collisions by Hour (2021–2023) ............................................................................................... 105 Figure 16—Bicycle Collision Location Heat Map (2021–2024) ............................................................................... 106 Figure 17—Pedestrian Collisions by Hour (2021–2023)........................................................................................... 106 Figure 18—Office of Traffic Safety City Comparison Analysis (2021) ................................................................... 108 Figure 19—Example 12-Hour Shift Schedule ........................................................................................................... 119

Page 12 of 159 ends

Page 250 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Berkeley (City) retained Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) to conduct a Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department (Department). This assessment includes a review of the adequacy of current and future deployment systems, staffing levels throughout the Department, sustainable alternatives, beat structure, overtime, and organizational structure. The methodology utilized in this study can be found in Section 1 of this report.

Citygate’s review includes a detailed analysis of the data that drives staffing recommendations including data related to police unit response times, crime, calls for service , and overtime. The review also includes a staffing analysis of supervision, management, and support functions within each division of the Department. Our work was combined with a review of the City’s ongoing efforts related to alternative response methods to non-police or low-level emergencies and other care needs in the City. This tra nsition is already underway to provide appropriate alternative services to the community when a traditional 9 -1-1 police patrol response is not necessary.

Citygate’s assessment encompasses recommendations to support the Department’s success over the next five to seven years.

Overall, this report contains 74 key findings and 54 specific, actionable recommendations. Findings and recommendations are presented in their narrative context in Sections 2 through Section 7. A comprehensive list of all findings and recommendations is presented sequentially in Section 8. Recommendations are also presented in Table 1 of this Executive Summary.

POLICY CHOICES FRAMEWORK
Currently, there are no mandatory federal or state regulations directing the level of police field service staffing, response times, and necessary outcomes.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) recommend methods for determining appropriate staffing levels based on local priorities. The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) provides standards for 9-1-1 call answering, and the Association of Public -Safety Communications Officials International (APCO) and the International Academies of Emergency Dispatching (IAED) provide best practices that illuminate staffing needs for communications centers providing dispatch services.

Using a data-driven framework as advocated in this report —and already embraced and practiced by the Department —the City can continue to engage the community in adapting future public safety services to utilize alternative and community-focused, non-police officer strategies to address community-wide, neighborhood, and social issues.

Page 13 of 159 ends

Page 251 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 2
Personnel costs are often the most significant cost center in any department budget. One of the City Council’s greatest challenges is managing scarce fiscal resources and allocating them wisely across the vast needs of municipal government public safety operations. The recommendations in this Workload Organizational Study are made based on best practices, Citygate’s experience, and guidelines established by professional industry organizations. The City’s fiscal capabilities and non-9-1-1 alternative service s delivery measures must be considered when weighing these recommendations.

GENERAL SUMMARY OF CITYGATE’S ASSESSMENT
Citygate commends the Department and the City for its many innovative, forward-looking, and community-focused programs, including its Transparency Hub ; the Mental Health Division’s Mobile Crisis Unit ; the Specialized Care Unit, which provides crisis service with no police involvement; the prioritization of employee wellness; the Community Services Bureau (CSB) and its community liaisons ; and the Bike Team. Residents can call 9-1-1 for life -threatening emergencies and can ask dispatchers for mental health support. All Mobile Crisis Team (MCT) calls may be accompanie d by firefighter-paramedics or police officers, who ensure safety at the scene while allowing the MCT to assist. If such calls are made when MCT members are off duty, City police officers have extensive experience helping people through mental health and substance abuse crises , and regularly u tilize de-escalation and crisis intervention strategies. Further, t he City’s Specialized Care Unit (SCU) is a partnership program with Bonita House, Inc. Staff assigned to the SCU will respond to those undergoing a men tal health- or substance-use-related crisis without police involvement.

The Chief of Police has also recently created a new Deputy Chief’s position and a new unit: the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA). The Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability will report directly to the Chief and will serve as a pivotal entity in enhancing data- driven approaches in policing performance , Departmental accountability, risk management , and oversight—as well as addressing community and external stakeholder needs.

Throughout Citygate’s assessment, Citygate found a department with high professionalism at all levels and a staff willing to implement new ideas and technologies to improve policing in the City.

The members of the Department are extremely dedicated to the community they serve. No organization is perfect, and many of the findings and recommendations in this report are items the Department is aware of and is already taking steps to implement. Some changes will take time and require resources as part of the Department’s normal budgeting process.

All of the City’s work to date and the issues researched for this study present two policy challenges for the Council and community to work together on —not to the exclusion of one or the other. Both challenges require resources because, if one set of services falls short, other services and overall public well-being can be negatively impacted.

Page 14 of 159 ends

Page 252 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 3
Challenge #1
Maintain Emergency and Needed Police Services Commensurate to Current Demands  Citygate found that many sections of the Department —especially Patrol and the Communications Center (Dispatch)—suffer from a shortage in staffing , which frequently necessitates overtime or diverting staff from other units to fill vacancies in Patrol.
 Many sworn members, particularly those with supervisory responsibilities, are responsible for several ancillary duties and often find themselves spending increasingly more time on administrative tasks apart from their primary duties , which include leadership and supervision in the field.
 The Department also faces hurdles in recruiting, hiring, and training new staff while keeping pace with attrition as the public perception of the law enforcement profession evolves. To heighten the focus on recruiting, the Chief has recently assigned a full-time Recruitment Officer.
 Overall, from 9-1-1 call receipt to the arrival of the right resource in response to a specific incident—whether P atrol, Investigations, Traffic, Mobile Crisis Team, etc.—there are multiple current limitations adversely affecting the Department’s efforts to meet the high volume of calls for assistance received every hour.  Staffing shortages and technical limitations affect morale, overtime, recruitment, and retention.

Challenge #2
Grow Non-9-1-1 Services to Support Berkeley’s Compassionate and Caring Human Services The City is actively working on reimagining public safety, a process initiated in 2021. City goals emphasize a more holistic, integrated, and community-centered approach to society’s needs that do not require an emergent police/fire/ ambulance response. The City’s goals, and the work the City has already started, aim to address these needs by incorporating a range of professionals and response strategies.
 Alternatives to a police patrol response require the programs to be developed and non-sworn personnel to be hired—such as Community Service Officers (CSOs) and specialists for response to people experiencing homelessness-related issues or mental health crisis.
 Building the desired enhanced programs requires planning, mid -managers, recruitment, training, and quality of care oversight —all of which the Department is strained to provide currently.

Page 15 of 159 ends

Page 253 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 4
 The Specialized Care Unit (SCU) is an innovative partnership program between the City of Berkeley and Bonita House, Inc. The SCU currently operates 24 hours per day Sunday through Wednesday. The SCU also operates from 6:00 am to 4:00 pm Thursday through Saturday. When someone calls 9 -1-1, they can ask public safety dispatchers for support related to mental health or substance -use issues, which may also come in the form of the Mental Health Division’s Mobile Crisis Unit. Firefighter-paramedics or police officers may also accompany all Mobile Crisis Unit calls, while an SCU response is one with no police involvement. The SCU can be reached directly if someone is undergoing a mental health - or substance-use-related crisis and needs assistance.
 The Vision Zero Action Plan is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. It is , first and foremost, an engineering strategy that aims to design and build Berkeley streets to eliminate severe and fatal traffic injuries. Equity -driven Vision Zero traffic enforcement utilizes the best possible data and is focused on areas of the City where engineering and education efforts have already been implemented.  The Berkeley Police Department’s online Transparency Hub shares Police Department policies, actions, and data with City partners and community stakeholders. This data includes police stop data to ensure fair and impartial policing through an analysis of calls for service, use of force, and current trends.  The Department’s four Area Coordinators serve as community liaisons for the Department. They can help with long-term problems such as persistent issues with illegal dumping or abandoned vehicles.

CITYGATE’S RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOALS
Throughout this assessment, Citygate provides recommendations to serve the Department in its efforts to achieve the following six goals:

1. Increasing staffing in some areas and deploying and redeploying staff where and when they are most needed based on accurate and timely data and analysis.

2. In the context of employee wellness and accountability, c arefully evaluating the various collateral duties many employees are assigned, giving particular attention to supervisors who are often being pulled from their supervisory roles.

3. Continuing efforts to track and manage overtime and limit ing its use to when it is necessary.

Page 16 of 159 ends

Page 254 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 5

4. Continuing the Department’s strong and creative efforts related to data analysis to drive performance and continuous improvement.

5. Continuing the Department’s strong focus on employee wellness. A focus on wellbeing not only benefits individual employees but also promotes a healthier work environment, reducing the risk of fatigue and enhan cing Departmental morale.

6. Improving employee retention and prioritizing employee morale. The benefits of improving police morale are many, including better service for the community, more community trust in the Department, and a motivated, purposeful workforce.

Citygate analyzed current capabilities to project future needs for the Department, with actionable recommendations and strategies provided for implementation based on the growth and development of the City. If this study’s recommendations are implemented over several fiscal years:
 The Department will be well positioned to deepen its ability to provide proactive policing.
 The community will be able to increase interaction with partners in the Department to foster joint crime prevention strategies.
 The prevention of crime and disorder and the closure of investigations of serious incidents will increase.
 When the public interacts with Berkeley police, they will know them and trust them to be fair —and will not assume they are representative of what is wrong with policing elsewhere in America.

SUMMARY OF POLICE SERVICES FINDINGS BY TOPIC
Organizational Summary
At the time of Citygate’s analysis, the Department was operating with an authorized (budgeted) total staffing level of 313.20 employees, which includes 181 total authorized sworn staff. The Department is currently organized into four major divisions —Operations, Investigations, Professional Standards, and Support Services—each commanded by a Police Captain. The Chief of Police recently informed staff of a planned Departmental reorganization that will result in the creation of a new Deputy Chief’s position and a new Office of Strateg ic Planning and Accountability (OSPA). The reorganization will also entail a Captain being promoted to Deputy Chief, and units within the current Professional Standards Division be ing transferred to other Departmental offices or divisions.

Page 17 of 159 ends

Page 255 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 6
As part of this review, Citygate performed a benchmark analysis to contrast Department staffing with that of five selected comparator agencies . The agencies chosen were similarly situated municipal police departments with comparable geographical and population metrics. Citygate also utilized other. One benchmark measure assessed was the City’s rate of Part 1 Violent Crime and Part 1 Property Crime, along with the respective case clearance rates of the City and comparator agencies. Citygate noted that the Berkeley’s property crime rate was highe r than that of the five benchmark agencies. The City’s violent crime rate was second highest behind that of the City of Richmond.

The Department’s property crime clearance rates have remained consistent over the past five years, while incidents of property crime rose between 2018 and 2022. The Department’s violent crime clearance rates have improved since 2018 , with the 2022 rate being 33.3 percent—which was equal to the city of Fremont’s but lower than the cities of Hayward (39.6), Concord (35.8), and Santa Clara (51.9).

Citygate also reviewed overtime data for every organizational unit and learned that most Department overtime is spent in Patrol, Communications (Dispatch) , and Investigations. The Department realized a 13 percent reduction in overtime in 2023 and can now closely monitor and manage overtime expenditures down to the level of individual employees. The Department’s efforts to track, manage, and reduce overtime—along with a reduction in the number of beats from 16 to 14—appear to be effective.

Operations Division (Patrol)
The field Operations Division is organized into seven Patrol teams responsible for uniformed police response to the community.

Additionally, the Operations Division includes the Community Services Bureau (CSB) and a Bike Team. Each of the four CSB officers are assigned to a quadrant of the City where they serve as community liaisons who focus their time on addressing long-term neighborhood concerns. The CSB also houses the Data Analysis Team, which has created an impressive Transparency Hub that provides the public and staff access to a wide range of police data. Finally, Bike Team officers spend most of their time focusing on retail areas downtown and south of the university campus.

They address qualify-of-life issues, which relieves Patrol officers of many of these responsibilities.

Support Services Division
The Support Services Division includes the City Jail, the Technology Unit, the Property and Evidence Room, the Records Bureau, and the Communications Bureau.

An issue of high concern within the Communications Center (Dispatch) of Support Services is dispatcher staffing and overtime. The Department has been successful in recruiting new dispatchers, which should eventually result in a much-needed reduction in overtime.

Page 18 of 159 ends

Page 256 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 7
The City’s Computer-Aided-Dispatch (CAD) system urgently needs replacement. Its outdated technology, inefficient database schema, and unintuitive interface hinder effective emergency response. This extends to records management, corrections, and mobile field reporting systems.

While upgrading will require additional implementation costs, the benefits of a modern, integrated system far outweigh the challenges related to persisting with obsolete technology. Superior alternatives exist, promising enhanced efficiency and effectiveness across emergency services.

The City Jail is led by a Sergeant, who is responsible for oversight of three civilian supervisors and 14 Community Service Officer jailers. Between January 2022 and December 2022, Department officers booked 5 ,902 arrestees —a daily average of 16 arrestees. Recruitment for Community Service Officers (CSOs) is arduous. Citygate sees an opportunity for improvement by forming a Recruitment and Retention Committee . A civilian manager may be a good fit for this all-civilian unit.

A Sergeant leads the Technology Unit. The Unit is an ancillary duty for five other members.

Citygate sees an opportunity to improve operational efficiency by transferring the Sergeant to a position that requires uniformed supervision and filling the current position with a civilian Information Technology Specialist who can provide long-term technical expertise to the Unit and Department.

Citygate learned that the Department has made online reporting available to the public by using Coplogic. Citygate applauds this effort as it provides a viable alternative for those who wish to report certain offenses. Using Cop logic, a victim of a crime can enter their information into an online report form and receive a temporary report/incident number. Reports that do not involve a suspect, or only involve the theft of property , can be performed online and do not require the presence of an officer.

Our review of Property and Evidence revealed some areas for improvement, including the need to add temporary staff to relieve backlogs. Citygate also believes Property and Evidence would benefit greatly by measuring its policies, procedures , and practices against those in the Law Enforcement Evidence and Property Management Guide (Fourth Edition, 2022).1 Investigations Division
Citygate found several areas where we believe the Investigations Division can be improved. For example, Investigations staff have not made full use of an existing case management system that would help to track detective caseloads including open cases, closed cases , and those held in a pending status—which are mostly property crimes cases that lack investigative leads.

1 https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/publications/Evidence_and_Property_Management.pdf

Page 19 of 159 ends

Page 257 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 8
Professional Standards Division
A Lieutenant leads the Personnel and Training Unit and oversees a Sergeant, four civilian Police Aides, and two other professional staff (eight personnel total). The Unit is responsible for working closely with the Human Resources Department, assigning and reviewing background investigations, conducting a pplicant interviews, coordinating academies and recruits, managing the armory, facilitating the Honor Guard, coordinating police aides, managing defensive tactics and firearms units, coordinating chaplains, ordering and accounting for ammunition, coordinating with Bay Alarm for support, coordinating with the recruiting team, and more.

When interviewing staff, Citygate found a theme: many personnel have a difficult time completing their primary responsibilities due to numerous ancillary duties. One of the ancillary duties includes the recruiting team. Citygate believes there is room to improve recruiting by removing it as an ancillary duty responsibility and making it a primary duty. A recruitment plan would also help to guide individuals (or a team) and track results. The Chief recently announced the creation of a new officer’s role that will be wholly dedicated to recruiting.

The Audit and Inspection Unit was formerly staffed by a Sergeant; however, the Sergeant was temporarily reassigned in February of 2024 , and the position’s duties have since been absorbed into the new Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA).

CITYGATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING PRIORITIES
The following table lists all recommendations in summary form and identifies the following:
 Recommendations that can be implemented at no cost (other than staff time).  Remaining recommendations that will require a General Fund expense to implement.
 The funding priority level for any recommendations requiring funding.  Staffing additions associated with the implementation of a recommendation — noted in parentheses immediately next to the “X” in the Funding Priority columns to the right of the table—which are totaled at the bottom of the table.

NOTE: While funding priorities are identified, these recommendations are not presented in a general priority order. Greater context and further content related to each recommendation is provided throughout this report.

FTE numbers in the “No Cost” column followed by an asterisk indicate positions that are already authorized/funded.

Page 20 of 159 ends

Page 258 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 9
Table 1—Recommendations and Funding Priorities
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2
Organizational Review

EMPLOYEE SURVEY

1. Given the percentage of Employee Survey respondents who indicated a willingness to leave the Department within three years, Citygate believes there is a pressing need for the Department to implement strategic retention strategies to foster a more supportive organizational culture and mitigate potential turnover.

POLICE BEATS

2. Retain the 14-Beat model while continuing to collapse the number of beats to 7 beginning at or about 2:00 am (0200 hours). X

3. The Department’s strong data and predictive analysis should dictate where staff are assigned. Periodically review beat activity and workload demand and adjust as necessary.

OVERTIME

4. Continue to record, analyze, and manage overtime to reduce the likelihood of employee fatigue and burnout. X
Office of the Chief of Police Review

ADMINISTRATIVE AND FISCAL SERVICES

5. By adding a Senior Management Analyst and an Associate Management Analyst (which can likely be filled by promoting one of the three existing Assistant Management Analysts), Citygate believes the Unit can keep better pace with work demands while also creating a career ladder, which is critical given that the current Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager will be eligible to retire over the next two years.

X (1)

INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU

6. Given the number of complaints received by the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB), the time constraints related to completing investigations, and many other administrative demands—
including those required of the Director of Police Accountability and outlined in the City Charter, which often involve significant IAB staff time—Citygate recommends that the Department add one clerical support staff position to the IAB.

X (1)

Page 21 of 159 ends

Page 259 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 10
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2
Operations Division Review

7. Given the number of reported Level 1 uses of force in Berkeley—in which a subject did not experience more than temporary discomfort—Citygate recommends the City and
Department modify use of force reporting requirements to those more in line with the policies of the cities of Fremont, Hayward, Richmond, San Leandro, and Santa Clara, whose Lexipol-
created policies comply with both state and federal law.

8. Restore Patrol staffing by adding 15 additional officers—four officers each to teams 1, 2, and 3; and three officers to Team 7— bringing the total from the current 58 to 73. It is Citygate’s understanding that these additional positions are funded but not currently filled. The added staffing would reduce the need for Patrol overtime, which would reduce the likelihood of fatigue and burnout while affording officers the ability to take time off without the need to “sell” shifts. [Note: “Selling” a shift occurs when Patrol minimum staffing is reached, and Patrol officers want time off.

They are generally allowed such time off only if they can find another officer to fill in for them on an overtime basis.] X (15)*

9. Add five CSOs (Citygate understands these positions have already been funded) to support Patrol officers on weekday morning and evening shifts. Given existing call demands and committed time, Citygate believes the Department should strategically deploy five Patrol CSOs to match those times of day and days of week where Patrol time is most obligated currently (Day Shift and Swing Shift), which would help to reduce the committed time of Patrol officers, affording them more time for community engagement and to be proactive while also ensuring greater availability to respond to emergencies and cover assignments.

X (5)*

10. CSOs should be trained to take many non-emergency calls and write related reports, recover stolen vehicles and found property, tow abandoned vehicles, retrieve and download video evidence, transport witnesses and victims, etc.

11. After staffing is added to Patrol, create a team of five officers led by one Sergeant that can be flexibly deployed to quickly address most any emerging public safety issue, which might include organized retail theft, robberies, carjackings, etc.

Such a team might also serve as a field resource for detectives.

This team should also be one that can move rapidly across shifts and days of the week to address issues identified in the Department’s strategic analysis of crime.

X (6)

Page 22 of 159 ends

Page 260 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 11
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2

12. The Department should continue to closely evaluate Patrol spans of control; call patterns, including the number, location, and types of calls; response time; unobligated (available) police time; and call-handling (on-scene) time. These factors are essential in assessing Patrol’s staffing needs now and in the future. Further, even though call volume may remain stable in future years, call- handling time—and the nature/type of such calls along with other operational work demands—may suggest the need for more staff and/or the redeployment of existing staff to ensure Patrol can meet the service expectations of City residents.

13. When the Community Services Bureau’s PIO and Strategic Analysis Team are transferred to the Chief’s Office, the Bike Team should be realigned under the Community Services
Bureau, where the Community Services Bureau Lieutenant can provide oversight, thus relieving a Patrol Lieutenant from this responsibility.

X
Investigations Division Review

14. If, at full staffing, the recommended Patrol team is found to be overwhelmed and insufficient to manage narcotics investigations, the Department should consider creating a team comprised of detectives and a Sergeant to investigate narcotics offenses.

15. Investigations Division Supervisors and managers should make broader use of the existing case management system within the current records management system to better track cases assigned to detectives. Each unit supervisor should be able to see the caseload carried by each detective in real time, including the number of open, closed, pending, and cleared cases.

16. Add a full-time, Real-Time Crime Analyst to support both Patrol and Investigations. This position will focus on rapidly operationalizing data to officers in the field and detectives working active cases.

X (1)

17. Construct a “soft” interview room to help victims and survivors feel safe and at ease when sharing difficult experiences. Such rooms can be used by survivors of crime, domestic abuse, sexual assault, and children in traumatic situations.

18. Develop a training matrix for Investigations. The training matrix should include a formal training program for newly assigned detectives and a list of POST/ICI training courses required for each detective.

19. Create a plan to reduce the number of daily trips detectives make to the crime lab in Richmond. The addition of a CSO (or a retired annuitant) could relieve detectives from having to make frequent trips to Richmond for evidence pickup and drop-off X (1)

Page 23 of 159 ends

Page 261 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 12
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2

20. Purchase software to install on additional computers in the Investigations Division that would allow detectives to review, save, and copy video footage from all available sources within the City—including City-owned street cameras, officer body-worn cameras, and private cameras in situations where the owners have given the Department access.

21. Consider hiring a cold case detective, potentially a retired annuitant, to investigate cold cases. X (1)

22. Consider adding a second School Resource Officer to Berkeley High School given the extensive workload of the current SRO.

X (1)

23. Add one additional Crime Scene Technician to the current staff of four. X (1)

TRAFFIC BUREAU

24. The Department should endeavor to fully staff the Traffic Bureau so that it can handle most (if not all) injury collisions, as well as increase education and enforcement efforts in traffic safety. These changes would significantly free Patrol personnel to focus on their primary responsibilities.

X (4)*

25. Create a structured plan for targeted enforcement and educational initiatives based on analyzing variables associated with high crash data from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and the Traffic Injury Mapping System (TIMS).

26. Continue to expand the use of statistical data for deployment of Traffic Unit personnel. X

27. Expand the use of social media to inform the public of traffic safety and enforcement efforts to enhance their impact on driving behavior. Use of social media and other approaches to promote bicycle and pedestrian safety and enforcement efforts could also be effective. [Note: At the time of Citygate’s writing of this report, the Public Information Officer was being moved to the Office of the Chief as part of a new Office of Strategic Communications.] X

28. Add a civilian CSO to conduct or aid in collision
investigations and traffic educational/safety presentations. This would be more cost-effective than an additional Traffic Unit officer and would allow for increased traffic enforcement by current Traffic Unit officers.

X (1)

29. Build the Traffic Unit comprising both Motorcycle officers and Patrol cars. Traffic enforcement and collision investigation can be effectively conducted using either a car or a motorcycle.

30. Consider working with an OTS Law Enforcement Liaison to acquire an Allied Agency Reporting Service (i.e., Crossroads) via grant.

31. The Traffic Bureau should collaborate with the City Traffic Engineer to update outdated traffic surveys. X

Page 24 of 159 ends

Page 262 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 13
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2

32. Consider appointing an additional supervisor within the Parking Enforcement Unit to mitigate the current extensive span of control and decrease overtime.

X (1)

33. At current (reduced) staffing levels, consider expanding the workload and responsibilities of the Traffic Unit Lieutenant or reallocating the position to a role where it can be more effectively utilized. At full staffing, Citygate believes the Lieutenant’s position is justified.

X
Professional Standards Division Review

34. To reduce unnecessary resignations, the Department should consider establishing a Retention Team with members from several different units to review and evaluate exit interviews. The committee can identify preventable reasons for resignations and make recommendations to improve employee retention.

35. When the Policy and Planning Unit is transferred during the Department’s planned reorganization, the roles and
responsibilities of the Sergeant should be more narrowly focused to allow for the successful completion of all assigned duties. If additional responsibilities are included, consideration should be given to adding a clerical support position.

X (1)
Support Services Division Review

BERKELEY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER (JAIL)

36. The Department should proceed with securing a contract for an architect to upgrade the control board, add cameras, and potentially expand the size and functionality of the Booking Room at the Jail facility.

37. Consider creating a civilian manager position and
reassigning the sworn supervisor to oversee the Property Room (as per the property recommendation) or reallocating the Sergeant to address a higher-priority need for sworn supervision.

X (1)

38. Consider reducing the requirement to always have three CSOs on duty, given that the booking officer is required to remain in the booking area during the processing of an arrestee.

39. Consider a change to the current requirement that does not allow CSOs to transport prisoners. Such a change would
necessitate additional training for the CSOs but would reduce overtime and the need for two sworn staff members during transportation.

40. Consider further study of a four-team, 12-hour shift model for Jail operations. Citygate believes this model could potentially increase the number of CSOs on-duty, providing opportunities for CSOs to aid in prisoner transportation, patrol duties, or other assigned responsibilities.

Page 25 of 159 ends

Page 263 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 14
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2

TECHNOLOGY UNIT

41. Evaluate the number of responsibilities managed by
Technology Unit staff. Consider reducing service levels or adding more staff.

42. Consider appointing a full-time civilian information technology specialist to oversee the Technology Unit rather than relying on a sworn Sergeant. This transition will ensure stability, expertise, and continuity in navigating the Department through the ever-evolving technology field.

X (1)

43. Consider investigating alternative software solutions for all facets of police operations. Prioritizing the convenience of retaining current software vendors should not overshadow the importance of advancing operational efficiency.

44. Consider adding categories such as Non-Injury Traffic Accidents, Non-Injury Hit-and-Run Traffic Accidents, and Non- Injury Single-Vehicle-Property-Damage-Only Traffic Accidents as options within the online reporting system. Software solutions offered by companies like LexisNexis can facilitate this initiative.

By diverting or referring more calls for service to online reporting, the Department would likely create more available time for officers in Patrol—which could ultimately help to reduce overtime usage within the Department.

PROPERTY ROOM

45. The Department could enhance its efficiency by establishing a short-term, dedicated task force to address the evidence backlog and improve and streamline the organization of evidence and property rooms. The Unit’s ongoing, permanent staffing should consist of one Supervisor, two full-time Specialists, and one part-time staff member capable of providing support for both planned and unplanned absences and conducting periodic audits.

46. The Department should conduct a thorough assessment of the current state of property and evidence facilities including the physical infrastructure, storage capacity, security measures, and compliance with current standards. The Department should also consider a POST review of current evidence practices,
procedures, and policies.

47. Citygate has provided Property and Evidence staff with the POST Property and Evidence Function’s Agency Self-Evaluation (revised February 2022) and recommended that the Supervisor and staff review it annually. Given the sensitive nature of evidence, effective risk management requires thorough oversight and rigorous control measures.

Page 26 of 159 ends

Page 264 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 15
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2

RECORDS UNIT

48. The Department would benefit from staffing the Records Unit with an Office Specialist I to manage the increased volume of CPRA requests. Adding such an entry-level specialist would help existing staff meet their work demands.

X (1)

49. Consider enrolling both Office Specialist III positions in the POST 40-hour Records Supervisor Course to support their professional development and to assist in meeting some of the requirements outlined in their job specifications.

50. The ergonomic features and capabilities of workstations, along with workstation and workflow analysis, should be assessed and tailored to enhance operational efficiency.

51. There are numerous resources available for team building, and one particularly effective resource for fostering team trust and performance is Patrick Lencioni’s book, The Five
Dysfunctions of a Team: The Official Guide to Conducting the Five Dysfunctions Workshops for Teams and Team Leaders. The Department should contemplate appointing a trusted executive team leader to implement some of the facilitated learning outlined in the book.

COMMUNICATIONS CENTER

52. New recruitment and retention efforts for dispatchers should be continued. X

53. Consider prioritizing the planning and acquisition of additional floor space and workstations to meet current and future needs of the PSAP. The Department should consider utilizing another City- owned facility or reconfiguring the adjoining office space (Bike Unit) for expansion.

54. Consider increasing Supervisory Public Safety Dispatcher staffing from four to six to ensure proper leadership and supervision for all shifts.

X (2)
Total Recommended Personnel by Priority --* 4 15
Total Recommended Personnel 19
* Indicates positions which have already been authorized by the City; 31 sworn personnel are currently funded but vacant In total, Citygate recommends 19 new personnel in addition to the Department’s 31 currently vacant sworn positions. This report also details where Citygate believes some positions could be transferred or eliminated and replaced by civilian specialists.

Page 27 of 159 ends

Page 265 ends

This page was intentionally left blank

Page 28 of 159 ends

Page 266 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 17
SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION
Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) is pleased to present this Staffing Needs Assessment and Organizational Analysis for the City of Berkeley (City) Police Department (Department). This introductory section will discuss the organization of the assessment, the project scope of work, and the methodology used by Citygate.

1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized into the following sections.

Executive
Summary
A summary of Citygate’s general assessment of current services. A table that lists all of Citygate’s recommendations and their funding priority levels is also provided.

Section 1 Introduction: An introduction to the report’s organization; goals, including project scope; and project methodology.

Section 2
Organizational Review: A discussion of City and agency background, history, and organization. The City’s crime data, overtime, organizational structure, and the internal employee (SWOT) survey are also discussed.

Section 3 Office of the Chief of Police Review: A review of the Chief’s Office, including Internal Affairs and the Office of Administrative and Fiscal Services.

Section 4
Operations Division (Patrol) Review: A review of Patrol services, the Community Services Bureau, and the Bike Team, including staffing, scheduling, and supervision. Workload analysis and an assessment of response times is also included.

Section 5
Investigations Division Review: A review of the Investigations Division, including the Investigations Bureau (detectives), the Traffic Bureau, and Youth Services.

Section 6
Professional Standards Division Review : A review of the Professional Standards Division, which includes Personnel and Training, Policy and Planning, and Audit and Inspection.

Section 7
Support Services Division Review: A review of the Support Services Bureau, which includes Records, Communications (Dispatch), Property and Evidence, the City Jail, and the Technology Unit.

Section 8
Summary of Personnel Priorities and Findings and Recommendations: A comprehensive list of all personnel full-time equivalent (FTE) recommendations and their associated priority levels that appear in this report, and a sequential list of all findings and recommendations that appear throughout the report.

Page 29 of 159 ends

Page 267 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 18

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.2.1 Project Scope
Citygate was retained to conduct a comprehensive Workload Organizational Study of the Berkeley Police Department. The scope of Citygate’s analysis included the following elements.
 Provide a complete review and analysis of organizational structure; staffing levels based on current workload and projected workload.
 Determine whether the allocation of resources of the divisions is efficient and adequate for the Department's needs. Review the current workload data such as:
calls for police service, received and dispatched; breakdown of calls for service by type, frequency, distribution, relative priority, and response times.  Establish performance objectives to include a ratio of calls for service available for proactive/discretionary time.
 Review operations for assessing effectiveness and recommend efficiencies with geographical boundaries of patrol zones based on response times, workload, and resource deployment.
 Evaluate the current beat structure and deployment model; make recommendations on whether a beat, sector or hybrid model best suits the needs of our City.  Evaluate the Department’s current rank structure, the number of managers and supervisors at every level and function, and the authority at each level of the chain of command, with an emphasis on effective strategies for professional development.
 Review and evaluate the impact on existing resources and workload to comply with the new laws (SB 1421) requiring review and disclosure of digital evidence and media.
 Evaluate current building facilities relative to current and future staffing, parking, equipment storage, and training needs.
 Define critical issues facing the Department over the next five years; analyze impact of critical issues on staffing levels and calls for service.  Project the Department’s attrition for the next ten years.  Analyze current ancillary duty assignments to determine what can and should be outsourced or handled as a regional responsibility.

Page 30 of 159 ends

Page 268 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 19
 Forecast future needs considering both short and long-term objectives, community growth, and any other factors that could change staffing requirements.  Evaluate the efficiency of the online reporting system and assess any additional services that can be enhanced or handled with technology such as video chat, mobile apps, etc.
 Analyze staff overtime causes and identify alternative solutions.  Any other organizational improvements that can be made to enhance overall service. This will also include consideration for the morale and well -being of the police staff.

1.2.2 Project Methodology
In preparing this Workload Organizational Study, Citygate consultants engaged in the following processes.
 Reviewed available documents and records relating to the management, operation, staffing, training, and budgeting of the Department.
 Conducted an anonymous online internal employee survey to assess Department strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT).  Interviewed sworn and professional staff throughout the Department along with other City staff and elected officials
 Conducted an on-site visit of Department facilities.
 Reviewed available computer -aided dispatch (CAD) and workload measurement data.
 Conducted a legislative review, interviews, and review of organizational impacts.  Considered best practices in other agencies and recommended by police professional organizations when applicable to the Department.

1.2.3 Acknowledgements
Citygate would like to thank the members of the Berkeley Police Department for their participation in this assessment and acknowledge the diligent work ethic within the Department. The vast majority of employees made time in their busy schedules for interviews, to acquire requested information, and to provide historical perspective and context related to issues necessary for this assessment.

Page 31 of 159 ends

Page 269 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 20

1.3 CITY OF BERKELEY PROFILE
 The City’s 2024 population is estimated to be 127,230.  The City is growing at an annualized average rate of 3.36 percent and its population has increased by 2.43 percent since the most recent census, which recorded a population of 124,206
 ABAG projects the city will grow to a population of 136,000 by 2030 and to 141,000 by 2040
 The median household income is $95,360
 About 42 percent of the City’s households are considered low income  Seniors ages 65 to 74 are the fastest -growing age group and now comprise 9.2 percent of the population
 Residents ages 15 to 24 comprise the largest age group at 33,051 residents  The median age in the city is 32.5 years
 The City’s total land mass covers 10.5 square miles

1.3.1 Demographics
The following table reflects 2023 data sourced from World Population Review and the City’s General Plan (Housing Needs, Section 3).

Table 2—Berkeley Demographic Percentages by Race and Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Percentage of
Population
White 55.49
Asian 21
Hispanic/Latinx 11
Two or more races 9.82
Black or African American 7.7
Other race 5.22
Native American .69
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander .21

Page 32 of 159 ends

Page 270 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 21
According to the City’s Housing Element Update: 2023–2031:
 The City’s population is anticipated to continue to grow steadily between 2020 and 2040 based on ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 projections.
 City residents ages 15 to 24 comprised the largest group in both 2010 (29 percent) and 2019 (27.2 percent).
 While the population ages 15 to 24 stayed relatively flat between 2010 and 2019, the population ages 25 to 34 increased by 25 percent, suggesting that students may be choosing to stay in Berkeley after their degree is complete.  Berkeley’s household income increased by 11.4 percent between 2010 and 2019.  42 percent of City households are considered lower income, earning less than 80 percent of the median income.
 American Indian / Alaska Native, Asian/API, and Black / African American households are all more likely to fall within one of the lower income categories when compared to City households as a whole.
 The largest employer in the City is the University of California, Berkeley (13,750 employees, or 20.3 percent) followed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (3,773 employees, or 5.8 percent).

1.3.2 University of California, Berkeley
The University of California Berkeley’s total Fall/Spring Year -Average Headcount (Undergraduate and Graduate) over the past decade is shown in the following table.

Year Year-Average
Headcount
2014–15 37,775
2015–16 37,289
2016–17 39,234
2017–18 40.955
2018–19 41,433
2019–20 42,107
2020–21 41,189
2021–22 43,931
2022–23 44.194

Page 33 of 159 ends

Page 271 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 22
Total Fall 2023 student enrollment was 33,078 undergraduates and 12,621 graduate students (a total of 45,699 students).

Approximately 27 percent (roughly 7,000) of UC Berkeley’s undergraduates live in university - owned, operated , or affiliated housing. The remaining 73 percent live off -campus. Popular neighborhoods near campus include North Berkeley and Southside.

The UC Berkeley Campus Master Plan of 2022 includes a long-range development plan population projection, which projects a growth from 39,710 students (2018–2019) to 48,200 students in 2036– 2037. The plan also projects a growth of faculty and staff from 15,420 19,000 within the same timeframe.2
UC Berkeley currently owns approximately 9,020 beds for students and faculty, which are located in the cities of Berkeley and Albany. The Campus Master Plan has identified a future need for approximately 10,200 to 11,730 net new beds. Most of this net new residential demand is anticipated to be accommodated through undergraduate apartments.3

1.3.3 City Crime Data
Part I Crimes
Many crimes are not reported to the police by victims. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s focus in statistical reporting separates reported crime into two categories, with four crimes in each category. These are referred to as “Part I Violent Crimes” and “Part I Property Crimes,” as detailed in the following figure.

Figure 1—Part I Crimes Categories
Part I Violent Crimes Part I Property Crimes
Homicide Burglary
Sexual Assault Motor Vehicle Theft
Robbery Larceny Theft
Aggravated Assault Arson
The following table reflects both categories of the City’s Part I crimes data over a six-year period analyzed by Citygate.

2 UC Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan: https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/campus-planning/planning- documents
3 UC Berkeley Master Plan 2022: https://berkeley.app.box.com/s/nvwnlm1xgivdq8pvmd0g5joys3bhvgcl

Page 34 of 159 ends

Page 272 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 23
Table 3—Berkeley Part I Crime Data (2018–2023)
Crime Type
Number of Incidents
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
VIOLENT CRIME 586 618 537 542 666 766
Homicide 1 0 6 1 3 1
Sexual Assault 65 74 47 57 89 97
Robbery 353 369 274 274 292 386
Aggravated Assault 167 175 210 210 282 282
PROPERTY CRIME 5,381 6,256 5,535 5,703 6,483 7,194
Burglary 820 771 797 814 1,036 1,228
Motor Vehicle Theft 548 492 805 1,114 836 1,350
Larceny Theft 4,004 4,993 3,933 3,775 4,611 4,532
Arson 31 17 52 68 52 84
Source: California DOJ, Open Justice, Data Exploration; 2023 data from Department’s Annual Crime Report (2023) The City’s five-year average for violent crime was 590 (2018–2022). The property crime average over the same period was 5 ,872. In 2022, both violent crime s and property crime s reflected increases over the City’s five-year average.

The City also experienced significant increases in several Part 1 crime categories in 2023. Overall:
 Part 1 crime rose by 15 percent.
 Robberies rose by 32 percent.
 Overall property crime rose approximately 11 percent, driven largely by increases in burglaries (18.5 percent), and motor vehicle theft (61.5 percent).  Total violent crime (766) in 2023 was nearly 30 percent above the five-year average of violent crime of 590.
 Property crime (7,194) in 2023 was 22.5 percent above the five-year average of 5,872.

Both overall violent crime and overall property crime have shown consistent increases each of the past three years since 2020.

Page 35 of 159 ends

Page 273 ends

This page was intentionally left blank

Page 36 of 159 ends

Page 274 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 25
SECTION 2—ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

2.1 MISSION, VISION, VALUES, AND PRIORITIES
As detailed in the City’s 2022 Law Enforcement Services Manual, the Berkeley Police Department’s mission, vision, values, and current priorities are as follows.

Mission
United in service, our mission is to safeguard our diverse community through proactive law enforcement and problem solving, treating all people with dignity and respect.

Vision
The Berkeley Police Department will be a team of leaders at every level. We will foster strong relationships with our community, inspiring trust through our service, building on our historic tradition of progressive policing, and dedicated to the safety of all.

Values
Service is our calling. As members of this community, the Berkeley Police Department team is committed to proactive law enforcement and problem solving, holding these as our core values:

Integrity: We are ethical, fair, and trustworthy in all we do.

Safety: We strive to keep our community and each other safe.

Respect: We fulfill our duties with dignity, compassion, and empathy.

Diversity: We value the strength of a diverse workplace and community. We endeavor to reflect the community we serve, promoting inclusion and fairness.

Professionalism: We commit to organizational excellence through progressive training, positive attitude, and superior performance.

Current Priorities
 Service
 Recruiting and Retention
 Communication/Collaboration

Page 37 of 159 ends

Page 275 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 26

2.2 STAFFING AND ATTRITION
As of May 2024, Department staffing stands at 15 0 sworn personnel, while authorized staffing stands at 181 sworn personnel. Additionally, 24 of 150 officers are eligible to retire during 2024.

The following table shows the Department’s historic sworn staffing levels.

Table 4—Historical Sworn Staffing Levels
Year Sworn Staffing
2010 178
2011 172
2012 171
2013 170
2014 169
2015 174
2016 174
2017 172
2018 161
2019 170
2020 174
2021 161
2022 156
2023 153
Citygate’s review of attrition within the Department is reflected in the following table.

Table 5—Berkeley Police Department Attrition
Year Retirements Resignations Other Total
2016 9 7 0 16
2017 12 8 0 20
2018 5 11 0 16
2019 6 5 0 11
2020 11 1 1 13
2021 11 7 2 20
2022 5 7 0 12
2023 4 3 0 7

Page 38 of 159 ends

Page 276 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 27
As the table shows, the Department is losing an average of 13 employees per year, which is in addition to 31 current vacancies.

One other concern that became prominent during Citygate’s assessment of the Department was the frequent use of “provisional” assignments or promotions. These are temporary promotions to fill critical supervisory and managerial roles until a permanent candidate is identified and appointed. In response to concerns about these temporary assignments, the Chief has already taken steps to reduce their impact — limiting their duration to six months, timing such transitions around “timesheets,” and naming the next permanent promotions as soon as an upcoming vacancy is identified.

2.3 EMPLOYEE SURVEY
With the assistance of Department staff, Citygate conducted an online survey of Department personnel, with a total of 68 employees responding to the survey. Eighteen (18) responses were received from professional staff, and 50 (73.5 percent) were received from sworn staff. Of the Department’s four major divisions , there were 39 Operations personnel who responded to the survey (57 percent of all respondents ), 13 personnel from Investigations, 12 personnel from Support Services, and 4 personnel assigned to Professional Standards.

Relative to the tenure of respondents:
 1 had less than a year of service.
 6 had 1 to 3 years of service.
 7 had 4 to 5 years of service.
 14 had 6 to 10 years of service.
 12 had 10 to 15 years of service.
 25 had 16 to 25 years of service.
 3 had more than 25 years of service.

2.3.1 Employee Survey Key Findings
Finding #1: 51 of the 68 respondents to Citygate’s Employee Survey indicated that they dedicate at least two hours daily to collateral assignments.

Finding #2: 42 personnel who responded to the Employee Survey self-identified as “engaging in proactive activities.” Within this subgroup, 25 respondents indicated that they spend one hour or less on proactive activities daily. This outcome suggests that

Page 39 of 159 ends

Page 277 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 28
Operations staff may have limited capacity to engage in proactive policing, which is supported by narrative comments from some respondents.

Finding #3: Analysis of the data from 68 respondents to the Employee Survey revealed a significant risk of employee attrition, with 60 percent of Department respondents indicating an intent to leave the Department within three years. This outcome suggests multiple concerns related to the retention of personnel.

Finding #4: Respondents to the Employee Survey who indicated a desire to leave the Department within three years also expressed neutral to negative sentiments related to the strengths and opportunities of the Department, suggesting a personal disengagement from the Department’s mission.

Finding #5: Another notable revelation related to personnel who indicated an intent to leave the Department in the near future was that when respondents were questioned about their reasons for doing so , 34 respondents (52 percent) cited better job opportunities, while 30 respondents (46 percent) expressed concerns about the work environment or culture. In analysis of survey comments regarding the reasons behind these sentiments, Citygate found that many pointed towards a perceived lack of support from the community and City Council.

2.3.2 Employee Survey Recommendations
Recommendation #1: Given the percentage of Employee Survey respondents who indicated a willingness to leave the Department within three years, Citygate believes the re is a pressing need for the Department to implement strategic retention strategies to foster a more supportive organizational culture and mitigate potential turnover.

2.4 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The following figure shows the current organizational structure of the Department. As the figure shows, in the Department’s existing organizational structure, the Chief has a large span of control.

Page 40 of 159 ends

Page 278 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 29
Figure 2—Berkeley Police Department – Current Organizational Structure

The Chief’s large span of control is especially clear when one considers the breadth of the Chief’s role, which involves significant time serving as a public liaison for the Department. The Chief’s role may involve meetings with other department heads ; law enforcement leaders ; the City Manager; members of City Council ; members of the Police Accoun tability Board ; relevant employee bargaining groups; and community members, including residents, business owners, and other stakeholder groups.

The following figure shows a proposed organizational structure to maximize the Department’s operational efficiency and improve the Chief’s span of control.

Figure 3—Berkeley Police Department – Proposed New Organizational Structure

Chief of Police
Internal Affairs
Deputy Chief
Operations Division
Investigations
Division
Support Services /
Administrative and
Fiscal Services
Office of Strategic
Planning and
Accountability
Office of Strategic
Communications /
PIO

Page 41 of 159 ends

Page 279 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 30
In the Department’s new organizational structure, the Chief’s span of control is reduced , which should afford the Chief more time and flexibility to meet with staff and others —including members of the City Council and other City staff, community members, business owners and groups, faith-based leaders, parents, students, etc.

2.5 POLICE BEAT ANALYSIS

2.5.1 Police Beat Structure
The following figures show the Department’s current , 14-beat configuration in contrast with the former 16-beat configuration. Under the new beat structure, beats collapse from 14 to 7 after 2:00 am, with the number of beats remaining at 7 until 11:00 am.

Figure 4—Current Beat Structure (14 Beats)

Page 42 of 159 ends

Page 280 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 31
Figure 5—Former Beat Structure (16 Beats)

In the transition from 16 beats to 14, Beats 1 and 2 were combined into Beat 1. Former beats 8, 9, 10, and 11 have been reorganized into beats 8, 9 and 10. Another busy beat, Beat 6, was made smaller while Beat 5 was slightly enlarged.

2.5.2 Police Beat Service Demand
The Department dispatches calls for service (CFS) based on how urgently response is required.

The City’s Calls are prioritized into four categories as described by the City’s website:4  PRIORITY 1: Calls dispatched immediately. These calls include situations involving threat to life, crime of violence, in -progress felonies, missing juveniles (under 12 years old), and accidents with injuries.
 PRIORITY 2: These calls should be dispatched within 20 minutes. They include situations involving business or residential alarms, calls with a threat of violence,

4 https://berkeleyca.gov/safety-health/police/report-crime

Page 43 of 159 ends

Page 281 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 32
and suspicious circumstances (involving suspicious vehicles, or suspicious persons).
 PRIORITY 3: These calls should be dispatched within 60 minutes. These are calls in which a significant amount of time has passed since the crime occurred. These include crimes such as burglary, thefts, and vandalism, with the responsible parties gone.
 PRIORITY 4 and PRIORITY 5: These calls include parking matters and abandoned automobiles.

Citygate’s evaluation of calls-by-beat extends from 2018 through August of 2023 as shown in the following table. Thus, the analysis is of the Department’s 16-beat configuration, since the 14-beat structure was not implemented until the first quarter of 2023. The table shows data for Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3 CFS only.

Table 6—Calls for Service by Beat (2018–2023)
Beat Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Total
1 2,022 5,942 6,107 14,071
2 2,269 8,083 4,910 15,262
3 1,589 5,821 2,754 10,164
4 4,250 12,170 5,623 22,043
5 1,529 4,489 2,766 8,784
6 2,951 9,417 4,614 16,982
7 2,204 7,653 5,589 15,446
8 1,772 7,182 3,469 12,423
9 2,450 7,140 3,490 13,080
10 2,266 5,291 2,857 10,414
11 2,169 5,716 4,692 12,577
12 2,219 6,058 4,284 12,561
13 1,482 3,997 3,786 9,265
14 1,049 3,760 2,118 6,927
15 654 1,866 1,179 3,699
16 664 2,213 1,280 4,157

Page 44 of 159 ends

Page 282 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 33
As the table shows, under a 16 -Beat configuration, the busiest beat by public -generated call demand over the period of data analyzed by Citygate was Beat 4. Beat 4 is downtown and encompasses both Berkeley High School and Police Headquarters. As such, its disproportionately higher call volume is not surprising. Beyond Patrol officer coverage, both Beat 4 and Beat 6 are also supported by Bike Team officers. There is also a School Resource Officer assigned to Berkeley High School. Beats 14, 15, and 16 combined (excluding an assessment of far fewer calls of lower priority) total 14,783 distinct incidents / CFS, while Beat 4 alone managed 22,043 CFS of the same three levels of highest priority. Beat 4 also had the highest number of Priority 1 incidents (4,250), followed by Beat 6 with 2,951 incidents. Beat 4 had the highest number of Priority 2 incidents (12,170), followed by Beat 6 (9,417) and Beat 2 (8,083). Beat 1 had the highest number of Priority 3 incidents (6,107), followed by 4 (5,623) and Beat 7 (5,589).

For the current, 14-Beat model, Beat 4 was reduced in size, which makes sense given its disproportionate workload. Additional changes in beat size appear to have reduced the inequity in calls demands.

2.5.3 Police Beat Findings
Finding #6: Given the wide disparity in call volume between some of the former 16 beats, the reduction in number from 16 to 14 in 2023 appears reasonable and consistent with the 2014 Patrol Beat study.

Finding #7: Collapsing of beats (from 14 to 7) beginning in the early morning appears to be a reasonable and wise use of limited resources given reduced call demands during such times.

Finding #8: Reducing the size of Beats 4 and 6 appears necessary given their higher call volumes.

Finding #9: The calls for service demand of beats 15 and 16 were much lower than those of other beats, which is consistent with the 2014 study.

2.5.4 Police Beat Recommendations
Recommendation #2: Retain the 14-Beat model while continuing to collapse the number of beats to 7 beginning at or about 2:00 am (0200 hours).

Recommendation #3: The Department’s strong data and predictive analysis should dictate where staff are assigned. Periodically review beat activity and workload demand and adjust as necessary.

Page 45 of 159 ends

Page 283 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 34

2.6 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
As part of this review, Citygate has established several benchmark measurements with similarly situated municipal police agencies. When selecting benchmark agencies, Citygate sought input from the Department as to which agencies the Department typically compares itself with. Citygate also utilized other geographical and population metrics. For the purposes of this assessment, the following municipal police agencies were used for benchmarking.  City of Fremont Police Department
 City of Hayward Police Department
 City of Richmond Police Department
 City of Concord Police Department
 City of Santa Clara Police Department
It should be noted that Citygate does not make staffing recommendations based on population measures (i.e., one officer per 1,000 residents). Rather, Citygate utilizes a data -informed workload analysis based on calls for service (CFS), which will be discussed later in this report. Nonetheless, population benchmarking does provide a snapshot in time of cu rrent, staffing-related ratios for an agency in comparison with other benchmark agencies.

2.6.1 Staffing Benchmark
The following staffing benchmark table compares chosen agencies by population, the ratio of residents per officer, and the number of sworn police officers employed per 1,000 residents. The table is sorted by officers per 1,000 residents.

Table 7—Benchmark: Agency Staffing
Agency Population Sworn Citizens per
Officer
Officers per
1,000 Pop.

Berkeley PD 117,145 181 647* 1.55*
Santa Clara PD 121,151 153 792 1.26
Richmond PD 115,639 143 809 1.23
Hayward PD 159,827 195 820 1.22
Concord PD 124,074 138 899 1.12
Fremont PD 221,514 205 1,080 0.92
Data sorted by officers per 1,000 population ; population figures for all cities are from 2021 ; sworn personnel numbers were sourced from the comparator agencies’ respective city operational budgets * See continued narrative below for context

Page 46 of 159 ends

Page 284 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 35
The figures in the previous table require qualification. Berkeley figures are based on authorized personnel; if adjusting for actual, current Department staffing, the ratios would be 781 residents per sworn officer and 1.28 officers per 1,000 population —closer to the ratio of Santa Clara .

However, even this measure is potentially lacking in context , as not all agencies are the same or have the same division or unit structure, which are driven by more local concerns . There are a number of variables that basic benchmarking does not account for.

As previously noted, Citygate does not make staffing recommendations based on the per capita ratio of officers to residents, but rather, incorporates this comparison along with several other factors including workload and community priorities.

2.6.2 Rank Structure Benchmark
The following rank structure benchmark table compares the police agencies’ number of personnel by rank. For this operational assessment, Citygate considered only sworn positions. The reader should not infer that non-sworn professional staff are not critical to any police agency’s operational effectiveness and efficiency; however, as every agency deploys pr ofessional staff somewhat differently, Citygate concentrated solely on sworn staff for this assessment. The table is sorted by population.

Table 8—Benchmark: Rank Structure
Agency Population
Rank/Classification
Sworn Chief
Assistant/
Deputy
Chief
Captain Lieut. Sgt. Officer
Fremont PD 221,514 205 1 1 3 9 31 160
Hayward PD 159,827 198 1 1 3 12 27 154
Concord PD 124,074 138 1 0 2 7 19 109
Santa Clara PD 121,151 153 1 2 3 7 29 111
Berkeley PD 117,145 181 1 1 3 9 32 135
Richmond PD 115,639 143 1 1 3 8 23 107
Berkeley recent ly created a new Deputy Chief position while eliminating a Captain position.

Notably, Berkeley has the most sergeants among the agencies assessed, particularly in relation to the City’s population. Santa Clara’s staffing includes 44 crossing guards, one probation officer, 160 per diem (by the day allowance) special event police officers, and 75 per diem special event traffic control officers.

Page 47 of 159 ends

Page 285 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 36
Table 9—Benchmark: Rank Structure
Agency Chief
Assistant/
Deputy
Chief
Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Officer
Fremont 1 1 3 9 31 160
Hayward 1 1 3 12 27 154
Concord 1 0 2 7 19 109
Santa Clara 1 2 3 7 29 111
Berkeley 1 1 3 9 32 135
Richmond 1 1 3 8 23 107

2.6.3 Crime Rates and Clearances Benchmark
The following crime rate benchmark table compares the police agencies’ rates o f property crime and violent crime. In the table, both violent crime and property crime represent the five-year average of 2018 through 2022 . To calculate crime rates, Citygate divided the five -year average number of both violent crimes and property crimes by the number of people in the community according to 2021 population figures. Citygate then multiplied the results by 1,000 to reflect the rate of crime per 1,000 people for each measure.

Table 10—Benchmark: Crime Rates
City Population Violent
Crime
Property
Crime
Violent
Crime Rate
Property
Crime Rate
Fremont 221,514 448 5,401 2.02 24.38
Hayward 159,827 576 4,899 3.60 30.65
Concord 124,074 564 3,869 4.55 31.18
Santa Clara 121,151 262 3,974 2.16 32.8
Berkeley 117,145 590 5,872 5.03 50
Richmond 115,639 1,010 3,555 8.73 30.74
Data from https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/crimes-clearances; population figures for all cities are from 2021
In Berkeley, violent crime rose during the period of data analyzed, with 537 incidents in 2020 and 666 incidents in 2022 indicating a 24 percent increase . Aggravated assaults rose consistently between 2018 and 2022, from 167 incidents to 282. Burglaries increased between 2019 and 2022, from 771 incidents to 1,036. Berkeley’s property crime rate is higher than any of the other cities shown.

Page 48 of 159 ends

Page 286 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 37
The following violent crime benchmark table compares the police agencies’ clearance rates between 2018 and 2022. California’s Open Justice website notes that clearance rates represent the percentage of Part 1 violent and property crimes that are considered solved after an arrest. The tables show the number of crimes cleared in a calendar year divided by the number of crimes reported in the same calendar year. It should be noted that some crimes are cleared in subsequent years, so clearance rates may be deflated in periods of increasing crime.

Table 11—Benchmark: Violent Crime Clearance Rates
Agency 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Berkeley 27.6 23.6 26.1 31.3 33.3
Fremont 54.8 63.3 53.6 61.2 33.3
Hayward 42.9 44.9 39.2 42.5 39.6
Richmond 28.2 34.3 24.2 39.4 27.6
Concord 26.8 22.2 55.8 36 35.8
Santa Clara 39.9 46.7 43.2 49.3 51.9
Data from https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/crimes-clearances Notably, with the exception of Berkeley and Santa Clara, every agency had lower violent crime clearance rates in 2022 when compared to 2021. Fremont had the highest clearance rates in 2018 and 2019. Concord’s clearance rate more than doubled in 2020. Fremont once again had the highest clearance rate in 2021 but experienced a significant drop-off in 2022. Berkeley’s rate has improved steadily since 2019. Hayward’s has remained relatively the same.

The following property crime benchmark table compares the police agencies’ clearance rates between 2018 and 2022.

Table 12— Benchmark: Property Crime Clearance Rates
Agency 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Berkeley 6.4 6.5 7 6.3 7.3
Fremont 7.5 5.9 3.8 2.7 2.8
Hayward 13 13.3 8.3 10.9 7.6
Richmond 3.1 4.2 6.5 5.2 2.4
Concord 7.7 3.7 7 3.9 3.8
Santa Clara 5.5 5.1 5.6 4.4 8.5
Data from https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/crimes-clearances

Page 49 of 159 ends

Page 287 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 38
Berkeley’s property crime clearance rates have remained largely unchanged in recent years. In 2022, the City’s property crime clearance rate was higher than that of three of the five other agencies measured.

2.6.4 Perspective for Berkeley
The City should understand that benchmarking, while informative, has limitations including the sample size and selection bias. The benchmark measures in this report are intended to give the community perspective regarding how the Department measures against other comparable agencies and are just one of many data points that Citygate used to understand the Department’s specific context and formulate the recommendations contained within this report.

2.7 OVERTIME ANALYSIS
For Citygate’s assessment of Department overtime, we reviewed a selection of overtime reports from the years 2021 through 2023. We also interviewed several staff members, reviewed relevant Department policy, and read the City Auditor’s 2022 Audit Report of Police Department Overtime.

Citygate found that overtime is most prevalent in Patrol, Dispatch (Communications) , and Investigations. While the bulk of overtime was used to backfill Patrol vacancies, Citygate discovered (as we have with other clients) that there are many other categories of overtime in the Department. For example:
 Staff are also paid overtime to attend court.
 Detectives are paid overtime when they are called back to duty to investigate serious crime that often exceeds the resources and expertise of Patrol.  Some overtime is grant funded, such as overtime for special traffic enforcement actions.

Citygate also realizes, and staff has confirmed, that the availability of different types of overtime can mean that some types of overtime are more attractive than others. For example, officers expressed to Citygate that working overtime in Patrol to cover weekend nights is probably the least desirable use of overtime. Since specialized units (such as the Bike Team, Investigations, Community Services, etc.) are generally off-duty and not available to fill Patrol beats on weekend nights, adequately staffing these shifts is critically important to ensure sufficient staff are available to ensure Citywide coverage when unanticipated vacancies occur.

Citygate also concurs with the City Auditor that excessive use of overtime can lead to fatigue, burnout, and an increased risk of injury and mistakes. In one summary of research, it was determined that fatigue may do more than affect the way officers perform routine tasks such as maneuvering a Patrol car. Recent evidence suggests it can influence officers’ ability to exercise

Page 50 of 159 ends

Page 288 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 39
good judgment.5 Further, Citygate agrees that some police overtime is necessary and unavoidable, especially when critical events occur at the end of an officer’s shift , or when officers are needed for traffic control and pedestrian safety due to protests or other events involving large crowds.

2.7.1 Sworn Officers
Citygate captured data related to most overtime worked over the period between 2021 and 2023, but the tables presented in this subsection do not reflect overtime worked and paid in the form of earned compensatory time off (CTO). Nevertheless, as the City Auditor noted in the 2022 Audit Report, CTO is not costless and has the potential to cause a chain reaction of more backfill , and thus more CTO. The Department does have a policy of limiting sworn officers’ accumulation of CTO to 120 hours, which should limit the amount of unfunded liability that comes with accumulated CTO.

The following table shows overtime hours worked in Patrol/Operations between 2021 and 2023.

Table 13—Overtime: Patrol/Operations
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 1,210 hours 1,640 hours 1,627 hours
Sergeant 7,496 hours 7,435 hours 6,734 hours
Police Officer 24,160 hours 30,184 hours 25,725 hours*
Total 32,913 hours 39,443 hours 34,111 hours**
* Includes 375 hours of police recruit overtime
** 34,111 hours of overtime worked (as in 2023) represents approximately 20 full-time positions—or 1 Lieutenant, 4 Sergeants and 15 officers —assuming a full work year is 2080 hours, but 20 percent of that time (416 hours) is not worked due to time off, which can include vacation, sick leave, military leave, CTO, etc.

Depending on thei r number of years of service , officers can accrue 80 to 240 vacation hours a year. Each employee is also credited with one eight-hour workday of sick leave with full pay for each month of service. Employees hired before September 11, 2012, accrue 16 hours of paid sick leave for each month of service after completion of 20 years of service.6 In 2023, there was a reduction in Patrol overtime of approximately 13 percent—which can likely be attributed to the reduction in Patrol beats from 16 to 14, which reduced the need to assign an officer to each beat across each da y, as well as the Department’s heightened focus on overtime management. The Department also routinely transferred staff to Patrol from their regular duties outside of Patrol.

5 See “The Alarming Consequences of Police Working Overtime ” https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-police- officers-overworked-cops.html
6 See: 2023–2026 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Berkeley and the Berkeley Police Association.

Page 51 of 159 ends

Page 289 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 40
The following tables show overtime hours worked by type, employee classification, and organizational unit between 2021 and 2023.

Table 14—Overtime: Police Court Pay – Patrol/Operations Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 9 hours 4 hours ---
Sergeant 113 hours 134 hours 129 hours
Police Officer 589 hours 728 hours 584 hours
Total 711 hours 866 hours 713 hours
Table 15—Overtime: Hazardous Duty – Patrol/Operations
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 33 hours 23 hours 29 hours
Sergeant 207 hours 43 hours 104 hours
Police Officer 791 hours 302 hours 785 hours
Total 1,031 hours 371 hours 926 hours
Table 16—Overtime: Investigations – Detectives / Crime Analyst Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 575 hours 779 hours 12 hours
Police Officer 8,092 hours 6,461hours 6,136 hours
Sergeant 1,911 hours 2,632 hours 2,815 hours
Total 10,578 hours 9,872 hours 8,963 hours
Table 17—Overtime: Investigations – Traffic
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 361 hours 779 hours 541 hours
Police Officer 544 hours 1160 hours 1,548 hours
Sergeant 387 hours 396 hours 407 hours
Total 1,313 hours 2,335 hours 2,496 hours

Page 52 of 159 ends

Page 290 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 41
Table 18—Overtime: Professional Standards – Policy and Audit Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant --- --- ---
Police Officer --- 27 hours ---
Sergeant 557 hours 863 hours 715 hours
Total 557 hours 890 hours 715 hours
Table 19—Overtime: Professional Standards – Personnel and Training Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 208 hours 44 hours 92 hours
Police Officer 438 hours 511 hours 382 hours
Sergeant 189 hours 190 hours 494 hours
Total 835 hours 745 hours 1,105 hours
Table 20—Overtime: Chief’s Office – Administrative and Fiscal Services Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 166 hours --- ---
Police Officer --- --- 10 hours
Sergeant --- ---
Total 166 hours --- 10 hours
Table 21—Overtime: Chief’s Office – Internal Affairs
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant --- --- 110 hours
Police Officer 10 hours 10 hours ---
Sergeant 266 hours 176 hours 164 hours
Total 276 hours 186 hours 174 hours

Page 53 of 159 ends

Page 291 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 42
Table 22—Overtime: Support Services – Communications Center Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 239 hours 218 ---
Police Officer --- --- ---
Sergeant --- --- 6
Total 239 hours 218 hours 6 hours
Table 23—Overtime: Support Services – Jail
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant --- --- ---
Police Officer 10 hours --- ---
Sergeant 131 hours 198 hours 78 hours
Total 141 hours 198 hours 78 hours
Table 24—Overtime: Support Services – Records/Subpoena
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant --- --- ---
Police Officer 173 hours 420 hours 419 hours
Sergeant 22 hours --- 260 hours
Total 195 hours 420 hours 679 hours

2.7.2 Professional (Civilian) Staff
Unlike Patrol and Investigations, overtime usage in Communications continued to rise in 2023. It was also not uncommon for supervisory dispatchers to work overtime by filling vacant dispatcher positions.

The following tables show overtime hours worked by type, employee classification, and organizational unit between 2021 and 2023.

Page 54 of 159 ends

Page 292 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 43
Table 25—Overtime: Support Services – Communications Center Rank 2021 2022 2023
Public Safety Dispatcher (PSD II) 8,202 hours 9,445 hours 9,888 hours Supervisory PSD 1,967 hours 2,684 hours 2,803 hours
Total 10,175 hours 12,129 hours 12,691 hours*
*12,691 hours of overtime (2023) is the equivalent to nearly 8 full-time positions, assuming dispatchers’ (and supervisory dispatchers’) average leave time is 20 percent (or 1,664 total hours worked in a 2,080 -hour work year). The increase in both PSD II and Supervisory PSD overtime hours of 2022 above 2021 was consi stent across every month of the year, with the exception being in August 2021 versus August 2022 , with 209 hours of Supervisory PSD overtime logged in 2021 and 182 hours logged in 2022.

Table 26—Overtime: Support Services – Jail
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Community Service Officer 1,178 hours 1,374 hours 1,383 hours CSO Supervisor 559 hours 500 hours 325 hours
Total 1,737 hours 1,874 hours 1708 hours
Table 27—Overtime: Investigations – Parking Enforcement Rank 2021 2022 2023
Parking Enforcement Officer 1630 hours 2,621 hours 2,559 hours Parking Enforcement Supervisor 448 hours 298 hours 490 hours Total 2,078 hours 2,919 hours 3,049 hours
Note: In 2023, disproportionately more hours were worked by Parking Enforcement officers on Saturdays, and disproportionately more hours were worked during the summer months of July, August, and September. The same pattern was found in 2021, when 976 of 1,630 hours of Parking Enforcement officer overtime were worked on Saturdays. The 1,630 hours of overtime almost equals one full-time equivalent employee. In 2022, Parking Enforcement officers worked 1,263 hours on Saturdays. Citygate learned that due to CAL Berkeley footb all games and other special events such as street fairs and a Farmer’s Market, Parking Enforcement overtime is predominately worked on Saturdays.

Table 28—Overtime: Investigations – Detectives/Crime Analyst Rank 2021 2022 2023
Community Service Officer 123 hours 211 hours 246 hours Crime Scene Supervisor 19 hours 1 hour 14 hours
Public Safety Dispatcher II 10 hours --- ---
Crime Analyst --- 10 hours 64 hours
Total 152 hours 222 hours 324 hours

Page 55 of 159 ends

Page 293 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 44
Table 29—Overtime: Support Services – Records/Subpoena
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Community Service Officer 50 hours 48 hours 88 hours
CSO Supervisor 112 hours 164 hours 44 hours
Office Specialist II 358 hours 208 hours 158 hours
Office Specialist III 98 hours 238 hours 558 hours
Office Specialist Supervisor 440 hours 338 hours 247 hours Total 968 hours 996 hours 1,095 hours
Table 30—Overtime: Investigations – Traffic
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Office Specialist II 28 hours 90 hours 362 hours
Total 28 hours 90 hours 362 hours
Table 31—Overtime: Professional Standards – Personnel and Training Rank 2021 2022 2023
Office Specialist II 12 hours --- 362 hours
Office Specialist III 39 hours 80 hours ---
Administrative Assistant 8 hours --- ---
Total 59 hours 80 hours 362 hours

2.7.3 Overtime and Policy
In Department Policy 1015 (Fitness for Duty), within Section 1015.7 (Limitation on Hours Worked), it is noted that, “Absent emergency operations, members should not work more than:
 16 hours in a one-day (24-hour) period
 30 hours in any 2-day (48-hour) period
 84 hours in any 7-day (168-hour) period
 7 consecutive days in a row.”
The policy further makes clear that, “Except in very limited circumstances, members should have a minimum of 8 hours off between shifts. ” Moreover, the policy notes that supervisors are

Page 56 of 159 ends

Page 294 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 45
authorized to deny overtime or relieve any member who has exceeded the above guidelines to off- duty status.

To ensure enforcement of these policies, the Department has implemented new CareWare staffing software and now has the means to track overtime across all organizational units, including overtime worked by individuals. The Department generates a monthly “Scheduling Rules Violation Report” detail ing policy exceptions that have been necessary to maintain minimum staffing levels. In one such report, dated November 1 – November 30, 2023, 244 violations were documented, covering virtually every organizational uni t, including Communications, Patrol, Community Services, Homicide, Motors, Parking Enforcement, Personnel and Training, Property Crimes, Police Technology, Records Management, and Youth and Family. The violations included every category outlined in Policy 1015.

In the City Auditor’s report, it was noted that in fiscal year ( FY) 2020, backfilling for officer vacancies and absences was the most common and costly reason for overtime, accounting for 21 percent of sworn officer’s overtime hours and costing nearly $1.3 million. This same pattern was apparent in the years Citygate reviewed.

In Police Overtime: An Examination of Key Issues published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), David Bayley and Robert Worden note that supervision of overtime is often seen as the first line of defense against overtime abuses. Nevertheless, they add, “Most of the factors that determine overtime are beyond the control of any middle -rank manager, such as contract regulations, calls for service, crime emergencies, vacations, injuries, retirements, and approval for special events.”7 To control overtime in policing, Bayley and Worden make clear that the answer lies in recording, analyzing, managing, and supervising its use. Of these, they argue that managing is the key, and that it comes in two forms: (1) creating an infrastructure for recording and analyzing the use of overtime, and (2) making policies related to overtime based on an understanding of what is happening.

Bayley and Worden add that police managers must continually ask questions in their efforts to control overtime:

1. Are overtime expenditures justified in terms of the work being done , or can the same work be performed at less cost on straight time?

2. Do the police and the local government have the capacity to pay for overtime? Answering this question requires police managers to know whether they are “on budget” throughout the year to avoid cost overruns.

7 National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief, Police Overtime: An Examination of Key Issues by David H. Bayley and Robert E. Worden, May 1998; https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/167572.pdf.

Page 57 of 159 ends

Page 295 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 46

3. Is overtime being abused or used in ways that cannot be justified? To avoid embarrassment, police departments need to analyze patterns of overtime expenditure—both as time and as money —by individuals, by units, and by the nature of the work performed.

Bailey and Worden explain that exemplary departments have developed protocols for recording and analyzing data, and programs that automatically provide managers with perspective on overtime.

2.7.4 Overtime Findings
Finding #10: As noted by the City Auditor, the number of filled positions is not the same as the number of officers available to work. New hires, for example, although counted as filling a position, are not available for solo officer duties for nearly a year, and authorized positions differ from those actually filled. A n officer position might be “filled,” but the officer may not be available due to a long -term injury or military leave.

Finding #11: To ensure enforcement of overtime rules, the Department now generates a monthly Scheduling Rules Violation Report which details policy exceptions that have been necessary to maintain minimum staffing levels.

Finding #12: Persistent backfilling to fill necessary positions indicates a chronic shortage of personnel in relation to work needing to be completed.

Finding #13: Overreliance on overtime can increase fatigue and burnout and decrease productivity.

Finding #14: Overtime availability outside of Patrol may make overtime availability in Patrol less attractive, which could result in the same limited number of officers taking these assignments.

Finding #15: The Department has implemented new staffing software (“Care Ware”) and develops regular management reports that provide timely, accurate, and complete information regarding overtime, hours worked, and time off taken.

Finding #16: The Department now has the means to track overtime across all organizational units, including that worked by individuals.

Finding #17: Reducing the number of beats from 16 to 14 appears to have contributed to the reduction in overtime in 2023.

Page 58 of 159 ends

Page 296 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 47
Finding #18: Policy 1015 requires that supervisors verify all overtime worked before approving overtime requests.

2.7.5 Overtime Recommendations
Recommendation #4: Continue to record, analyze, and manage overtime to reduce the likelihood of employee fatigue and burnout.

Page 59 of 159 ends

Page 297 ends

This page was intentionally left blank

Page 60 of 159 ends

Page 298 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 49
SECTION 3—OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE REVIEW

3.1 OFFICE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Citygate has reviewed the Chief’s January 12, 2024 proposal to create an Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA), which will report directly to the Chief. The proposal notes that OSPA “…will serve as a pivotal entity in enhancing data -driven approaches in police performance and Departmental accountability, risk management, and oversight , as well as addressing community and external stakeholder needs.”
OSPA will be headed by a dedicated civilian manager who will lead a team of technical analysts.

The manager will be responsible for coordinating with command staff, engaging with the community, and ensuring alignment with the Department’s goals and vision.

Finally, the Chief indicated that the OSPA will work closely with an external consultant to improve and enhance the Early Warning System (EWS) and overall risk management strategies, and then manage that system into the future.

Citygate supports the Chief’s proposal as we believe that equitable, ethical, and data- driven approaches can improve public safety while promoting police accountability.

3.2 CREATION OF A NEW DEPUTY CHIEF’S POSITION
Citygate also reviewed the Chief’s June 5, 2023 recommendation to establish a new Deputy Police Chief job class. The Chief describes the new Deputy Chief’s role as one which will provide professional and administrative support and oversight of the Department’s day-to-day operations.

Citygate supports the proposal to create a new Deputy Chief position and sees it as an opportunity to provide the Chief of Police with more time (both internally and externally ) to meet with and engage staff and external stakeholders.

3.3 ADMINISTRATIVE AND FISCAL SERVICES
The Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager currently supervises three Assistant Management Analysts. The role is one that is responsible for planning, organizing, directing, and supervising the overall administrative, business service, and fiscal activities of a Berkeley City department.

For the Police Department, the Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager prepares, monitors, and oversees the Department’s budget, grants, contracts, and overtime. Under the Department’s new structure, the Administrative and Fiscal Services Unit will report directly to the Deputy Chief.

Page 61 of 159 ends

Page 299 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 50
Citygate learned that the Unit is finding it difficult to keep up with changes with the City’s new finance system. Under the City’s new financial system, many responsibilities were pushed out to City departments, which are now responsible for receiving invoices, putting them into the system, and scheduling payments. Checks to vendors are then issued by City Finance. The system allows a limited time ( three to five days) to process invoices. If invoices are not reviewed within this window of time, checks to vendors can be delayed an additional two weeks.

Further, relative to other large City departments (Public Works and Health, Housing and Community Services [HHCS]), the Police Department has significantly less administrative support to manage its budget, grants, and contracts. When the Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager is off work, the Chief or a police Captain must approve invoices. And when the Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager retires, there is currently no internal subordinate who has the knowledge and experience to fill the role.

To secure a smooth transition, Citygate believes that by adding a Senior Management Analyst sooner rather than later, the Department can ensure that oversight related to the budget, grants, and contracts will continue seamlessly—which should be the goal of any quality succession plan.

Further, there is currently no career path for any existing internal employee to reach the level of Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager. While subordinate staff understand contracts and perform well in this regard, only the Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager possesses the necessary budgeting experience. Citygate also discovered that the Unit receives a significant number of public records act requests.

A Senior Management Analyst could also serve in an acting capacity, unlike any of the current Assistant Management Analysts . According to the job specifications, Senior Management Analysts:
 Perform complex administrative, systems, statistical, budget development , and other management analyses in support of activities and functions in a major department or division or on a program management basis.  Make recommendations for action and assist in policy, procedure , and budget development and management.
 May be assigned to supervise the work of professional, paraprofessional, and office support or other technical staff.
 Perform related work as assigned.

Page 62 of 159 ends

Page 300 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 51

3.3.1 Administrative and Fiscal Services Finding
Finding #19: Creating and filling a Senior Management Analyst position would complete the career ladder necessary to prepare current Assistant Management Analysts for more demanding work.

3.3.2 Administrative and Fiscal Services Recommendation Recommendation #5: By adding a Senior Management Analyst and an Associate Management Analyst (which can likely be filled by promotin g one of the three existing Assistant Management Analysts), Citygate believes the Unit can keep better pace with work demands while also creating a career ladder, which is critical given that the current Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager will be eligible to retire over the next two years.

3.4 INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU
The Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) consists of two Investigative Sergeants who report directly to the Chief of Police. It is Citygate’s understanding that this reporting relationship will remain after the Chief’s announced Departmental reorganization takes effect.

Police Department Policy 1010 (Personnel Complaints) sets forth the following responsibilities of Sergeants assigned to the IAB:

1. Investigating all externally received complaints alleging employee misconduct.

2. Investigating internally initiated complaints of misconduct as may be assigned by the Chief of Police.

3. Preparing investigations and reports on inquiries into employee conduct as may be required by the Chief of Police.

4. Preparing letters, documents and memoranda associated with the disciplinary process in complaint matters.

5. Preparing letters and correspondence on other matters as may be required by the Chief of Police.

6. Maintaining liaison with the District Attorney’s office during investigations involving alleged criminal conduct on the part of an employee.

7. Coordinating the Department’s Complaint Review Board process.

Page 63 of 159 ends

Page 301 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 52

8. Assisting the City Attorney’s Office with investigation of civil claims against BPD and/or its employees.

9. Assisting the City Attorney’s Office in the preparation and presentation of Pitchess Motions.

10. Acting as liaison with the City Attorney, the Police Accountability Board and legal defense attorneys.

11. Advising the Chief of Police on matters relating to discipline, liability, and training issues.

The two Sergeants assigned to IAB serve in an important advisory role to the Chief, support the City Attorney, and serve as liaisons to the District Attorney. Due to recent changes in the Department, their work has grown more complex as they now investigate complaints made to the Department as well as complaints made to the PAB. Citygate sees an opportunity for the Department to add one clerical support staff position to the IAB given the number of complaints received, the time constraints related to completing investigations, and many other administrative demands placed on personnel.

IAB staff utilize case management software known as “IAPro.” The software provides real -time case information to supervisors and managers, allowing them to initiate and track all IAB investigations. The BlueTeam component of IAPro also allows supervisory and command staff to identify staff performance issues in real time.

The Department’s webpage provides links for those who wish to make a commendation or personnel complaint. It also provides a link for those who prefer to make commendations or complaints with the Director of Police Accountability.

Police Department Policy 1010 makes clear that complaints made to the Police Accountability Board shall also be investigated by IAB as “external complaints.”

3.4.1 Police Accountability Board
The Police Accountability Board (PAB) and Director of the Police Accountability Board were created with the passage of Measure II, which amended the City Charter in November of 2020 and became operational in July of 2021.

Section 125 of the City Charter sets forth the role and purpose of the PAB and the Director. The PAB’s purpose is to promote public trust through independent, objective civilian oversight of the Berkeley Police Department; to provide community participation in setting and reviewing Police Department policies, practices, and procedures; and to provide a means for prompt, impartial, and fair investigation of complaints brought by members of the public against sworn employees of the Berkeley Police Department. The purpose of the Director is to investigate complaints filed against

Page 64 of 159 ends

Page 302 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 53
sworn members, to reach an independent finding as to the facts, and recommend corrective action where warranted.

The Berkeley City Charter also authorizes the PAB to receive an d consider findings and recommendations from the Director regarding complaints filed by members of the public against sworn employees of the Department, and to recommend whether disciplinary action is warranted.

Further, the PAB is required to provide an annual report to the public, which will include (but not be limited to) a discussion of the PAB’s activities, and the Department’s /PAB’s processes and procedures for investigating alleged misconduct.

Subsection 16 of Section 125 of the City Charter describes the statistical data PAB is to include in its annual report. Such data shall include but is not limited to trends and patterns in vehicle and pedestrian stops, citations, arrests, searches and seizures, other patterns by the Department; trends and patterns regarding use of force and officer-involved shootings, etc.

In 2023, 238 allegations (a single complaint may include several different allegations) were investigated by the IAB as shown in the following table. Of these, many were initiated by the PAB.

Under the “Admin Closed” column of the table are cases in which a complainant does not cooperate with the IAB, fails to appear for an interview, or other circumstances occur that render investigators unable to complete investigations.

Figure 6—Internal Affairs Bureau Allegations (2023)

Active
Admin
Closed
Unfounded
Exonerated
Not
Sustained
Sustained
Received
2023 Allegations
125800025Improper Use of Force
1991601045Discourtesy
183500026Improper
Stop/Search/Seizure/Arrest
3161001149Inadequate Investigation
0000000Improper Detention (Jail)
204700031Discrimination
85100014Harassment
264600339Improper Procedure
1100002Improper Cite/Tow
0500005Other
1000102Dishonesty
1364253034238Total

Page 65 of 159 ends

Page 303 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 54

3.4.2 Internal Affairs Bureau Finding
Finding #20: The work of the two Sergeants assigned to Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) has grown more complex. N ot only mu st they investigate c omplaints made to the Department, but they now also investigate c omplaints made to the Police Accountability Board (PAB). Further, they serve an important advisory role to the Chief, support the City Attorney, and serve as liaisons to the District Attorney and the PAB.

3.4.3 Internal Affairs Bureau Recommendation
Recommendation #6: Given the number of complaints received by the Internal Affairs Bureau ( IAB), the time constraints related to completing investigations, and many other administrative demands —including those required of the Director of Police Accountability and outlined in the City Charter , which often involve significant IAB staff time — Citygate recommends that the Department add one clerical support staff position to the IAB.

3.5 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS / PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Media and public relations are critical in policing because they help shape perception, build trust, share public safety information, and foster community partnerships. Since a Public Information officer (PIO) often speaks for the Chief and always represents the Department when speaking to the media, it is essential that such a person has a direct line to the Chief and does not have to go through someone else to obtain access.

Where possible, Citygate believes the Department’s PIO should be included in all appropriate meetings and briefings, with an understanding that having a fully informed perspective and knowing the totality of circumstances is a vital component in the PIO’s ability to communicate with the community and the media effectively.

Page 66 of 159 ends

Page 304 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 55
SECTION 4—OPERATIONS DIVISION REVIEW
The Operations Division of the Department encompasses Patrol Operations, the Bike Team, and the Community Services Bureau.

Patrol Operations is the largest bureau of the Department and includes the following allotted positions: one Captain, four Lieutenants, 14 Sergeants, and 58 Patrol officers (as of the most recent “timesheet” from May 2024). These personnel provide continuous delivery of police services to the community through numerous and varied functions, which include responding to calls for service, proactive patrol (officer -initiated activity), maintenance of public order, discov ery of hazards, investigation of crimes and incidents, arresting offenders, traffic enforcement and control, emergency services, and the reporting of information to other appropriate organizational units.

Recently, Patrol has tried to maintain at least 60 sworn officers (58 sworn officers were reflected in Patrol’s most recent May 2024 “ timesheet”), broken into seven teams of seven to ten officers based on their beat and shift allocations. Some teams may be staffed with more officers above the minimum level to absorb absences.

4.1 PATROL COVERAGE
The following table shows Patrol coverage of the week by team.

Table 32—Patrol Team Coverage of Week
Team # Personnel Days of Week Shift Times
Team 1 2 Sergeants, 8 officers M/T/W/Th 6:00 am to 4:00 pm Team 2 2 Sergeants, 7 officers M/T/W/Th 11:00 am to 9:00 pm Team 3 2 Sergeants, 8 officers M/T/W/Th 3:30 pm to 1:30 am Team 4 2 Sergeants, 8 officers M/T/W/Th 8:30 pm to 6: 30 am Team 5 2 Sergeants, 8 officers F/S/S 6:00 am to 6:30 pm Team 6 2 Sergeants, 10 officers F/S/S 12:30 pm to 1:00 am Team 7 2 Sergeants, 9 officers F/S/S 6:00 pm to 6:30 am Patrol’s coverage of 14 beats appears to align with current demand for service:
 The overlap between Team 2 and Team 3 occurs during the period of peak call demand from 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm, Monday through Thursday.  Team 2’s overlap with Team 1 adds staffing during the period from 11 :00 am to 4:00 pm, when Team 1 goes off duty.

Page 67 of 159 ends

Page 305 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 56
 Team 4 overlaps with Team 3 between the hours of 8:30 pm and 1:30 am.  Team 7 overlaps with Team 6 between 6:00 pm and 1:00 am on Friday through Sunday, when Team 6 goes off duty.

Patrol’s timesheet and minimum staffing levels are a starting point for each shift which is assessed every six months. Overtime to backfill officer vacancies is typically triggered when a Patrol team’s staffing drops below 7 or 8, depending on the team and any other immediate needs (crimes, emergencies, protests, etc.).

4.2 BIKE TEAM
The Bike Team has an authorized staffing of one sergeant and five police officers—a change from the previous staffing of two sergeants and six officers. In the past, the Unit has been staffed with as many as 12 officers. The Team is currently managed by a Patrol Lieutenant, who also manages two Patrol teams.

The Bike Team primarily focuses on commercial shopping districts in the downtown Shattuck Avenue and Telegraph Avenue areas.

Citygate learned that when Patrol overtime cannot be filled voluntarily, it is not uncommon for police commanders to pull Bike Team officers from their primary duties to fill Patrol vacancies.

4.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU
A Police Lieutenant manages the Community Services Bureau (CSB), which includes four area coordinators who are police officers, each of whom are assigned to a quadrant of the City. A Sergeant supervises the coordinators, who serve as community liaisons and assist in addressing long-term, persistent public safety concerns in their respective quadrants. Residents are encouraged to contact their area coordinators about ongoing neighborhood issues.

Prior to the Department’s reorganization, staffing within the CSB also included the Department’s Strategic Analysis Team, which included a police officer and a civilian Data Analyst, who is often called upon to provide information and analysis to other Department units and the PAB. The Strategic Analysis Team also created and regularly updates the Department’s online Transparency Hub and internal Executive Dashboard.

The Transparency Hub represents an abundant re source to supply police data available to the public. Such data include calls for service, crime, current public safety trends, police stop data, use of force, community engagement activity, and traffic safety—including information on collisions and their locations.

Page 68 of 159 ends

Page 306 ends

City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 57
The Department’s Public Information Officer (PIO) had also been assigned to the CSB, although this position , along with the Strategic Analysis Team , will soon be transferred to the Chief’s Office. Among other duties, the PIO’s workload includes monitoring the Department’s broad social media presence on sites including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and Nextdoor.

4.4 PATROL RESPONSE TIME ANALYSIS
In Citygate’s assessment of the Department’s response time to calls for service (CFS), Citygate assessed the police response to both Priority 1 CFS (the highest-priority calls) and Priority 2 CFS.

We also determined median police response time, which is the amount of time it takes for the police to arrive at the scene of an incident after receiving a call for assistance.

4.4.1 Understanding Fractile versus Average Measurement Police response time has historically been presented as an average, which is measured by adding the total response times of a given set of incidents and dividing that total by the number of incidents. The shortcoming of the average response time measurement is that it only identifies a single point on a continuum, and thus cannot show how widely the data is spread across that same continuum.

A more descriptive best practice in many fields —including not only police services, but fire and EMS—is the transition to measuring the percent completion of a specified response goal. Citygate often uses this measure to provide insight into response times, with 90 percent as the standard.

The best way to illustrate this concept can be seen in the following two statements:
 “The community can expect a response of X minutes or less, 90 percent of the time,” or
 “Nine times out of ten, the public can expect a response in X minutes or less.” Mathematically, this is referred to as a “fractile” measure.8 To illustrate the difference between the fractile and average response time measurements, the following figure shows the response time for a fictitious police department in the United States.

This department is small and received 20 calls for service during the period reviewed. Each response time for the calls for service has been plotted on the graph, in order from the shortest response time to the longest response time.

8 A fractile is that point below which a stated fraction of values lie. The fraction is often given as a percent value; the term “percentile” may then be used. See: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/fractile-response

Page 69 of 159 ends

Berkeley City CouncilSeptember 9, 2025

Berkeley City Council
September 9, 2025