Berkeley City Council
March 10, 2026

Ashby BART East Lot CONSENT CALENDAR
Transit Oriented Development Request for Proposal Framework March 10, 2026

increased costs to the project, because costs associated with development may increase over time, including material costs and fees. The City’s investment of $8 million will not go as far to support affordable housing, and the project may be less competitive for state and federal funding.

The City Council could decide not to authorize the release of the RFP, but staff do not recommend this as it would conflict with or delay the City’s compliance with ordinance 7,939-N.S., or the Exchange Agreement, and will result in significant delays in developing the site.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wyant, Program Manager, HHCS, (510) 981-5228
Kelly deWolfe, Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981-5424 Uttara Ramakrishnan, Associate Planner, Planning and Development Department, (510) 981-7483
Attachments:

1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Ashby BART East Lot TOD RFP Design Standards

2. East Lot Developer Selection Framework (developed by Street Level Advisors)

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RELEASE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

AND NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

ASHBY EAST LOT
WHEREAS, the City and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) are collaborating on the development of the North Berkeley and Ashby BART sites, and articulated shared goals in a Memorandum of Understanding, Memorandum of Agreement, Joint Vision and Priorities for Transit-Oriented Development for Ashby and North Berkeley Stations, and Ashby BART Station Transit-Oriented Development Exchange Agreement; and
WHEREAS, BART agreed to transfer ownership of the Ashby BART East Lot to the City in exchange for the City’s air rights on the Ashby BART West Lot, in accordance with the terms of the Exchange Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Exchange Agreement sets expectations for a competitive selection of a development team, as well as minimum development standards for the East Lot, including a minimum affordability of 35%; and
WHEREAS, the Exchange Agreement identifies the need for site-specific Design Standards for the East Lot; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Development has provided the Ashby BART East Lot TOD Design Standards that outline these design standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council established a Housing Trust Fund Program (HTF) to guide the City’s work to assist in the development and expansion of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income persons who either work or reside within the City of Berkeley (City), and authorized the City Manager to implement the Program; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, with Resolution 69,833-N.S., the City Council reserved $53 million, to be divided between the North Berkeley and Ashby BART sites, as the subsidy needed to achieve 35% affordability, and allowed for a portion of that funding to be considered for predevelopment costs associated with affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the $53 million includes $40 million in Measure O funds, and $13 million in Affordable Housing Mitigation Fees.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager may release a Request for Proposals for the Ashby East Lot, along with a Notice of Funding Availability for up to $1 million in predevelopment funds for a qualified nonprofit developer selected through the Request for Proposals process.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ashby BART East Lot TOD RFP Design Standards shall be incorporated into the Request for Proposals for the Ashby East Lot and subsequent implementing agreements.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute all documents required to effectuate this action.

Exhibit:

A: Ashby BART East Lot TOD RFP Design Standards

Exhibit A
Ashby BART East Lot TOD
RFP Design Standards
Admin Draft 1.5 – September 4, 2025, Updated Comments
Site Planning
Required Circulation
A. An access drive shall be maintained from Adeline Street to Woolsey Street. (See diagram in Section 3)
B. Access drive shall meet requirement set forth in the 08.14.2008 Reciprocal Easements Agreement
C. The access drive shall be a minimum 20 feet in width to provide for waste removal and fire apparatus access (assuming aerial apparatus access is from Tremont Street).

D. The access drive shall include 4-6 ADA loading spaces along the interior sidewalk adjacent to the east side the Ed Roberts Campus building. The loading spaces shall have a minimum width of 8 feet.

E. The access drive shall have a minimum 45 feet building-to-building dimension.

F. Landscaping is encouraged between the access drive and the new building.

Publicly Accessible Open Space
The R-BMU zoning requires 35 square feet of public open space per unit.

Publicly accessible open space should be located adjacent to a public street.

Streetscape Design
A. Tremont Street and Woolsey Street sidewalks shall be widened to 13 feet in width and should include a 5 ft curb and amenity/planting area and a 8 ft wide sidewalk throughway. The stormwater management feature on Woolsey Street shall be maintained and is in excess of the required sidewalk dimensions.

B. The following standards apply to sidewalk street tree planting.

1. Pattern. Trees shall be planted with a minimum of one tree per 25 linear feet of sidewalk length. Exceptions may be made in locations where existing infrastructure, utilities, or BART tunnel prohibit planting of trees. Existing trees should be maintained where possible.

2. Location. Trees shall be evenly spaced between the curb and sidewalk or evenly spaced within the width of a planting strip. Trees shall be planted so that at maturity the trunk is at least three feet from the face of curb where loading occurs.

Exhibit A

3. Ground Plane. Trees shall be provided in planters a minimum of three feet wide and a minimum of six feet long located 18 inches from the face of curb. Exceptions may be made in locations where existing infrastructure, utilities, or BART tunnel prohibit planting of trees.

4. Subsurface Design.
a) A minimum of 120 cubic feet of well aerated soil per inch of trunk diameter at maturity shall be located within six feet of each tree. b) Continuous structure soil with a minimum width of four feet shall connect all consecutive street trees.

Building Setbacks
The R-BMU zoning regulates building setbacks, residential ground floor character, and location/frequency of building entrances. The following standards complement the zoning and provide additional detail and clarity. Please note: “R-BMU F.11.b. Ground Floor Residential Entries. All ground floor residential units shall provide entries to the street in the form of stoops or other exterior entries, or balcony or patio without entrance to the street, with a minimum area of 20 square feet.”
A. Tremont Street and Woolsey Street Frontages. Where public open space is located, buildings are exempt from R-BMU F.4.b requiring buildings to be located up to the setback line at intersection corners.

B. Ground Floor Residential. Portions of a building with ground floor residential units shall have a minimum ground floor setback of 10 feet.

C. Northern Property Line. Retaining the existing tree planting along the northern property line is encouraged.

Exhibit A

Building Design
Building Massing
A. Front Upper-story Step Backs. Portions of building located within the minimum front setback of 5 ft and maximum front setback of 15 feet shall have an upper- story step back above the 4th story with a minimum depth of 15 feet from the primary building façade.

B. Maximum Building Length/Major Breaks. The maximum continuous building facade length facing Woolsey Street or Tremont Street shall not exceed 170 feet.

Continuous façades are measured from a corner of a building to a courtyard or a major façade break with a minimum 15 feet by 15 feet plan dimension.

Facade Design
A. Vertical Rhythm and Pattern. Building facades facing Woolsey Street and Tremont Street shall express a vertical rhythm and pattern that reflects the size and scale of a residential unit and/or individual rooms or shall be designed with custom details to create an ornamental facade.

B. Ground Floor Residential Units. To provide privacy to ground floor residential units, the finished floor of units facing Woolsey Street and Tremont Street shall be raised a minimum 2 feet above sidewalk grade and windowsills shall be a minimum 3 feet above finish floor.

C. Fenestration. Windows shall meet one of the following requirements:

1. Windows shall be punched with a minimum recess of 2 inches from the facade or shall be framed with a minimum projection of 4 inches from the facade. Built-up stucco trim or molding (also known as “plant-ons”) are prohibited.

2. Windows that are flat or flush with the facade are prohibited unless applied to a recessed portion of the building facade with a minimum of four inches in depth. Vertical window edges shall be directly adjacent to recess.

C. Materials. No single material shall cover more than 80% of the cumulative facade area (excluding windows, doors, garage doors, and building trim) of a building except for high-quality materials such as brick, stone, ceramics, metals, fiber-cement panels, or other composite panel systems.

Exhibit A

Site Diagram
Summary Diagram of Design Standards
Legend

1. Provide access drive from Adeline St to Woolsey St; Minimum 45 feet easement width required from west property line (approximate width, see 08.14.2008 Reciprocal Easements Agreement for more detail)

2. Provide 4-6 ADA loading spaces for Ed Roberts Campus

3. Maintain existing trees and landscape buffer

4. Improve sidewalks

5. Building Setback: minimum 5 ft to 15 ft

6. Step back upper story facades above the 4th story

7. Woolsey Street Access: Woolsey Street vehicle access shall be maintained for emergency vehicles, refuse removal, and vendors, commercial carriers, and other parties to make deliveries to the ERC building. Private vehicles may be limited to Adeline Street access point to reduce traffic conflicts with the bicycle boulevard on Woolsey Street.

Attachment 2
Ashby BART East Lot
Developer Selection Framework
This document establishes the framework the City of Berkeley intends to use to solicit development proposals for the Ashby BART Station East Lot (East Lot).  Section 1: East Lot Proposals – Key Submission Components  Section 2: Proposal Evaluation and Selection
 Section 3: Proposal Thresholds for East Lot
 Section 4: East Lot Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Goals Section 1: East Lot Proposals – Key Submission Components Respondents will be asked to submit proposals which include:
 A letter of intent describing the development team and their interest in the East Lot.
 A detailed description of the development team, including their relevant experience in community engagement, design, development and affordable housing; and their organizational capacity to implement their proposal.  A preliminary development concept plan, including a Site Plan, Elevations, and Sections that demonstrates proposed layout, uses, facades, massing, design and aesthetics, and renderings.
 A development program that meets or exceeds East Lot thresholds and goals, as defined in this solicitation.
 A description of how the program maximizes the number of new homes.  A proposed project schedule, including any detail on phasing and marketability.  A community engagement proposal, including detail on the team’s approach to community outreach.
 A reparative framework that demonstrates how their proposal addresses the negative impacts to African American residents, businesses, and cultural institutions displaced by construction of the Ashby BART Station.  A financial proposal for the lease of the East lot, which offers a fair market value for land, provides funds for the Community Benefits Fund for South Berkeley (as described in the Exchange Agreement and summarized below), and may assume discounts for permanently affordable housing.
 A development financing plan, which details the project’s expected financial structure including potential sources (amounts of equity and debt financing, and any expected public financing) and uses of funds.
 An Affordable Housing Compliance Plan, which describes proposals to meet affordable housing requirements, including developer contributions to affordable housing.
 A detailed proforma demonstrating how the development team could potentially achieve 50% Affordable Housing.
 Additional materials demonstrating compliance with various City programs and codes, including City labor requirements, Affordable Housing Preference Policy, various sections of the Zoning Code including Public Art on Private Projects,

Transportation Demand Management, and other local requirements as deemed relevant.

Section 2: Proposal Evaluation and Selection
The Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS) Department will establish an Evaluation Committee for the East Lot Request for Proposals and Notice of Funding Availability. The seven-member Evaluation Committee will be appointed by the City Manager and will include four representatives from the City of Berkeley, one representative from BART, and two South Berkeley representatives pending availability and interest. The Evaluation Committee will review and score proposals in accordance with the City of Berkeley East Lot Project Goals. A short list of top scoring proposals will be invited to interview with the Evaluation Committee and make presentations to the public. The Evaluation Committee will score interviews and presentations and recommend the most qualified respondent to the Director of HHCS and City Council for approval. Upon selection by the City Council, next steps will include an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA), a ground lease, and a Housing Trust Fund predevelopment loan.

Section 3: Proposal Thresholds for East Lot
Project proposals must meet or exceed threshold requirements. Threshold requirements are established in the Exchange Agreement with BART, as a term required for the City to acquire the East Lot; or in other City regulations such as the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines. The City committed to these thresholds in prior Council actions.i Project thresholds for the East Lot will include:

Threshold Requirement Related Document
1 Minimum 300 bedrooms. Exchange Agreement
2 Minimum 35% affordable to low-income households (averaging up to 60% Area Median Income, of which 20% is reserved for Extremely Low Income (ELI).

Exchange Agreement
3 Contribute Community Benefits fund for South Berkeley at a minimum of $150,000 annually, plus indexing, beginning at stabilized occupancy or before the project’s fourth year of occupancy, whichever comes first.

Exchange Agreement
4 Minimum Developer Experience HTF Guidelines
5 Design team has demonstrated Universal Design experience and expertise.

Section 4: East Lot Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Goals All proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria summarized in the table below. The first column describes the standard evaluation criteria the Evaluation Committee will apply to all proposals. The second column identifies Project Goals that proposals will

be incentivized to achieve through the evaluation process. The most successful projects will achieve the Evaluation Criteria and also achieve one or more of the Project Goals.

Some of the Evaluation Criteria and Project Goals are established in the Exchange Agreement (shown in bold). Some Project Goals are established in the Joint Vision and Priorities (Shown in Italics). Many of the Evaluation Criteria are reflected in the City’s Housing Trust Fund Guidelines.

Fifty percent affordability will be heavily incentivized through the evaluation process.

This level of affordability was achieved at the North Berkeley BART Station and required at the Ashby BART Station West Lot. Proposers may be incentivized to levels of affordability greater than the 35% required through greater potential land discounts.

Also, proposals that achieve the City’s 50% affordability goal would qualify for expedited entitlement through SB 35.

Evaluation CRITERIA PROJECT GOALS, INCENTIVIZED

1. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND PROPOSED PROJECT. 25% Maximizes housing, units and bedrooms.

Affordability Plan. Proposal meets or exceeds
affordability thresholds. Proposal reflects
reasonable assumptions for State and local
funding.
 50% affordable housing.
 Prioritizes specified amounts of
low and Very Low-Income
housing.
 Project creates Homeownership
opportunities in South Berkeley.

Households served, especially affordable housing.  Prioritize the inclusion of residents with disabilities, who are likely to
benefit from proximity to the Ed
Roberts Campus, with a goal of 25%
of units for people with disabilities.
 Housing for seniors, families, people
with physical or mental disabilities,
and/or formerly homeless people.
 A creative and innovative approach
to universal design, demonstrating
how the proposal exceeds minimum
requirements.

Reparative Framework. Describe how the
proposal addresses the negative impacts to
African American residents, businesses, and
cultural institutions.
 Proposals directly address the
negative impacts to African American
residents, businesses and cultural
institutions.

Project Design conforms with City Design Standards.

Project Feasibility. Proposal demonstrates a deep understanding of each proposed product type (Market rate and affordable). Proposal balances market feasibility with project goals.

Evaluation CRITERIA PROJECT GOALS, INCENTIVIZED

2. QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT TEAM EXPERIENCE. 15%
Master Planning. Development team has successfully completed comparable, mixed-use projects at similar scale including new construction of projects with multiple buildings and mid-rise housing of 6+ floors.

Public Private Partnerships. Development team has experience with joint development on public land, especially ground lease deals.

Design team is experienced with projects reflecting the broader community vision.

Design team has demonstrated Universal Design experience and expertise.

Community Engagement. Experience leading effective community dialogue about design and programming of sites, and possible tradeoffs. Experience addressing concerns related to development impact from neighboring residents, business, and property owners. Community engagement proposal builds on and continues recent planning work.

3. DEVELOPMENT TEAM FIT. 10%
Financial capability of team. Demonstrated ability to secure funding and financing for similar projects.

Nonprofit/Community Based Organization. Team includes a nonprofit, especially for affordable housing development roles.

Acceptance of City’s proposed transaction terms. Willingness to execute ENA in substantially the same form provided.

4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. 10%
Firms identified offer strong overall qualifications for key predevelopment needs.

Project manager experience is highly relevant to this Project.

If a team, relationship between parties is clearly defined, as exhibited by Joint Venture (JV) agreement or similar.

If supportive housing is included in program, team includes service provider with demonstrated success serving the population identified.

5. FINANCIAL OFFER. 20%
Financial Assumptions are reasonable and realistic.

Proposal includes reasonable values and schedule of ground lease payments.

Proposal includes resources for the Community Benefits Fund for South Berkeley residents.

6. PUBLIC PRESENTATION. 8%
Ability to present in public setting, communication skills.

Evaluation CRITERIA PROJECT GOALS, INCENTIVIZED

7. TEAM INTERVIEW. 12%
Understanding of the issues. Ability to balance the needs of multiple stakeholders. Ability to address critical issues; Ability to think strategically. Presentation, interview and communication skills.
i Ordinance 7,939-N.S. authorized the Exchange Agreement.

Resolution 69,683-N.S. authorized the most current Housing Trust Fund Guidelines

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Contract No. 32300149 Amendment: mySidewalk, Inc. for HHCS Web- Based Population Health Data Platform

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32300149 with mySidewalk, Inc. for an additional $50,618 for a total not to exceed amount of $207,928, and to extend the contract term end date to April 24, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funds for the additional scope of work in the amount of $50,618 will be provided from the Fiscal Year 2026 budgets:
 $14,693.56 General Fund (Fund 011)
 $4,913.42 Health Realignment Fund (Fund 156)
 $31,011.02 One-Time Grant Fund (Fund 336)

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The proposed amendment will extend the contract term and upgrade the current subscription for the mySidewalk web-based data platform. This platform is the central infrastructure for the City’s Community Health Assessment (CHA) and Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP).

As the City moves from the planning phase into the implementation phase of the CHIP, continuous access to this platform is required to track Results-Based Accountability (RBA) data.

Without this extension, the Department would lose the technical ability to:
 Fulfill the data monitoring requirements mandated by the California Future of Public Health funding.

04

Contract No. 32300149 Amendment: mySidewalk, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for HHCS Web-Based Population Health Data Platform March 10, 2026

 Maintain real-time dashboards that track program outcomes for the Department.

BACKGROUND
In late 2022, the City issued RFP Specification No. 23-11553-C to identify a vendor capable of providing a comprehensive, user-friendly and public facing health data platform. Following a competitive bidding process, mySidewalk, Inc. was selected as the best-qualified vendor due to their ability to integrate local, regional, and national data sets into a singular, interactive interface.

Council originally authorized Contract No. 32300149 on March 14, 2023 (Resolution No. 70,714-N.S.). A subsequent amendment in January 2024 allowed the Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS) Department to expand the number of subscriptions and licenses to cover additional divisions.

This contract extension ensures the ongoing support and maintenance of this established digital infrastructure. By continuing this partnership, the City avoids the significant administrative burden and high costs associated with migrating multi-year public health data to a new platform or reverting to manual data tracking methods that lack public accessibility.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental sustainability and climate impact effects or opportunities associated with the action requested in this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This amendment will further allow HHCS staff to engage in continuous improvement efforts driven by program performance data, as well as provide timely and informative communications of the progress of the Community Health Improvement Plan over time.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Instead of choosing technological solutions, the City could continue as it has historically, without having Results-Based Accountability data easily accessible to the community. Since protecting public health requires public engagement, staff do not recommend this approach.

CONTACT PERSON
Kellie Knox, Community Services Specialist III, HHCS 510-981-5301 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 32300149: MYSIDEWALK, INC FOR HHCS WEB-

BASED POPULATION HEALTH DATA PLATFORM
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has issued an RFP to obtain a web-based subscription solution to support residents and stakeholders of the City of Berkeley in viewing health data from local, regional, and national sources in an easy-to-understand format and to support the implementation of a Community Health Assessment (CHA) and a Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP); and
WHEREAS, the City conducted RFP Specification No. 23-11553-C with proposals due no later than December 1, 2022, resulting in the selection of mySidewalk, Inc. as the best- qualified vendor, and
WHEREAS, March 14, 2023, Council adopted Resolution No. 70,714-N.S. and the City entered into Contract No. 32300149 with mySidewalk on April 24, 2023, for an amount not to exceed $128,315 for a term from April 24, 2023, to April 24, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City amended Contract No. 32300149 with mySidewalk on January 30, 2024, by Resolution No. 71,188-N.S. increasing the amount by $30,000 for a total not to exceed $158,315; and
WHEREAS, HHCS staff have been satisfied with the performance of mySidewalk, Inc., thus far.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is authorized to execute a contract amendment with mySidewalk Inc through April 24, 2027, for an additional $50,618 for a total not to exceed amount of $207,928. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file with the Office of the City Clerk.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Filling Human Welfare and Community Action Commission Public Sector Vacancies

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution confirming the appointment of Catherine Gelsinger to the Human Welfare and Community Action Commission (HWCAC).

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this recommendation.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The HWCAC advises City Council on social welfare needs in the community. Failure to maintain full membership of the HWCAC, which also acts as the Board of the Berkeley Community Action Agency (CAA), could result in a loss of Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funding. Vacancies on the Berkeley CAA Board were noted as a “finding” during the most recent monitoring audit of this program conducted by the State Department of Community Services and Development (CSD). The HWCAC has significant vacancies with only three of nine seats filled after losing several members to moving out of Berkeley in 2025. The low vacancy rate is a critical issue with CSD and jeopardizes the City’s funding.

BACKGROUND
The HWCAC has a nine-seat, tripartite board structure with three low-income elected, three private sector, and three public sector representatives, which may include officials or members of business, industry, labor, religious, law enforcement, education, or other major groups and interests in the community served. The three public sector representatives are appointed by Berkeley City Council per Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.78.020 (b); the low-income members are appointed through an election process per BMC Section 3.78.020 (c); and the private-sector representatives are identified by existing HWCAC members for appointment by Council per BMC Section 3.78.020 (d).

City staff and existing HWCAC members coordinate community outreach to encourage and solicit applications for Council consideration and approval.

05

Filling Human Welfare and Community Action Commission CONSENT CALENDAR Public Sector Vacancies March 10, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no known environmental impacts associated with the recommendation of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Failure to maintain full membership of the HWCAC is in violation of the City’s CSBG revenue contract and may jeopardize future funding (about $300,000 per year).

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Kat Larrowe, Community Services Specialist III, HHCS, (510) 981-7555 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Catherine Gelsinger HWCAC Application

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

FILLING HUMAN WELFARE AND COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION PUBLIC

SECTOR VACANCIES
WHEREAS, the Human Welfare and Community Action Commission (HWCAC) shall consist of nine members. Three public sector representatives are appointed by Berkeley City Council per Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.78.020 (b); three low-income members appointed through an election process per BMC Section 3.78.020 (c); and three representatives for the private sector identified by existing HWCAC members for appointment by Council per BMC Section 3.78.020 (d); and WHEREAS, Berkeley Municipal Code Section 3.78.020 (b) stipulates that three public sector representatives are appointed to the HWCAC by Berkeley City Council as a whole; and
WHEREAS, Catherine Gelsinger applied to serve on December 8, 2025.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Catherine Gelsinger is appointed to the Human Welfare and Community Action Commission as public sector representative her term beginning March 11, 2026, ending March 10, 2030.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981- 6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026
To: Honor
able Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend City Council request that the City Manager rep ort back by Fall 2026, and annually thereafter, regarding the status of our audit recommendations until reported fully implemented by the Finance Department and other relevant departments. The audit includes 13 recommendations to clarify for staff when non-competitive contracts and amendments are appropriate, as well as to improve transparency and efficiency in the contracts process overall.

The City management agreed or partially agreed to our findings and recommendations. Please see our report for their complete response.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Reducing the use of non-competitive contracts could help the City ensure it is not overpaying for services. As the City faces a budget deficit, it is important that the City gets the best value for the goods and services it purchases. Updating the Purchasing Manual and related training and procedures will likely take an upfront investment of staff time but could reduce the workload for General Services and staff in the long run. Getting a comprehensive and integrated electronic contract management system, a s recommended by the audit, would require financial investment, but could address the challenges we identified related to current paper contract process, including delays and lost contracts.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In fiscal year 2024, 94 of the 218 contracts executed did not have documented evidence of competition. The total value of these contracts was approximately $43 million compared to $102 million in competitive contracts. The non-competitive contracts included 26 authorized by Council Resolution, 53 through waivers of competition approved by the City Manager , and 15 through other or unclear means.

Most of the City’s largest active contracts had documented evidence of going through competition or meeting the Purchasing Manual criteria for exceptions, but two recycling contracts did not. In fiscal year 2022, Berkeley executed contracts for recycling services for nearly $85 million over ten years without seeking bids from other contractors. Although pursuing competition is an established best practice and the City’s Purchasing Manual states that service contracts above $50,000 must go through formal competition, neither the City Charter nor the Berkeley Municipal Code explicitly required service contracts like these recycling contracts to be competitive.

06

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts CONSENT CALENDAR Pg. 2 of 3

Of the 53 approved waivers of competition, 38 percent did not clearly meet the criteria in the Purchasing Manual, meaning the City could likely have pursued competition. For example, while waivers for classification and compensation studies were used, there was no documentation that this was an emergency. By requesting waivers for the same service from different contractors in a similar time period , this indicated that it would have been feasible to request quotes instead.

Once a contract is in place, the City can use amendments to increase the dollar amount. Our audit found the City had 95 active service contracts that began at or below the formal competition threshold of $50,000 but were later amended above the threshold. On average, these amendments added $218,026 in total to each contract. According to Finance, there are circumstances when contract amendments are reasonable. To comply with this, staff need clear guidance to understand when amendments are appropriate or when the contract should be re- competed.

Paper contracts, unclear guidance, and short staffing led to delays and the overuse of non- competitive contracts. For example, in a sample of 23 amended service contracts, 16 contracts (or 70 percent) lasted for over five years. A ccording to the Director of Finance, the general rule is for most contracts to go back out to bid every five to seven years. However, this guidance was not written in the City’s purchasing policy. In fact, Berkeley did not have any published guidance for staff on contract amendments. Additionally, in fiscal year 2024, most of Berkeley’s contracts were still reviewed and signed on paper, meaning staff hand-delivered them to different departments for approvals. During our audit, the City adopted DocuSign for some parts of the contracting process and an interdepartmental team was looking into purchasing a digital contracting system. However, short staffing and turnover in General Services and across the City made it more difficult to improve the contract process.

BACKGROUND
The City uses contracts for most services that are not done by city staff, like public artwork and towing, and for specialized goods like fire trucks. The City typically uses simpler purchase orders rather than contracts to buy goods, like office furniture and equipment for parks maintenance.

The General Services Division in the Finance Department reviews and processes all purchases of goods and services for the entire City, but staff in each department have a responsibility in purchasing goods and services for their department.

Competition among contractors helps ensure that the City is accountable for public funds spent on co
ntracts and can get the best value for Berkeley residents. However, competition is not always possible or appropriate, so City policies allow for non-competitive contracts in specific circumstances, such as when emergency maintenance is needed. Thi s primarily occurs through
either Council authorization or a waiver of competition approved by the City Manager.

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

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts CONSENT CALENDAR Pg. 3 of 3

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Implementing our recommendations will decrease reliance on non-competitive contracts.

Additionally, they will improve the contracting process overall through clearer , more consistent guidance and improved systems.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, City Auditor’s Office, 510 -981-6750 Attachments:
1: Audit
Report: City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts

Audit Report
Audit Report
February 19, 2026
City Contracts:

Outdated Process Led
to Non-Competitive
Contracts
Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Caitlin Palmer, Audit Manager
Katie Wysong, Auditor I
Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government

City C

ontracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive
Contracts
Report Highlights February 19, 2026
Findings

1. In fiscal year 2022, the City authorized nearly $85 million in recycling contracts over 10 years without competition.

Inconsistent rules made it difficult for staff to know when to waive competition. Our analysis of fiscal year 2024 waivers found that 38 percent did not clearly meet the Purchasing Manual criteria. City Council authorized additional non- competitive contracts for community-based organizations.

Additionally, amended service contracts that started below the threshold for Council approval increased by an average of $218,026 per contract without competition.

2. Berkeley used paper contracts hand-delivered between departments and lacked a centralized digital system, creating delays and misplaced contracts. Additionally, the Purchasing Manual was missing key guidance, and training for staff was limited. Short staffing and turnover also made it difficult for the City to address these concerns and improve the
contracting process.

Moving paper contracts throughout City Hall created
opportunities for delays.

Source: Auditor analysis of contract review sheet for new expenditure contracts
Objectives

1. How does Berkeley use non-
competitive contracts?

2. Why does Berkeley use non-
competitive contracts when
competition is possible?
Recommendations
We recommend the City add explicit
competition requirements to the
Berkeley Municipal Code for service
contracts. We also recommend the City
update the Purchasing Manual and
contract forms for consistency and
clarity, as well as expand training for
staff. We recommend the City continue
pursuing a comprehensive, integrated
digital contracting system, as budget
allows.

Why This Audit Is Important
Competition among contractors helps
ensure that the City is accountable for
public funds spent on contracts and can
get the best value and best fit for
Berkeley residents. Open and fair
competition for contracts promotes
ethical and inclusive purchasing
practices. However, in fiscal year 2024,
Berkeley executed 94 contracts without
documented competition for a total
value of $43 million. While it is not
practical or possible for every contract
to go through competition, it is
important that the City uses
competition when feasible.

For the full report, visit the
City Auditor’s website.

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 1 Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2 Scope and Methodology .................................................................................................... 2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 3 Berkeley spent millions of dollars on non-competitive contracts when competition was likely possible. ............................................................................................................................... 8 The City authorized nearly $85 million in recycling contracts over 10 years without competition. ...................................................................................................................... 8 City management approved some waivers that did not meet the Purchasing Manual criteria. ............................................................................................................................ 10

City Council authorized additional non-competitive contracts for community-based organizations. .................................................................................................................. 13 Contracts starting below the formal competition threshold were amended by an average of $218,026 per contract without additional competition. ................................................. 14

Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 16 Paper contracts, unclear guidance, and short staffing led to delays and overuse of non- competitive contracts. ......................................................................................................... 17 Berkeley used paper contracts that need to be hand-delivered between departments. .. 17 The Purchasing Manual was missing key guidance and training for staff was limited. ...... 20 Short staffing and turnover made it more difficult to improve the contract process. ......... 22 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 23 Management Response ....................................................................................................... 25 Methodology and Compliance ............................................................................................ 30 Appendix 1: Timelines of the City’s Recycling Contracts .................................................... 33 Appendix 2: Contracts with Waivers Executed in Fiscal Year 2024 ..................................... 35 Appendix 3: Largest Active Non-Competitive Contracts ..................................................... 36 Appendix 4: Active Service Contracts Amended Over the Threshold for Competition ........ 38

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 2 Introduction
Competition among contractors helps ensure that the City is accountable for public funds spent on contracts and can get the best value for Berkeley residents. Best value may include not only lowest price, but also the quality of the good or service and fit with Berkeley’s specific needs.

However, Berkeley spends millions of dollars on contracts that are not competitive. While it is appropriate, even necessary, for some contracts to be non-competitive, it is important that the City pursues competition when possible. Although we found no evidence of misconduct in Berkeley during our audit, contract corruption cases in neighboring jurisdictions emphasize the importance of having open, competitive contracting processes. A competitive process can discourage favoritism and guard against waste and fraud.

Competition has additional benefits for equity and fairness. According to a consultant report commissioned by the Berkeley City Council, “minority and women-owned business enterprises” lost out on an estimated $21.7 million in contract dollars with the City of Berkeley between 2016-2019. In general, a fair and open competitive process can encourage additional contractors to seek City contracts, including from historically excluded groups.

This audit focuses on contracts that were not competitive and were subject to the requirements of the Berkeley Municipal Code and the City's Purchasing Manual. We did not evaluate the City’s competitive selection processes or staff’s compliance with them, nor the management of contracts after execution.

Objectives
The objectives of this audit are to address the following questions:

1. How does Berkeley use non-competitive contracts?

2. Why does Berkeley use non-competitive contracts when competition is possible? Scope and Methodology
We reviewed expenditure contracts executed between July 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024 (fiscal year 2024). We also analyzed subsets of all expenditure contracts active in the City’s financial system as of March 6, 2025, including the largest dollar value contracts and service contracts approved at or below the threshold for City Council approval, then later amended to exceed it.

Additionally, we reviewed Berkeley’s laws, policies and procedures related to contracts, researched best practices and other jurisdictions’ policies, and interviewed relevant staff and

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 3 leadership. This audit focused on the City’s contracting processes, and we did not audit ind
ividual contracts or contractors.

Background
Berkeley uses formal and informal competition to select contractors depending on the cost and type of purchase.

Depending on the expected cost and type of purchase, the City uses different formal and informal competition to select a contractor (Table 1).
• Formal competition involves a structured public process. For supplies, equipment and materials, the City Charter requires the City to select the vendor with the lowest bid that meets the City’s criteria after publicly issuing an Invitation for Bids (IFB).

For more complex purchases, such as professional services, the City selects the contractor with the best value based on the criteria set in the posted Request for Proposals (RFP).
• For informal competition, departments are required to reach out directly to at least three contractors for written quotes and then select the contractor with the lowest cost or best value. Informal competition allows for more flexible timelines and does not require City Council approval.

The General Services Division in the Finance Department reviews and processes all purchases of goods and services for the entire City, but staff in each department have a responsibility in purchasing goods and services for their department. The City uses contracts for most services that are not done by City staff, like public artwork and towing, and for specialized goods like fire trucks. The City typically uses simpler purchase orders rather than contracts to buy goods like office furniture and equipment for parks maintenance.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 4 Table 1: City Purchasing Requirements by Price and Type1 Purchase Value Competitive Purchasing Process
Services
Under $5,000 Purchase Order with 3 verbal quotes
$5,000 - $25,000 Purchase Order with informal competition (3 written quotes) $25,000 - $50,000 Contract with informal competition (3 written quotes) Over $50,000 Contract with formal competition (Request for Proposal or Request for Qualifications)
Goods
Under $5,000 Purchase Order with 3 verbal quotes
$5,000 - $100,000 Purchase Order with informal competition (3 written quotes) Over $100,000 Purchase Order or contract with formal competition (Invitation for Bid) Construction
Under $5,000 Purchase Order with 3 verbal quotes
$5,000 - $25,000 Purchase Order with informal competition (3 written quotes) $25,000 - $200,000 Contract with informal competition (3 written quotes) Over $200,000 Contract with formal competition (Invitation for Bid) Source: Auditor analysis of Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual as of end of fiscal year 2024 The benefits of competitive contracts are well-established. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, competitive contracts can save taxpayers money, improve contractor performance, curb fraud, and promote accountability for results. Competition is a critical tool for achieving the best return on the government’s investment. Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual requires all purchases to be made through a competitive process unless they meet specific criteria described in the next section.

In some cases, the City can select a contractor without competition.

Competition is not always possible or appropriate, so City policies allow for non-competitive contracts in specific circumstances, such as when emergency maintenance is needed. In these cases, non-competitive contracts give the City flexibility to respond quickly to emergencies or meet a need where competition is not feasible or practical.

During the audit period, the Purchasing Manual allowed the City Manager to waive the competition requirement for contracts under the cost threshold for formal competition in specific circumstances (Figure 1). Departments could request waivers of competition if there was only one contractor that provided a good or service, or competition was otherwise found to be inadequate. Waivers were also allowed in emergencies when competition was not feasible or practical. The Purchasing Manual also required departments to conduct market research to

1 Solicitation is the process of reaching out to contractors, which ideally results in competition among contractors. We use the term competition to refer to competitive solicitation for simplicity.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 5 justify the business case for the waiver, and whenever possible, avoid requesting items that could o
nly be obtained from a sole or single source.

Figure 1: Purchasing Manual Criteria for Non-Competitive Contracts

Source: Auditor analysis of Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual as of end of fiscal year 2024 City Council can also waive competition for specific contracts or broader categories of purchases. Once a contract is in place, the City can use amendments to increase the dollar amount and extensions to extend the duration of a contract without new competition. Even if the contractor offered the best value when selected, years later, a different contractor may be more affordable or better suited for the City’s needs.

Though non-competitive contracts are sometimes the most appropriate or practical option, if the City over-relies on non-competitive contracts, it runs the risk of:
• Overpaying for services,
• Not getting the best quality service,
• Having fewer opportunities for new and small businesses, including historically marginalized contractors, and
• Creating more opportunities for bribery or corruption between staff, officials, and contractors.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 6 Over 40% of the contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 did not clearly go through competition.

Ninety-four of the 218 contracts executed, or formally approved, in fiscal year 2024 did not have documented competition (Figure 2). The total value of these contracts was approximately $43 million compared to $102 million in competitive contracts. Competitive contracts include both those with formal and informal competition, as well as contracts that piggybacked on other jurisdictions’ contracts.

Figure 2: Berkeley executed 94 contracts in fiscal year (FY) 2024 without documented competition for a total value of $43 million.

Source: Auditor analysis of expenditure contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 from Records Online and Berkeley’s financial system
Berkeley awarded 30 percent of contract dollars without competition in fiscal year 2024.

According to a recent benchmarking survey of public procurement entities from NIGP: The Institute of Public Procurement (NIGP), Berkeley was similar to the median responding jurisdiction, which awarded 30 percent of contract dollars without competition.

City Council authorized 26 non-competitive contracts through Council Resolutions, which made up the majority of the cost associated with non-competitive contracts (Figure 3). The group of non-competitive contracts with the second highest total cost were 15 “other or unclear” contracts. These included contacts that were missing in Records Online, the City’s electronic document repository, or where competition was marked as “not required” on the contract review

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 7 form, such as leases or the City Attorney’s contracts for legal services.2 Most of the non- competitive contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 had a waiver of competition, but that group had the lowest total cost.

Figure 3: Breakdown of non-competitive contracts
Source: Auditor analysis of expenditure contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 from Records Online and Berkeley’s financial system
Note: “Other or unclear” include contracts missing from Records Online, leases, license agreements, contracts with no evidence of competition, or where marked as not required. The dollar amounts for the contracts missing from Records Online are based on data in the City’s financial system.

2 The City Charter (Section 113) and Berkeley Municipal Code (2.56.040) give the City Attorney independent contracting authority for legal services contracts. The Berkeley Municipal Code does not address competition for service contracts, including legal services. Other jurisdictions, such as the City of Santa Monica, as well as California state agencies, explicitly exempt legal services from competitive process requirements.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 8 Berkeley spent millions of dollars on non-
competitive contracts when competition was
likely possible.

We found that most of the City’s largest active expenditure contracts had evidence of competition or of meeting the Purchasing Manual criteria for exceptions, but two non- competitive recycling contracts totaling nearly $85 million did not. Additionally, inconsistent rules may have made it difficult for staff to know when it was appropriate to waive competition.

As a result, 38 percent of waivers in fiscal year 2024 did not clearly meet the criteria set in the Purchasing Manual. City Council authorized additional non-competitive contracts with community-based organizations. Furthermore, service contracts that started at or below the $50,000 formal competition threshold and were later amended increased by an average of $218,026 per contract. We did not audit individual contracts or contractors.

The City authorized nearly $85 million in recycling contracts over 10 years without competition.

In fiscal year 2022, Berkeley executed recycling contracts with the Ecology Center, Inc. and Community Conservation Centers, Inc. for nearly $85 million over ten years without seeking bids from other contractors. Together, the contracts have a not-to-exceed amount of $41,392,377 for fiscal years 2022 through 2026, with optional five-year extensions which would bring to total not-to-exceed amount to $84,599,544 (Figure 4). We found that most of the City’s 100 largest contracts had documented evidence of competition or of meeting the Purchasing Manual criteria for exceptions, but these two recycling contracts did not.3 Berkeley has contracted with the Ecology Center and Community Conservation Centers for recycling services since the 1980s (Appendix 1). A review of public City records since the 1980s found no documented evidence of competition. We reviewed the authorizing Council Resolutions to understand the City’s process for awarding and amending these contracts, but did not audit these individual contracts or contractors. While these contracts may offer the best value or best fit for Berkeley, it is difficult for the City to determine that without open competition among all potential contractors.

3 We reviewed the 100 largest expenditure contracts in the City’s financial system. We found that 22 were likely expired because they had an expiration date before June 30, 2025 in the City’s financial system. The remaining 78 contracts also included one legal services contract, one lease, and one settlement agreement that fell outside the City’s standard expenditure contract process.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 9 Figure 4: The recycling contracts will have a total not-to-exc eed (NTE) of nearly $85 million dollars if the City takes the optional five-year extensions.

Source: Auditor analysis of current recycling contracts Note: NTE stands for “not-to-exceed.” City Council authorizes the City to spend up to that amount on the contract. We did not assess how much the City has spent on each contract.

Prior to authorizing these non-competitive contracts, there were proposals to pursue competition for the City’s recycling services. In 2011, an outside consultant recommended that the City issue an RFP for the recycling materials processing operations performed by Community Conservation Centers, and end the contract with the Ecology Center to have the City take over recycling pick-up. The Zero Waste Commission disagreed with the report’s recommendations citing incomplete and missing information and cost-benefit analyses, and a lack of an adequate and inclusive process. In 2020, Public Works staff requested that City Council authorize an RFP for the recycling processing operations done by Community Conservation Centers, but City Council voted to remove it from the list of proposed RFPs.

According to Public Works staff reports to Council in 2021, third-party reviews found both contractors’ costs reasonable when compared to surrounding communities. The report also stated that both contractors received mostly “satisfied” or “very satisfied” responses to a third- party customer satisfaction survey. Ultimately in 2021, City Council voted to authorize new sole source contracts with both contractors without issuing RFPs.

Although pursuing competition is an established best practice, neither the City Charter nor the Berkeley Municipal Code explicitly required service contracts like these recycling contracts to be competitive (Table 2). The City Charter required purchases of supplies, equipment, and materials above a dollar amount set by the Municipal Code to be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder. It also required City Council to authorize these purchases. The language in the corresponding Municipal Code section only discusses the thresholds for Council approval. $14,090,684
$27,301,693
$15,990,109
$27,217,058
Total NTE: $30,080,793
Total NTE: $54,518,751
Community Conservation Centers, Inc. Ecology Center, Inc.

NTE for fiscal years
2027-2031 (if extended)
NTE for fiscal years
2022-2026

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 10 The Purchasing Manual states service contracts above $50,000 must go through formal competition. However, this policy was not included in the City Charter and Berkeley Municipal Code. In other jurisdictions like Oakland and San Francisco, city codes explicitly require competition for service contracts with some exceptions. During the audit, Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual also said only City Council can waive competition for contracts over the Council approval threshold. However, there was no guidance on how City Council should decide and document these decisions.

Table 2: Neither the City Charter nor the Berkeley Municipal Code explicitly requires service contracts to be competitive.

City Charter Berkeley Municipal Code
Discusses purchases of supplies,
equipment or materials above
BMC threshold but does not
specifically require competition for
service contracts.

Sets thresholds for Council Approval, but does not
discuss competition:
• Public Projects and Facility Improvements -
$200,000
• Supplies, Equipment and Materials - $100,000
• Other Expenditures, which includes services -
$50,000
Source: Berkeley City Charter, Article XI and Berkeley Municipal Code 7.18 It may be reasonable for City Council to waive competition in unique circumstances, but the lack of clear standards allows large contracts to be awarded without competition when they could have been opened to competition. Overusing non-competitive contracts may make it difficult to assess if the City is getting the best value or best fit for goods and services. Berkeley may also be perceived as operating on favoritism.

City management approved some waivers that did not meet the Purchasing Manual criteria.

Thirty-eight percent of waivers City management approved in fiscal year 2024 did not clearly meet the criteria set in the Purchasing Manual at the time, meaning the City could likely have pursued competition under the current policy. For example, Human Resources used six waivers in a month and half, including three for classification and compensation studies. There may have been an urgent need for these services, but the form did not document that this was an emergency. By requesting three waivers for the same service from three different contractors, this indicated that it would have been feasible to request quotes from at least three contractors (Table 3).

In another example, a waiver for drug and alcohol testing cited immediate need because the previous contract had already been expired over two years. However, the long timeframe

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 11 indicates that it was not an emergency. The waiver form even states that the lack of advanced planni
ng does not constitute an immediate need.

Fin
ally, a department requested a waiver for legislative services because the contractor previously worked effectively with the City and had knowledge of the region and the City’s lobbying. However, the rationale did not explain why another firm would be unable to provide the same or better services. The General Services Manager at the time noted on the waiver that the department should consider competing soon.

There were also many cases when the rationale for waivers did meet the Purchasing Manual’s criteria, according to our assessment. For example, the City’s labor contracts require the City to provide staff memberships to the YMCA, therefore the City must contract with the YMCA specifically.

We also found cases when departments unnecessarily completed and attached the waiver of competitive solicitation. In several cases, contract packets included both waivers of competition and City Council approval of the sole-source negotiations of contracts. In another example, a department had already done informal competition. In this case, General Services staff explained that the department already had the necessary documentation and did not need to complete a waiver, creating additional work and confusion.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 12 Table 3: Many waivers met the Purchasing Manual criteria, but 38 percent did not.

Examples that Likely Met the Purchasing Manual Criteria Purchase Department Rationale Why Likely Eligible
Hazardous
Vegetation
Treatments &
Removal
The previous RFP only resulted in
one response. The City needed three
vendors, so awarded two additional
single source contracts while
preparing a new RFP.

Competition inadequate: The
RFP did not attract sufficient
interest. The City needed to
continue the work while taking
steps to attract more responses.

Transfer Station
Rain/Stream
Gauge
The City needs equipment in place at
the transfer station within three
months to comply with a legal
mandate.

Emergency: The City had a
limited time to make the
purchase before facing legal
consequences.

Employee Fitness
Memberships
Labor contracts require the City to
provide staff memberships to the
YMCA.

One viable source: There was
only one source the City could
provide the fitness memberships
that complied with the labor
contracts.

Examples that Likely Did NOT Meet the Purchasing Manual Criteria Purchase Department Rationale Why Likely Ineligible
Classification &
Compensation
Studies
Human Resources had six waivers in a
month and half, including three for
classification and compensation
studies.

All cited a “dire situation” and the fact
that “an informal or formal RFP
process would be further detrimental”
to addressing the situation.

There may have been an urgent
need for these services, but
there was no documented
evidence that it was an
emergency. By requesting three
waivers for the same service
from three vendors, they indicate
that it would have been feasible
to request quotes from at least
three vendors.

Drug
& Alcohol
Testing Services

The previous contract expired over two
years earlier. Publicly competing these
services would create a gap in
services and negatively impact multiple
operational processes.

Since the contract had already
been expired for two years, the
long timeframe indicates it was
not an emergency.

Tailored
Legislative
Funding &
Advocacy
Strategy
The vendor has previously worked
effectively with the City and has
knowledge of the region and the City’s
lobbying.

This does not explain why
another firm would not be able to
provide these services.

Familiarity is not a sufficient
reason for a sole source contract
and can be seen as favoritism.

Additionally, the General
Services Manager noted on the
waiver, "Consider competing in
near future.”
Source: Auditor analysis of contracts with waivers of competitive solicitation in fiscal year 2024 from Records Online

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 13 A potential cause of the inconsistent use of waivers is the fact that, during the audit period, the City’s Purchasing Manual and waiver of competition form had different criteria for when waivers are justified (Table 4). For example, the waiver form had categories for “specialized service” and “immediate need,” which were different than the categories specified in the Purchasing Manual. As a result, inconsistent criteria may have made it difficult for staff to understand when it is appropriate to use a waiver of competitive solicitation. According to the Procurement Excellence Network, document consistency can reduce review time.

Table 4: The categories on the form staff use to request approval for a waiver did not match the criteria in the Purchasing Manual.

Purchasing Manual Waiver of Competition Form
Sole or single source procurement, or
non-competitive solicitation, may only be
used following informal or formal
solicitation when:
• Only one viable source is found for
the needed product or service;
• Competition is found to be
inadequate; or
• There is an emergency and it is
impractical for the City to seek
competitive bids.

Explanation must clearly state why this
exception meets the required criteria.
• Service is very specialized;
• This product or service can only be
provided by this contractor (sole
source);
• This service and/or product must
be provided immediately; or
• Other category. Note: The lack of
advanced planning does not
constitute an immediate need.

Source: Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual and Waiver of Competitive Solicitation form as of the end of fiscal year 2024
City Council authorized additional non-competitive contracts for community-based organizations.

Beyond waivers of competition approved by the City Manager, City Council also authorized non- competitive contracts for community-based organizations through a separate process. In fiscal year 2024, we found three instances where City Council awarded new contracts totaling $417,400 to community-based organizations through budget referrals without any competition.

According to an April 2025 Council item for Resolution 71,719, community-based organizations seeking one-time financial assistance have historically appealed directly to councilmembers to sponsor a budget referral outside of the City's established procurement process. While it is appropriate for the City to contract with community-based organizations, it is important that the process is open and transparent for all community-based organizations and does not privilege certain organizations above others who may be equally or more deserving of financial support. To help address this issue, City Council passed a resolution to establish a more open

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 14 and transparent application process for community-base d organizations to apply for emergency funding.

To promote fair and transparent procurement, it is important that decisions about contracts meet ethical standards to prevent conflicts of interest, but Berkeley's process to do that was li
mited. Berkeley requires certain employees and officials to complete the Form 700 financial interest disclosure form to comply with California state law, which includes disclosure of involvement in non-profit organizations. However, the Form 700 does not collect information about other relationships that may exist, such as friendships, that may bias a decision. In Berkeley, the only contractors required to complete a Form 700 were consultants that make government decisions or act in a staff capacity that would require a Form 700 if that role was held by a City employee. Berkeley’s RFP and RFQ boilerplates also required interested contractors to disclose potential conflicts of interest, but these do not apply to non-competitive contracts.

In comparison, a best practice analysis from Atlanta’s Ethics Office found that requiring potential contractors, in addition to City officials and employees, to continuously disclose relationships, serves as a checks and balance system between the two groups. It also helps maintain compliance and transparency in the government procurement process. In addition to the Form 700, San Francisco requires City officers and employees to publicly disclose any personal, professional, or business relationships with anyone involved in a government decision they make.

Contracts starting below the formal competition threshold were amended by an average of $218,026 per contract without
additional competition.

As of March 2025, the City had 95 active service contracts that began at or below the formal competition threshold of $50,000 but were later amended above the threshold. On average, these amendments added $218,026 in total to each contract. Since these service contracts started below $50,000, they did not require City Council approval or formal competition. The contracts then increased without meeting the requirements for competition that apply to larger dollar values. We found some contracts which originally had waivers of competitive solicitation and were later amended by large amounts. For example, one contract that started at $50,000 was amended to $737,092 over 6 years, nearly 15 times the original cost. All of the service

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 15 contract amendments over $50,000 in our sample received City Council or Board approval,4 as required by the Finance Department. According to Finance staff, there are circumstances when contract amendments are reasonable. To comply with this, staff need clear guidance to understand when amendments are appropriate or when the contract should be re-competed.

While Berkeley’s policy sets dollar thresholds for when a new contract must go through a formal competitive process, there was no documented citywide guidance for when existing contracts should be re-competed rather than amended. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, competitive contracts can help save taxpayers money. When Berkeley relies on existing contractors without competition, the City may lose out on the potential financial benefits of competition. In a sample of 23 amended contracts, 16 contracts (or 70 percent) lasted for over five years. According to the Director of Finance, the general rule is for most contracts to go back out to bid every five to seven years. However, this guidance was not written in the City’s purchasing policy. In fact, Berkeley did not have any published guidance for staff on contract amendments. Standard guidance on when amendments are appropriate and when contracts need to be re-competed could help address confusion about the amendment process that staff shared. Clear expectations may help reduce use of amendments instead of competition.

We also identified three City Attorney contracts for legal services which grew by over 20 times their original amount, including one which started at $50,000 in 2018 and grew to $4,167,000 as of August 2025. Because the City Charter and Berkeley Municipal Code give the City Attorney the authority to enter into legal services contracts,
5 the amendments do not require City Council
approval unlike other City contracts above the Council approval threshold. This different process for the City Attorney's Office does not provide the same level of public oversight and transparency compared to new contracts and contract amendments that are reviewed by City Council at public meetings.

4 In our sample, contracts from the Library and the Rent Board received authorization from their boards rather than City Council.
5 The City Charter (Section 113) and Berkeley Municipal Code (2.56.040) give the City Attorney independent contracting authority for legal services contracts. The Berkeley Municipal Code does not address competition for service contracts, including legal services. Other jurisdictions, such as the City of Santa Monica, as well as California state agencies, explicitly exempt legal services from competitive process requirements. We did not evaluate best practices for competition of legal services contracts.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 16 Recommendations

1.1. To ensure Berkeley is getting the best value for recycling services, we recommend that Public Works pursue open competition on the City’s recycling contracts.

1.2. To ensure large contracts have adequate competition, we recommend City Council work with City management and the City Attorney to propose updates to the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 7.18 to require competition for service contracts that City Council approves.

1.3. To ensure clear standards for waiving competition, we recommend that the Finance Department update the waiver of competitive solicitation form to be consistent with the Purchasing Manual.

1.4. To ensure transparency, we recommend that City management work with the Finance Department, Human Resources, and the City Attorney’s office to strengthen the City’s existing ethical standards, including guidance for City officials, staff, and contractors regarding disclosing personal, professional, and business relationships.

1.5. To ensure City staff have guidance on how to appropriately use amendments, we recommend that the Finance Department develop and distribute written policies and procedures on contract amendments, including when contracts are required to go back out for competition.

1.6. To increase transparency of spending on legal services contracts, we recommend that the City Attorney’s Office regularly report legal services contracts and amendments to City Council.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 17 Paper contracts, unclear guidance, and short
staffing led to delays and overuse of non-
competitive contracts.

During our audit period, Berkeley used paper contracts that needed to be hand-delivered between departments, creating some delays and misplaced contracts. Lack of electronic tracking of waivers or the type of competition used for contracts made it difficult for management to analyze or monitor the use of waivers or analyze competition citywide. Additionally, the Purchasing Manual was missing key guidance, and training for staff was limited. Short staffing and turnover also made it difficult for the City to address these concerns and improve the contract process. Together, these conditions caused delays, errors, and greater reliance on non- competitive contracting to keep City services running.

Berkeley used paper contracts that need to be hand-delivered between departments.

In fiscal year 2024, most of Berkeley’s contracts were still reviewed and signed on paper, meaning staff hand-delivered them to different departments for approvals (Figure 5). During the scope of our audit, Berkeley did not have a comprehensive digital contract management system. In fiscal year 2024, it took an average of 37 days between when the contract was dropped off to General Services and when it was given to the City Clerk's office, according to an internal tracking spreadsheet. Departments conducted additional levels of review prior to it arriving at General Services, meaning the entire process took even longer. 6 6 This does not include the City Attorney review, which is only required when not using a pre-approved contract boilerplate, according to the Purchasing Manual and review form. However, the City Attorney has said they should review all contracts.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 18 Figure 5: Moving paper contracts throughout City Hall created opportunities for de
lays.

Source: Auditor analysis of contract review sheet for new expenditure contracts Some department staff said this outdated process created delays, so they had to use the shorter non-competitive contract process to maintain City services. Some staff stated that they needed to amend a contract or use a waiver of competition for a contract that could have been competed because they needed additional time to complete the full RFP and contract review processes, especially if they were short staffed. One General Services staff member also said that many of the waivers of competition they reviewed came from a lack of planning for future contracts.

However, the waiver form specifically notes that the lack of advanced planning does not constitute an immediate need. If the City continuously amends contracts instead of going out to competition, it could potentially miss out on new contractors and savings. According to the Procurement Excellence Network, streamlining the procurement process is essential to freeing up staff time to focus on improving the performance of programs and services and, in turn, results for residents.

Staff also explained that it was hard to track where a contract was in the review process. Figure 6 shows some locations where staff dropped off paper contracts throughout the routing process.

Contracts awaiting signatures could sit unsigned at staff members’ desks for days while they were out of the office, or could even be misplaced or lost. During our audit, General Services staff found four unsigned contract amendments for $500,000 each sitting in a box under a desk.

The contracts were approved, and the department could spend the money. However, the contracts were not formally amended, so the liability terms of the contract were not finalized.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 19 Figure 6: Staff had to deliver paper contracts between departments.

Source: Auditor photos of Finance Department and the City Clerk contract locations Since the City’s financial system did not track the contract review process, General Services staff created a separate spreadsheet to give departments some insight into where the contract was in the approval process. However, at the start of the audit period, any Berkeley staff member could edit the sheet, leading to the potential for intentional or accidental changes to the information.

This has since been addressed.

While waivers of competition were available in the individual contract file, the City did not centrally track waivers overall in an electronic format nor the type of competition used for contracts, making it difficult for management to understand the use of waivers across all city departments or identify trends over time. Berkeley’s current system makes it very time- consuming to conduct this analysis, especially determining how much money is spent competitively versus non-competitively. For this report, we manually reviewed hundreds of contract PDFs to assess if they were competitive or not. Regular analysis of the City’s spending on purchases is important for supporting management decisions and better oversight of contractor relationships.

The City has begun to explore options for digitizing the contracts process. During our audit, Berkeley adopted DocuSign, a more efficient and trackable digital signature software for some parts of the City’s contracting process, such as approving waivers of competition and extension letters. However, various General Services staff members explained that the software is not set up to effectively manage the full contract review process. Additionally, a cross-departmental team led by the City Manager’s Office is looking into purchasing a digital contract management system to improve the contracting process. However, given the City’s current budget limitations, they want to make sure it provides significant value to the City.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 20 The Purchasing Manual was missing key guidance and training for staff was limited.

Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual was missing sixteen of the minimum necessary parts of a procurement policy manual defined as industry best practices during the audit (Table 5). For example, Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual did not have a definitions section to help ensure that all staff understand the terms referenced in the manual and how they are used in the City of Berkeley. It also did not include a process for suspending or debarring contractors who violate City law or fail to meet contract obligations.

The Purchasing Manual also had limited or conflicting guidance on key purchasing topics.

Information on sole or single-source contracts was separated across three different sections and did not align with the information on the required waiver form itself, making it difficult for staff to know how to use them correctly. There was also no written guidance on amendments or extensions, in the Purchasing Manual or elsewhere, including when they should go back out to competition. There was also very limited guidance on piggybacking or cooperative agreements, which allow staff to use a competitively bid contract from another jurisdiction. Piggybacking could be a way to save staff time while ensuring the best price, but only if staff have appropriate guidance. In our analysis of fiscal year 2024 contracts, departments used different procedures for piggybacked contracts from waivers of competition to authorizing Council Resolutions to no contract at all.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 21 Table 5: Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual was missing key elements, as defined by ind
ustry best practices.

Element
Element Aspects
that are Missing
or Incomplete
Element Aspects
that are Included
Definitions - Defines key terms 1 0
Organizational Structure - Establishes roles and
responsibilities
2 1
Vendor Selection – Provides guidance for
evaluating vendor proposals and developing a
contract
1 5
Specifications – Provides guidance for drafting
specifications to ensure maximum competition
1 0
Ethics – Includes guidelines to ensure the
procurement process is fair and resolve violations
to stated policy
5 2
Personnel – Outlines required qualifications and
training for procurement staff
3 0
Other Initiatives – Provides guidance for
procurement-related initiatives, such as prioritizing
minority and women-owned businesses or local
businesses
3 3
TOTAL 16 11
Source: Auditor analysis of NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement’s Principles and Practices of Public Procurement and the City of Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual as of the end of fiscal year 2024.

Staff in each City department have responsibilities related to purchasing goods and services for their department, but the City did not have clear policies and procedures so that staff could easily navigate the purchasing process. In a listening session hosted by the City Manager in February 2025, some staff members representing most City departments shared that they did not understand the rules of purchasing. This confusion can end up requiring more General Services staff time to either individually walk staff through the process or correct errors once submitted. According to best practices, the Purchasing Manual should simplify, clarify, and reflect the laws governing purchasing in way that is useable for staff across the City. To fill in the gaps from the citywide Purchasing Manual, some departments have created their own manuals to support their staff.

Staff also shared that there were few training opportunities or resources for department staff to learn about the contract process. In addition to a clear Purchasing Manual, it is important that all staff with a role in procurement have a clear and consistent understanding of the rules. Prior to May 2025, contract training was inconsistent. However, between May and July 2025, the Finance Department conducted five contract trainings. The Procurement Excellence Network recommends continuous training and coaching of staff on procurement best practices. Having

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 22 clear, documented policies and procedures also increases consistent application of purchasing rule
s during times of transition or understaffing.

Short staffing and turnover made it more difficult to improve the contract process.

The General Services Division has had repeated vacancies in key positions in the past five years making it difficult to improve the contract process. The General Services Manager position leading the division has been vacant since November 2024 (Figure 7). The Director of Finance is primarily acting in that role after the previous General Services Manager left the City after less than three months. Previously, the Finance Department used a waiver of competition to contract a consultant to cover the position while they hired a full-time staff member. Another key position, the Contract Administrator, was vacant for almost a year until April 2025, and for substantial time prior to 2021. Government finance departments across the country have also struggled to fill purchasing positions. According to a 2022 report from the Government Finance Officers Association, procurement clerks, buyers and purchasing agents are in high demand and have a high ratio of job postings per filled positions. Positions with a relatively higher ratio will take longer to fill since competition for candidates is higher.

Figure 7: Key General Services positions have been repeatedly vacant, especially in the last two years.

Source: Finance Department and auditor review of employee data These Finance Department vacancies strained General Services staff capacity, and they reported taking on the work of these vacant positions in addition to their own responsibilities. The turnover and understaffing made it difficult for General Services staff to review and provide substantive feedback on contract documents, and delayed contracts during our audit period,

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 23 according to staff. Overworked staff may also not be able to appropriately prioritize pro
curements and focus resources on the highest risk purchases, including non-competitive contracts. Short staffing and turnover made it difficult for the division to make changes to improve the contracting process that could limit non-competitive contracts, such as implementing additional training and updating manuals.

Lim
ited General Services staff capacity also means that while the City has started to collect contractor demographic information, they have not had the capacity to complete a formal analysis of this data. City leadership has not determined responsibility for managing demographic data from potential contractors to facilitate data analytics. The analysis could inform changes to the City’s policy to promote fairness and increased competition.

Recommendations

2.1. To increase efficiency and accountability in the contract process, we recommend that City management work with the Finance Department to adopt a comprehensive and integrated electronic contract management system, as funds are available.

2.2. To more easily assess the use of non-competitive contracts, we recommend that the Finance Department track what type of competition is used for each contract and maintain documentation in an accessible format as part of the new contract management system.

2.3. To ensure consistent application of standards, we recommend the Finance Department update the Purchasing Manual and any additional guidance documents for staff to include complete sections on key topics such as amendments, piggybacking, ethics, and suspension or debarment of contractors who engage in misconduct.

2.4. To ensure clarity in the primary guidance on purchasing for all City staff and consistent application of standards, we recommend the Finance Department work with the City Attorney and City management to update the Purchasing Manual with a table of contents, clear definitions, and consistent language and standards across the Purchasing Manual and related forms, boilerplates, templates, and other additional guidance documents.

2.5. To ensure that City staff know how to use the contracting process correctly and efficiently, we recommend that the Finance Department offer and publicize a regular procurement training program for staff from other departments.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 24 2.6. To ensure adequate resource support for City contracts, we recommend that City ma
nagement assess Finance Department staff positions needed to provide oversight and prioritize filling these positions when possible.

2.7. To ensure the City makes progress towards promoting fairness in contracts, we recommend that City management formally assign responsibility for managing the demographic data from potential contractors to facilitate data analytics and implementing prior recommendations related to contractor outreach and the contracting process.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 25 Management Response
We provided a draft of this report to the City Manager, the Finance Department, and the City Attorney for review and comment. City management agreed or partially agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. We generally expect the City to implement audit recommendations within two years of report issuance. City management provided the implementation dates and corrective action plan below. We will be conducting our standard recommendation follow-up process after the audit is issued. We have not yet confirmed to what extent any recommendations may have been implemented prior to the audit release date.

Recommendation 1.1: To ensure Berkeley is getting the best value for recycling services, we recommend that Public Works pursue open competition on the City’s recycling contracts.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: To be determined
Corrective Action Plan: Will assess and develop timeframe for 2026 Recommendation 1.2: To ensure large contracts have adequate competition, we recommend City Council work with City management and the City Attorney to propose updates to the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 7.18 to require competition for service contracts that City Council approves.

Management Response: To be determined
Implementation Date: To be determined
Corrective Action Plan: To be determined
Recommendation 1.3: To ensure clear standards for waiving competition, we recommend that the Finance Department update the waiver of competitive solicitation form to be consistent with the Purchasing Manual.

Management Response: Agree, this was completed in November 2025 Implementation Date: November 2025
Corrective Action Plan: The language in both the Competitive Solicitation Waiver form and the Purchasing Manual has been updated to be consistent.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 26 Recommendation 1.4: To e nsure transparency, we recommend that City management work with the Finance Department, Human Resources, and the City Attorney’s office to strengthen the City’s existing ethical standards, including guidance for City officials, staff, and contractors regarding disclosing personal, professional, and business relationships.

Management Response: Partially agree
Impl
ementation Date: To be determined
Corrective Action Plan: Will incorporate into guidance for staff. Will work on solutions for contractor disclosures but need to determine how best to incorporate given potential enforcement challenges.

Recommendation 1.5: To ensure City staff have guidance on how to appropriately use amendments, we recommend that the Finance Department develop and distribute written policies and procedures on contract amendments, including when contracts are required to go back out for competition.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: November 2025
Corrective Action Plan: This information is in the updated purchasing manual and the contract training class.

Recommendation 1.6: To increase transparency of spending on legal services contracts, we recommend that the City Attorney’s Office regularly report legal services contracts and amendments to City Council.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: April 30, 2026
Corrective Action Plan: The City Attorney’s Office will report new legal services contracts and amendments to the City Council on an annual basis beginning with contracts entered into Q1 2026. The reports will not include any confidential or attorney- client privileged information.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 27 Recommendation 2.1: To i ncrease efficiency and accountability in the contract process, we recommend that City management work with the Finance Department to adopt a comprehensive and integrated electronic contract management system, as funds are available.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: Par
tially implemented July 2025
Corrective Action Plan: Several departments have implemented Docusign for the full contract routing process (about 65% of city contracts). Citywide, Docusign has been adopted for all extension letters and waivers. There are budget and resource constraints to purchasing software that would integrate with the City’s current financial system.

However, a multi departmental work group has been working for several months on bringing electronic contracts management system recommendations to the City Manager for a new system.

Recommendation 2.2: To more easily assess the use of non-competitive contracts, we recommend that the Finance Department track what type of competition is used for each contract and maintain documentation in an accessible format as part of the new contract management system.

Management Response: Partially Agree
Implementation Date: July 2025
Corrective Action Plan: By implementing Docusign for all waivers, the process itself has all the necessary information to track quantity, date, and all approvals. This solution will not add additional steps, time or expense which is helpful given limited resources and financial constraints. We continue to assess for use in potential new systems.

Recommendation 2.3: To ensure consistent application of standards, we recommend the Finance Department update the Purchasing Manual and any additional guidance documents for staff to include complete sections on key topics such as amendments, piggybacking, ethics, and suspension or debarment of contractors who engage in misconduct.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: November 2025
Corrective Action Plan: The updates have been made.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 28 Recommendation 2.4: To ensure clarity in the primary guidance on purchasing for all City staff and consistent application of standards, we recommend the Finance Department work with the City Attorney and City management to update the Purchasing Manual with a table of contents, clear definitions, and consistent language and standards across the Purc hasing
Manual and related forms, boilerplates, templates, and other additional guidance documents.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: Partially implemented
Corrective Action Plan: Ongoing process to improve guidelines and process flows.

Recommendation 2.5: To ensure that City staff know how to use the contracting process correctly and efficiently, we recommend that the Finance Department offer and publicize a regular procurement training program for staff from other departments.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: May 2025
Corrective Action Plan: We have already had several sessions of Contract Training classes and will continue them in 2026.

Recommendation 2.6: To ensure adequate resource support for City contracts, we recommend that City management assess Finance Department staff positions needed to provide oversight and prioritize filling these positions when possible.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: In process
Corrective Action Plan: All vacancies in the Finance Department are in the process of being filled including the General Services Manager and Buyer.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 29 Recommendation 2.7: To ensure the City makes progress towards promoting fairness in contracts, we recommend that City management formally assign responsibility for managing the demographic data from potential contractors to facilitate data analytics and implementing prior recommendations related to contractor outreach and the contracting process.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: Sept
ember 24, 2025
Corrective Action Plan: This was assigned to the DEI Officer.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 30 Methodology and Compliance
To gain an understanding of General Services operations and internal controls, and to achieve our audit objectives, we used the following methodology:
• We reviewed the City Charter, Berkeley Municipal Code, Purchasing Manual, other internal policies and procedures, review forms, and past reports and audits. We also attended one of the contract training sessions offered by the Finance Department. • We compared Berkeley’s practices against published best practices and guidance from organizations such as NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement, the Procurement Excellence Network, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. We also reviewed related audits from other jurisdictions and spoke with the auditors. • We interviewed a range of stakeholders to understand how the contract process works both within General Services and from the perspective of other departments. This included General Services staff and staff from six other city departments regularly involved in the contracts process
Our scope focused on two datasets from the City’s financial system: (1) all expenditure contracts marked as posted in the City’s financial system as of March 6, 2025 and (2) expenditure contracts executed in fiscal year 2024. Since the City’s largest contracts often last years, they likely would not have been captured in our dataset of contracts executed in fiscal year 2024, even though these contracts were active in this year. Therefore, we also reviewed 100 of the City’s largest expenditure contracts in the City’s financial system. We found that 22 were likely expired because they had an expiration date in the City’s financial system before June 30, 2025.

We did not verify if there were cases when the contracts were extended, but the expiration date in the City’s financial system had not been updated. We included only the remaining 78 active contracts in our analysis. Additionally, we identified the largest contracts based on the revised total in the City’s financial system. It is possible the not-to-exceed written in some contracts was greater than what was listed in the financial system depending on variations in how the amount is entered, such as entering only one year’s worth of funds at a time for a multi-year contract.

We did not include purchase orders in our definition of contracts.

We performed a risk assessment of the City’s contract practices and procedures to identify potential internal control weaknesses, including fraud risks, within the context of our audit objectives. This included a review of selected policies and procedures, as well as interviews with internal staff.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 31 The City’s financial system does not indicate the type of competition the City used for each con
tract. Therefore, we used the publicly available contract information in Records Online to determine the competition for all expenditure contracts executed in fisc al year 2024 and the 100
largest active contracts. We reviewed the contract packet for each contract to assess if it was competitive or not, as well as to ensure consistency in contract information between the City’s financial system and the contract itself. We validated the determination of the non-competitive contracts with the responsible department. We did not assess the effectiveness of the competition – i.e., if they received multiple bids – only if the department reported using competition.

We did additional testing of a subset of the contracts identified above. For example, among the contracts from fiscal year 2024 that used waivers of competitive solicitation, we also assessed if they met the Purchasing Manual criteria for waivers. We also analyzed the active service contracts that began at or below $50,000 and were later amended above that threshold. We tested a sample of 25 contracts amended under the City Manager, as well as five additional amended City Attorney contracts, for competition and compliance with policy requirements for review and approval. We also reviewed the Contracts Log spreadsheet managed by the General Services team. For specific contracts, we also reviewed additional documentation from Council Resolutions, Council Items and other documentation.

Data Reliability
We assessed the reliability of the City’s financial system and Records Online data by reviewing it for reasonableness and completeness. We also interviewed staff responsible for managing the systems and inputting the data. We were also able to validate the information across the two systems to ensure the data matched. We identified a few instances of incomplete data, however, we determined that the data is sufficiently reliable to address the audit objectives.

Independence
According to Article XI of the Berkeley Charter, the City Auditor is responsible for countersigning, numbering and registering all contracts for the City of Berkeley. Given updates in technology, in recent years, this responsibility involved no actual oversight as contracts were already executed by the time they reached the City Auditor’s office. The City Auditor’s Office assigned the executed contract a number and recorded it. The City Auditor’s Office did not have a role in reviewing or approving contracts, or ensuring that contracts followed City policy.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 32 In November 2018, the City began using the ERMA financial system, which automatically num
bered all contracts. To reduce redundant steps, the City Auditor officially designated responsibility to countersign contracts as registrant to the Finance Department. In 2024, the City updated the Berkeley Municipal Code (2.24.050.C) to reflect this change.

To reduce the threat to our independence, we limited our work by excluding areas overseen by our office.

Statement of Compliance
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 33 Appendix 1: Timelines of the City’s Recycling
Contracts
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the history of the City’s contracts with the Ecology Center and Community Conservation based on review of authorizing Council Resolutions and other related documents. We reviewed the authorizing Council Resolutions to understand the City’s process for awarding and amending these contracts, but we did not audit these individual contracts or contractors.

Figure 8: Berkeley has contracted with the Ecology Center since the 1980s.

Source: Auditor analysis of Council Resolutions and contract documents on Records Online *The resolutions authorizing the early contracts and amendments did not include dollar amounts, so we were unable to assess the not-to-exceed amount for these contracts.

Note: NTE stands for “not-to-exceed.” City Council authorizes the City to spend up to that amount on the contract. We did not assess whether the City spent the full amount on each contract.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 34 Figure 9: Berkeley has contracted with Community Conservation Centers (CCC) si
nce the 1980s.

Source: Auditor analysis of Council Resolutions and contract documents on Records Online *The resolutions authorizing the early contracts and amendments did not include dollar amounts, so we were unable to assess the not-to-exceed (NTE) amount for these contracts. **We were unable to calculate the contract NTE prior to 2005 due to inconsistent reporting and documentation.
***This is an underestimate of the total cost of this contract, as the original not- to-exceed was the total gross receipts resulting from the sale of the City's recyclable materials minus 7.5 percent of those gross receipts which was to be paid to the City annually. Later amendments added additional one -time payments which account for the reported NTE. We did not analyze or calculate the total gross receipts for this report.

Note: City Council authorizes the City to spend up to that amount on the contract. We did not assess whether the City spent the full amount on each contract.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 35 Appendix 2: Contracts with Waivers Executed
in Fiscal Year 2024
Figure 10 shows the total number of contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 that used a waiver of competition, broken down by department.

Figure 10: Number of non-competitive contracts executed via waiver in fiscal year 2024 by department.

Source: The City's financial system and auditor assessment of contracts in Records Online

12 11
7 5
4 3
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 Cit
y Manager
HR
Public Works
Finance
Fire
HHCS
Library
Planning
Police
Rent Board
City Clerk
IT
Parks, Rec and Waterfront

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 36 Appendix 3: Largest Active Non-Competitive
Contracts
In Table 6, the term “active” refers to the contract’s status in the City’s financial system. The contractor and description also come from the City’s financial system. The contract length in years is based on the expiration date in the City’s financial system as of September 29, 2025. The total contract amount is based on the contract itself and any subsequent amendments as of September 29, 2025.

Table 6: List of non-competitive contracts among the City’s 100 largest active contracts, largest to smallest
Contractor Description
Total
Contract
Length (in
years)
Total Contract
Amount
Met PM
Criteria?

ECOLOGY

CENTER, INC

RESIDENTIAL

RECYCLING

COLLECTION

SERVICES
5 $54,518,752 NO

COMMUNITY

CONSERVATION

CENTER, INC

RESIDENTIAL &

COMMERCIAL

REYCYCLING

OPERATIONS
5 $30,080,783 NO

BAY AREA

COMMUNITY

SERVICES

PATHWAY STAIR
CENTER
8 $15,168,616 YES

EVICTION

DEFENSE
CENTER

HOUSING RETENTION

PROGRAM
5 $8,294,683 YES

BERKELEY

CONVENTION &

VISITOR

TOURISM BSNSS

IMPROV DIST MKTG
SVCS
8 $7,966,000 YES

TELEGRAPH

PROPERTY &

BUSINESS
TELEGRAPH BUS.

IMPROVE DIST.
10 $7,410,024 YES

INSIGHT

HOUSING

INTERM HOUSING AT
SUPER 8 MOTEL
5 $7,295,634 YES

DOWNTOWN

BERKELEY

ASSOCIATION

PROPERTY BASE BID

ASSESSMENT (DPBID)
5 $7,285,257 YES

EBMUD EBMUD PW SEWER

BILLING SERVICES /

COLLECTIONS
10 $6,100,000 YES

MOTOROLA

SOLUTIONS INC

MUNICIPAL LEASE -

RADIO & EQUIPMENT
LEASE
7 $5,818,116 YES

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 37 Contractor Description
Total
Contract
Length (in
years)
Total Contract
Amount
Met PM
Criteria?

RENNE PUBLIC

LAW GROUP

MISCELLANEOUS
SERVICES, NO. 1 - Legal
Services
7 $4,167,000 N/A*
SENTRY

CONTROL

SYSTEMS, INC

PARKING ACCESS &

REVENUE COLL
9 $2,915,355 YES
Source: The City’s financial system and auditor assessment of contracts in Records Online * N/A indicates that we did not assess whether this contract met the Purchasing Manual criteria for com
petition because the City Charter (Section 113) and Berkeley Municipal Code (2.56.040) give the City Attorney independent contracting authority for legal ser vices contracts. The Berkeley Municipal Code
does not address competition for service contracts, including legal services.

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 38 Appendix 4: Active Service Contracts
Amended Over the Threshold for Competition
The contracts listed in Table 7 are the top 10 active service contracts by total dollar value that began at or below the formal competition threshold of $50,000 and were later amended to increase the cost of the contracts. The term “active” refers to the contract’s status in the City’s financial system.

The contractor, department, description, and revised total come from the City’s financial system.

The original total is based on the contract posted in Records Online. The revised total includes any amendments recorded in the financial system as of March 2025.

We did not review the contract file for every contract nor determine which ones were initially competitive. This list is intended to highlight that the amendment process can lead to increases for contracts with no guidance for when competition may be needed.

Table 7: List of ten largest service contracts which began at or below $50,000 and were amended above $50,000 as of March 2025, largest to smallest Contractor Department Description Original
Total
Revised
Total

RENNE PUBLIC

LAW GROUP
City Attorney MISCELLANEOUS
SERVICES, NO. 1 -
Legal Services
$50,000 $4,167,000

BURKE, WILLIAMS
& SORENSEN, LLP
City Attorney EXTERNAL LEGAL

COUNSEL
$10,000 $1,208,266
L.J. KRUSE CO Library BPL HVAC Building
Maintenance
$16,000 $843,020

YOUTH SPIRIT

ARTWORKS
Health, Housing,
and Community
Services

TAY CASE

MANAGEMENT &
LINKAGE SVCS.
$50,000 $737,092

BRISCOE IVESTER
& BAZEL LLP
City Attorney Outside Legal
Counsel re: Ruegg
& Ellsworth v. COB
$30,000 $725,000

CIVICMAKERS,
LLC
IT Coaching & Training
Svcs
$35,000 $529,025

SLOAN SAKAI

YEUNG & WONG
LLP

HR LEGAL SVCS-

LABOR NEGO

SUPPORT
$45,000 $484,587
MSR

MECHANICAL, LLC
Public Works ON-CALL HVAC
SVCS
$50,000 $448,515

ATTHOWE FINE

ART SERVICES
City Manager As-Needed Fine Art
Services
$49,950 $400,000

City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts 39 Contractor Department Description Original
Total
Revised
Total

ACCUTITE

ENVIROMENTAL

ENGINEER
Public Works STORAGE TANK

MAINT & TESTING
$50,000 $382,496
Source: Records Online and the City’s financial system

Mission Statement
Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government.

Contributors
Erin Mullin, Audit Manager
Caitlin Palmer, Audit Manager
Kendle Kuechle, Auditor II
Pauline Miller, Auditor II
Manami Suenaga, Auditor I
Katie Wysong, Auditor I

City Auditor
Jenny Wong

Office of the City Auditor
Phone: (510) 981-6750
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

Copies of our audit reports are available on our website.

Cover photograph by the City Auditor’s Office.

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin (Author), Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Cecillia Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Blackaby (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Entertainment Zone Ordinance

RECOMMENDATION
Refer for drafting to the City Attorney an ordinance enabling entertainment zones in Berkeley:

Refer to the City Manager for the initiation of a merchant stakeholder engagement process and develop entertainment zone management plans for potential zones in the vicinity of the following locations and organizational leads:
● Downtown Downtown Business Association
● Gilman Gilman District Merchants Association
● South Side Telegraph Business Improvement District
● San Pablo University Avenue Association

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On February 11, 2026, the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Tregub/O’Keefe) to send item to Council with a qualified positive recommendation to encourage staff discretion in determining additional zones for entertainment. Vote: All Ayes.

SUMMARY:

Establishing Entertainment Zones would increase foot traffic, stimulate local spending, and support community-building by enabling outdoor events and pedestrian-oriented commercial activity. Initial zones in Downtown, South Side/Telegraph, and Gilman would build on existing arts, food, and entertainment assets to help stimulate and invest in key commercial corridors.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Ordinance Drafting and Management Plan development will require staff time over a multi-month period. Drafting and development should leverage existing allocated resources. Continuing work alongside the entertainment zone leads would be covered

07

by related fees for events and existing allocated resources thus making the program self-funding. No additional funding is anticipated.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Since the 2020 pandemic we have seen far higher store front vacancies than in the years prior to the pandemic. While some corridors have seen improvements since pre- pandemic levels, the citywide average continues to lag behind even the highest of pre- pandemic levels.

The commercial vacancy crisis has hit the entire country, the transition to online work has led many office buildings to remain low. The San Francisco Bay Area has been particularly hard with office vacancies continuing to sit above 20%1. These trends lead to lower overall economic activity. As workers are not moving through spaces as much, they physically pass less businesses, thus spending is down2. We can see this reflected in the city’s real year-over-year sales tax returns. Despite an increase in July 2021, we still see waning returns particularly since the pandemic. 1 https://www.commercialcafe.com/blog/national-office-report/ 2 Dinh, Emily, "Commercial Property Vacancies in American Cities" (2024). University Honors Theses.

Paper 1505. https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.1537

Implementing Entertainment Zones will lead to an increase in pedestrian activity.

Opening businesses to pedestrian pathways leads to an increase in economic activities in those areas3. On top of economic growth, there is an opportunity for community development. Street closures have shown to lead to getting to know neighbours better and walking on the street being more pleasant4.

Designated areas allow for infrastructure for street closures to exist. Support for these areas would allow the city and event planners to create permanent installations to support street events. Such as lowering bollards, street narrowing, and other accommodations.

These are the areas we are proposing to start with entertainment zones:

Downtown Entertainment Zone:

Downtown Berkeley functions as the City’s primary commercial hub. It is represented by the Downtown Business Association founded in 2012 from predecessors dating back to 1989. It represents 187 property owners on the corridor5. The district contains a high share of arts and entertainment uses, 15.3% of all ground-floor commercial space, compared with 4.8% citywide-strengthening its role as a regional destination. The Q4 3 Yoshimura, Yuji, et al. “Street pedestrianization in urban districts: Economic impacts in Spanish cities.” Cities, vol. 120, 1 Jan. 2022, p. 103468, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103468. 4 Kingham, Simon, et al. “Streets for Transport and Health: The Opportunity of a temporary road closure for neighbourhood connection, activity and Wellbeing.” Journal of Transport & Health, vol. 18, Sept. 2020, p. 100872, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100872. 5 https://www.downtownberkeley.com/about/

2024 ground floor commercial vacancy rate was 10.91%, up slightly from 10.78% in 2023 and higher than the 9.9% recorded in 2020.6
South Side Entertainment Zone:

South Side focuses on Telegraph making up a large amount of the city’s student population and businesses targeted towards the student demographic. The corridor has the city’s highest percentage of food & Beverage at 32% of ground floor space. The corridor is represented by the Telegraph Businesses comprising property owners.

Telegraph’s ground floor inventory of retail accounts for 37.2% of the business mix, slightly more than the 31.3% observed citywide. The Q4 2024 ground floor commercial vacancy rate was 9.9%, slightly higher than 2023 (9.3% but much lower than the

17.20% recorded in 2020.6
Gilman Entertainment Zone:

The Gilman District Entertainment Zone is focused around the series found south of Gilman along the low traffic Fourth and Fifth streets. The Gilman commercial district area is represented by the The Gilman District Merchants Association founded as a merchant’s association in 2025. The area has the highest concentration of wineries in the City. Data is not currently available for the ground floor commercial vacancy rate of the neighborhood. However, with the growth of the Gilman District Street Fair and Hammerling First Fridays there is already lots of activity in street events to further invest in.6
San Pablo Area Entertainment Zone:

The San Pablo Area Entertainment Zone is on the road just south of University Avenue.

The zone will be represented by the University Avenue Association founded in 1969.

The San Pablo Area is reported as the entire street from the borders of the city, the area in question is mostly food and beverage businesses. The Q4 2024 ground commercial vacancy has seen a drop in 2024 from 15.55% in 2023 to 7.09% in 2024, this is still above the pre-pandemic level of 4.90% but a trend in the right direction. The retail sales tax has also increased in the last year, up 13% from 2023.6 6https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Attachment2_Commercial%20District%20Dashboard s_2024_Q4.pdf

Each Entertainment Zone will require an individual Management Plan. The Management Plan will be written by the City Manager’s office and will include legal drinking age enforcement system, days and hours of operation of the entertainment zone, types of alcoholic beverages allowed, and the approved cup types.

BACKGROUND
In early American history, consumption of alcohol was common in all manner of places.

Despite the perception of puritanism restricting alcohol availability, there were essentially no towns in which you could not find an establishment or home making a distributing alcohol. While early public consumption laws did exist, they were more targeted at public drunkenness not at public consumption.

In the beginning of the 20th century, the temperance movement had started. States and counties across the country adopted stricter and stricter alcohol controls from banning sales on Sunday to allowing local municipalities to go fully dry.

The 18th amendment was ratified in 1933 and created a comprehensive national prohibition on alcohol. No sales or consumption of any alcoholic drinks were allowed in any public place. This created a nationwide ban on public alcohol consumption, the first of their kind. The 21st amendment would later repeal the 18th, allowing states to regulate their alcohol consumption laws locally. Many states or locals opted to maintain prohibition operating as dry or damp counties and continue to do so to this day.

Modern open container laws became widespread after World War II. Urban renewal pushed to regulate street behaviors and reduce perceived disorder, particularly that of lower-class residents, leading to restrictions on public consumption. Vagrancy-laws failed to take hold and work arounds to target homeless people were written, such as public consumption. The rise of the automobile led to adoption of open-container-in- vehicle laws to discourage drunk driving.

California allowed its counties and municipalities to handle local open container laws while tackling age limitations at the state level. This was enforced with the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) created by constitutional amendment in 1955. Major cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego all enacted bans on public consumption.

In 2023 Senate Bill No. 76 was signed into law. This allowed the City and County of San Francisco to create “Entertainment Zones”. These zones would be designated areas for

businesses to sell alcohol for consumption off premises. Since the bill passed, San Francisco has implemented 15 entertainment zones throughout the city.

In 2024 Senate Bill No. 969 was signed into law. This expanded the Entertainment Zone items statewide. Thus far only two additional cities have implemented them:

Sacramento with two zones and Santa Monica with one. Additional cities in California have begun the process of implementing their own Entertainment Zones under SB 969 such as Oakland, San Jose, Auburn and others.

Entertainment Zones allow for alcoholic beverages to be consumed off the premises of an establishment selling them. Cities must decide the bounds of the entertainment zone by ordinance. The city must have a process or procedure to ensure people consuming alcohol within the zone are of legal drinking age. The following must be established and shared with California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control:

1. A copy of the ordinance establishing (or modifying) the entertainment zone.

2. Information to identify the boundaries of the entertainment zone.

3. The days and hours of operation of the entertainment zone.

4. The types of alcoholic beverages permitted within the entertainment zone.

5. The approved nonglass and nonmetal containers in which alcoholic beverages may be authorized.

The Zones must include at least one business licensed to sell alcohol.

Before enacting the ordinance to create an entertainment zone, the city must notify local law enforcement and request feedback on:

1. Potential health and safety impacts of the entertainment zone

2. The entertainment zone;s boundaries, days and hours of operation, types of alcoholic beverages permitted, and approved containers.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Concentration of events towards transit accessible locations could lower carbon output.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Activating public spaces in commercial districts will streamline special events, encourage arts and cultural programming, facilitate economic cross-pollination across nightlife industries, and attract commercial tenants7.
7 Behmanesh, Hossein, and Andre Brown. “Improving the design and management of temporary events in public spaces by applying urban design criteria.” Journal of Urban Management, 5 July 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2025.06.010.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No Action
The Council could elect not to establish Entertainment Zones and continue to rely on authorizing temporary street closures and special events on a case-by-case basis without creating permanent Entertainment Zones. This option allows flexible targeted activation and would avoid new implementation efforts and costs. However, it requires repeated staff review, provides limited predictability for businesses and residents, and does not support long-term infrastructure investments or sustained activation of public space.

Alternative Economic Development Strategies
The Council could pursue other economic development measures. Such as business assistance programs, zoning adjustments, or corridor marketing efforts, without permitting off-premises alcohol consumption. While these strategies may contribute to commercial recovery, they do not directly address pedestrian activation, cultural programming, or nightlife-related economic cross-pollination at the scale enabled by Entertainment Zones.

CONTACT PERSON
Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120 Attachments:
1: Draft Ordinance
2: Reference Map of Downtown Entertainment Zone
3: Reference Map of South Side Entertainment Zone
4: Reference Map of Gilman Entertainment Zone
5: Reference Map of San Pablo Entertainment Zone
6: San Francisco Entertainment Zone Ordinance
7: San Francisco Front Street Entertainment Zone Management Plan 8: Oakland Entertainment Zone Ordinance

DRAFT ENTERTAINMENT ZONE ORDINANCE

DRAFT CITY OF BERKELEY ENTERTAINMENT ZONE ORDINANCE
I. BMC 13.45.010 – Definitions
A. The following definitions apply in this chapter:

1. "ABC" means the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

2. "Alcoholic beverage" has the same meaning as in California Business and Professions Code section 23004.

3. "City manager" means the city manager or designee.

4. "Entertainment zone" has the same meaning as in California Business and Professions Code section 23039.5.

5. "Entertainment zone event" means a street event during which the consumption of one or more types of alcoholic beverages is authorized on public streets, sidewalks, or public rights-of-way within the boundaries of an entertainment zone established in accordance with this chapter.

6. "Entertainment Zone Activation Plan" means a plan approved by the city manager for the management and regulation of the
entertainment zone and during permitted special events.

7. "Open container" means any bottle, can, glass, jug, box, or other receptacle that is open or has been opened and contains any alcoholic beverage.

II. BMC 13.45.020 - Entertainment zone controls
A. No person shall conduct an entertainment zone event without obtaining a street event permit issued pursuant to chapter 13.44.

B. The issuance of a street event permit for an entertainment zone event does not excuse a person selling alcoholic beverages from complying with all applicable state and local laws and regulations, including the following:

1. ABC license and permitting requirements;

2. California Business and Professions Code sections 23357, 23358, and 23396;

3. All other laws governing the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages;

4. Chapter 13.44;

5. Any conditions attached by the City Manager or designee upon issuance of a street event permit.

C. A person may possess an open container and consume an alcoholic beverage on any public street, sidewalk, or public right-of-way within an

DRAFT ENTERTAINMENT ZONE ORDINANCE
entertainment zone during an entertainment zone event if the open container or alcoholic beverage was purchased from either:

1. A premises that is authorized to permit consumers to leave the premises with open containers for consumption off the premises within an entertainment zone, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 23357, 23358, or 23396; or

2. A person that is authorized by an ABC permit or license to sell alcoholic beverages within the entertainment zone.

III. BMC 13.45.030 - Implementation
A. The city manager has the authority to issue administrative policies for the implementation of this chapter.

B. The city manager shall not issue a street event permit authorizing an entertainment zone event in an entertainment zone before doing the following:

1. Issuing an entertainment zone activation plan that:
a. Establishes a process or procedure to readily identify individuals in possession of alcoholic beverages within the entertainment zone as being 21 years of age or older;
b. Requires any person seeking a street event permit for an entertainment zone event to comply with the applicable
insurance requirements, rules, and regulations; and
c. Imposes requirements not otherwise imposed by state or local law, including additional requirements for permissible
beverage containers, additional restrictions on the hours of operation for entertainment zone events, and other
restrictions on time, place, and manner.

2. Transmitting a copy of this plan to ABC.

3. In consultation with the City Manager’s Office and the Police Department, providing the following information to ABC, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 25690, subdivision (b):
a. A copy of the ordinance establishing or modifying the entertainment zone;
b. Information necessary to identify the boundaries of the entertainment zone;
c. The days and hours of operation of the entertainment zone; d. The types of alcoholic beverages allowed within the
entertainment zone; and
e. The approved non-glass and non-metal containers in which alcoholic beverages may be possessed within the
entertainment zone.

DRAFT ENTERTAINMENT ZONE ORDINANCE
C. Any holder of an ABC license or permit that wishes to allow customers to leave the premises with open containers for consumption off the premises during an entertainment zone event shall provide the city manager with a copy of the notice required under California Business and Professions Code sections 23357, 23358, or 23396, as applicable. The notice shall be provided to the city manager at the same time the notice is provided to ABC.

IV. BMC 13.45.040 – Entertainment Zone Locations
A. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code sections 23039.5 and 25690, the City Council hereby establishes the following entertainment zones, which include adjacent sidewalks, and adjacent premises specified in section 13.45.020.B.1.

1. Downtown Arts District Entertainment Zone. All public streets, sidewalks, and public rights-of-way on: Addison Street from the center of the right-of-way line of Milvia Street to the eastern right-of- way line of Shattuck Avenue; Shattuck Avenue from the center of the right of-way of University Avenue to the southern right-of-way line of Addison Street; Eastern side of Milvia Street from the center of right-of-way of University Avenue to the southern right-of-way of Addison Street; and Southern side of University Avenue from center of the right-of-way on Milvia to eastern right-of-way line of Shattuck Avenue.

2. Gilman District Entertainment Zone. Camelia Street from the eastern right-of-way line of Fifth Street to the eastern right-of-way line of the UPRR right-of-way; Fifth Street from the southern right-of- way line of Camelia Street to the southern right-of-way line of Gilman Street; and Fourth Street from the southern right-of-way line of Page Street to the southern right-of-way line of Gilman Street.

3. Southside Entertainment Zone. Durant Avenue from the eastern right-of-way line of Sather Lane to a delineated line of the eastern edge of Assessor’s Parcel Number 55-1872-14; and Telegraph Avenue from the northern right-of-way line of Durant Avenue to the northern right-of-way line of Channing Way.

4. San Pablo Area Entertainment Zone. San Pablo Avenue from the southern right-of-way line of University Avenue to the northern right- of-way line of Cowper Street.

V. BMC 13.45.050 Hours of an entertainment zone event
An entertainment zone event may only occur between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m., subject to any additional limitations imposed by any of the following:

A. ABC permit or license;

DRAFT ENTERTAINMENT ZONE ORDINANCE
B. The entertainment zone activation plan; or
C. The street event permit for the entertainment zone event.

VI. BMC 13.45.060 Entertainment Zone insurance and indemnity requirements A. Prior to issuance of a street event permit for an entertainment zone event, the permit applicant shall submit evidence of general liability insurance coverage, which must be at no cost to the city, and which must comply with all of the following:

1. The policy limit per occurrence must be in an amount as determined by the city manager;

2. The policy must cover all losses and damages as specified in subsection C of this section;

3. The policy must be endorsed to provide that the city, its officers, employees, and agents are named as additional insureds;

4. The policy must be endorsed to stipulate that the policy will operate as primary insurance and that no other insurance covering the city or other named insured will be called on to contribute to a covered loss; and

5. The policy must include a liquor liability endorsement.

B. No person shall conduct an entertainment zone event without the insurance required by this section being in full force and effect.

C. The street event permit holder shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees from and against all actions, losses, damages, liability, costs, and expenses of every type and description, including attorneys' fees, arising directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from the acts or omissions of the permit holder or its officers, agents, volunteers and employees.

VII. BMC 1345.070 Violation – Penalty
A. In addition to any other remedy allowed by law, any person who violates a provision of this chapter is subject to criminal sanctions, civil actions, and administrative penalties pursuant to BMC Chapter 1.20.

B. Violations of this chapter are hereby declared to be a public nuisance.

C. Any person who violates a provision of this chapter is liable for civil penalties. Amount of the penalty shall be as follows:

1. First violation: up to $500

2. Second violation within one year: up to $1,000

3. Third and subsequent violations within one year: up to $2,500 D. All remedies prescribed under this chapter are cumulative and the election of one or more remedies does not bar the city from the pursuit of any other remedy to enforce this chapter.

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 FILE NO. 240475 ORDINANCE NO.
165-24
[Administrative, Police, Transportation Codes - Entertainment Zones] Ordinance amending the Administrative, Police, and Transportation Codes to allow the establishment and management of Entertainment Zones in which the outdoor consumption of alcoholic beverages during designated events is allowed, subject to certain conditions; to establish insurance requirements for Entertainment Zone events; to establish an Entertainment Zone on Front Street between California Street and Sacramento Street; to allow the outdoor consumption of alcoholic beverages in areas subject to a Shared Space permit where the permit holder also holds a permit or license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and affirming the Planning Department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act.

NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain Arial font.

Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times New Roman font.

Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times ,-,..,le,F Roman font.

Board amendment additions are in double-underlined Arial font.

Board amendment deletions are in strikethrough Arial font.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Code subsections or parts of tables.

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:

Section 1. General Findings.
(a) The COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating impact on San Francisco's restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues. Finding new ways to attract residents, workers, and visitors to our downtown and neighborhood commercial corridors will be critical to the continued recovery of our nightlife sector and our economy.

Mayor Breed; Supervisors Dorsey, Melgar, Engardio, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Mandelman, Stefani BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 (b) Across the country, numerous states, including Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, and Kansas, have found success enlivening communities through the designation of areas where businesses may sell alcoholic beverages for consumption within public spaces adjacent to their licensed premises.
(c) In 2023, the State of California adopted Senate Bill 76, which authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to create by ordinance entertainment zones to enable restaurants and bars to sell open containers of approved alcoholic beverages for consumption during special events.

Section 2. CEQA Findings.

The Planning Department has determined that the actions contemplated in this ordinance comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). Said determination is on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 2404 75 and is incorporated herein by reference. The Board affirms this determination.

Section 3. The Administrative Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 948, consisting of Sections 94B.1 to 94B.4, to read as follows:

CHAPTER 94B. ENTERTAINMENT ZONES
SEC. 94B.1. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Chapter 94B, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "ABC" means the California Department o{Alcoholic Beverage Control. (b) "Entertainment Zone" has the meaning set forth in Section 23039.5 o(the California Business and Professions Code, as may be amended from time to time.

Mayor Breed; Supervisors Dorsey, Melgar, Engardio, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Mandelman, Stefani BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page2

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 {c) "Entertainment Zone Event" means a special event permitted or licensed by ABC that occurs within the boundaries o(an Entertainment Zone established in accordance with this Chapter 94B and within the hours permitted by this Chapter 94B and the Management Plan for the Entertainment Zone.
{d) "Management Plan" means a plan approved by the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) for the management and regulation o(Entertainment Zone Events.

SEC. 94B.2. ENTERTAINMENT ZONE CONTROLS.
(a) All commercial entities and organizations sponsoring or selling alcoholic beverages at an Entertainment Zone Event shall comply with all applicable state and local laws and regulations. including but not limited to the [allowing:
(1) All applicable ABC license and permitting requirements; (2) Sections 23357, 23358, and 23396 o(the California Business and Professions Code, as may be amended from time to time;
(3) All other laws governing the sale and consumption o(alcoholic beverages and any and all permits and licenses issued pursuant thereto;
(4) Transportation Code, Division I. Article 6;
(5) Transportation Code, Division II. Article 200, Sections 205 and 206; and (6) Any applicable Management Plan issued by the Office o(Economic and Workforce Development under this Chapter 94B.
(b) Open alcoholic beverages may be consumed on any public street, avenue, sidewalk. stairway, alley, or thoroughfare within an Entertainment Zone during an Entertainment Zone Event, as set forth in Police Code Section 21. subiect to any other restrictions imposed by state or local law. {c) All open alcoholic beverages consumed during an Entertainment Zone Event shall be purchased only from a premises located within the Entertainment Zone that is authorized under California Business and Professions Code Section 23357, 23358, or 23396, as may be amended from Mayor Breed; Supervisors Dorsey, Melgar, Engardio, Ronen. Safai, Walton, Mandelman, Stefani BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 time to time, to permit consumers to leave the premises with open containers of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises. or an organization that is authorized by an ABC special event permit or license to make such sales within the Entertainment Zone.

SECTION 94B.3. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) Within 90 days of the effective date of this Chapter 94B. OEWD shall issue rules for the implementation of this Chapter. OEWD may revise these rules from time to time as it deems appropriate.
(k) Within 90 days of the establishment or modification o(an Entertainment Zone, OEWD shall do the following:
(I) in consultation with the Police Department. provide the following information to ABC. pursuant to Section 25690 of the California Business and Professions Code:
(A) A copy of the ordinance establishing or modifving the Entertainment Zone; (B) Information as may be necessary to identify the boundaries o(the Entertainment Zone;
(C) The days and hours of operation of the Entertainment Zone; (D) The types of alcoholic beverages permitted within the Entertainment Zone; (E) The approved nonglass and nonmetal containers in which alcoholic beverages may be authorized; and
(2) issue a Management Plan for the Entertainment Zone. as follows:
(A) The Management Plan shall establish a process or procedure to readily identifj; individuals purchasing or consuming alcoholic beverages within the Entertainment Zone as being 21 years of age or older;
(B) The Management Plan shall require that any person or organization seeking a City permit under Division I. Article 6 or Division II. Section 206 of the Transportation Code for an Mayor Breed; Supervisors Dorsey, Melgar, Engardio, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Mandelman, Stefani BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page4

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Entertainment Zone Event shall comply with the insurance requirements applicable to that permit, and all rules and regulations authorized by the Transportation Code; (C) The Management Plan may include requirements not otherwise imposed by state or local law, including but not limited to additional requirements for approved beverage containers, additional restrictions on the hours of operation for Entertainment Zone Events, and other time, place, and manner restrictions; and
(D) Upon issuance or revision ofa Management Plan, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development shall transmit a copy of that Plan to ABC {c) Any holder of an ABC license or permit that wishes to allow customers to leave the premises with open containers of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises during an Entertainment Zone Event shall provide to the Office of Economic and Workforce Development a copy ofthe notice provided to ABC under Section 23357, 23358, or 23396 ofthe California Business and Professions Code, as applicable, at the same time such notice is provided to ABC SEC. 94B.4. FRONT STREET ENTERTAINMENT ZONE.
(a) All public streets, sidewalks and public rights-of way on Front Street between California Street and Sacramento Street are hereby designated as the Front Street Entertainment Zone under Sections 23039.5 and 25690 of the California Business and Professions Code. (b) An Entertainment Zone Event within the Front Street Entertainment Zone must receive a permit for the use of a public street under Transportation Code Division I, Section 6. 6 or 6.16 or Transportation Code Division II. Section 206.
{c) Outdoor consumption of alcoholic beverages within this Entertainment Zone is authorized during any Entertainment Zone Event on any day of the year between the hours of noon and 11:59pm, inclusive, subiect to any additional limitations imposed by any ABC permit or license and by the Management Plan for this Entertainment Zone.

Mayor Breed; Supervisors Dorsey, Melgar, Engardio, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Mandelman, Stefani BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 5

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Section 4. Article 1 of the Police Code is hereby amended by revising Section 21 to read as follows:

SEC. 21. CONSUMING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PUBLIC STREETS, ETC., OR ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW PROHIBITED; PENAL TY. (a) Except as specified in this Section 21. N?J..O person shall consume any alcoholic beverage in any quantity on any public street, avenue, sidewalk, stairway, alley, or thoroughfare within the City and County of San Francisco; nor shall any person consume any alcoholic beverage within 15 feet of any public way or thoroughfare while on a private stairway, doorway, or other private property open to public view without the express or implied permission of the owner, the owner's his agent, or the person in lawful possession thereof;=­ provided, however, th(:J;t !.
{QLtJJ1e provisions of this Section 21 shall not apply to {ll_the interior portion of any private dwelling, habitat, or building,,:_ {)L-te the consumption by persons in the areas herein designated of any duly prescribed and dispensed medication having alcoholic content,,:_ & and (1)_-te those persons consuming alcoholic beverages while viewing a parade for which a permit has been granted pursuant to Section 367 of this Code. &Further, this Section ll__shall not be applicable in the following areas:
il)_those prescribed areas and during such time for which permission for temporary use or occupancy of public streets and appurtenant areas has been granted by:
f--1-f{Al The Board of Supervisors pursuant to the provisions of Section

2. 70 of the Administrative Code;
(-J}{Jll The Department of Public Works pursuant to the provisions of Article 5.2 of the Public Works Code for a business establishment anywhere in San Francisco Mayor Breed; Supervisors Dorsey, Melgar, Engardio, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Mandelman, Stefani BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 6

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 that meets the requirements of a Restaurant or Bar use, defined in Planning Code Section 102, as interpreted by the Zoning Administrator;-&
(J}{Q The Department of Public Works pursuant to the provisions of Article 5.2 of the Public Works Code for a business establishment that had a valid tables and chairs permit and California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control beverage license or permit on the effective date of this Section 21~; and
{D) Any Shared Spaces permit under Administrative Code Chapter 94A where the business establishment holding that permit has a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control beverage license or permit allowing the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the area designated by the Shared Spaces permit; and
(2) Any Entertainment Zone under Administrative Code Chapter 94B during an Entertainment Zone Event.
(d.h) Penalty. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this Section ll_shall be guilty of an infraction, the penalty for which shall be a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100.

Section 5. Division I, Article 6 of the Transportation Code is hereby amended by revising Section 6.7, to read as follows:

SEC. 6.7. CONDITIONS.

Any permission for the temporary use or occupancy of a public street authorized by the City shall be subject to the following conditions:
* * * *
(I) Applicants for permission to hold a street fair on a predominantly commercial street shall comply with the following requirements for insurance coverage. For purposes of this subsection (1), a "predominantly commercial street" shall mean a street block on which at leas Mayor Breed; Supervisors Dorsey, Melgar, Engardio, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Mandelman, Stefani BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 7

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 50% of front footage of private property on the ground floor of the street is used for commercial purposes. A street block shall be measured from street intersection to street intersection, but shall not include any alley intersection. (1) Applicants shall maintain in force, during the full term of the permit, insurance as follows:
(A) General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $500,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Broadform Property Damage, Products and Completed Operations Coverages;
(B) If any vehicles will be operated by the applicant in connection with street fair activities under the permit, Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than $500,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including owned, non-owned and hired auto coverages, as applicable; and (C) If the applicant has employees, Workers' Compensation with Employers' Liability limits not less than $500,000 each accident. (2) General Liability and Automobile Liability Insurance policies shall be endorsed to provide the following:
(A) Name as additional insureds the City and County of San Francisco, its officers, agentsL and employees; and
(B) That such policies are primary insurance to any other insurance available to the Additional Insureds with respect to any claims arising out of activities under the permit, and that insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought.
(3) Certificates of insurance, in format and with insurers satisfactory to the City evidencing all applicable coverages shall be furnished to the City not less than 10 working Mayor Breed; Supervisors Dorsey, Melgar, Engardio, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Mandelman, Stefani BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 8

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 days prior to the date of the event and before commencing any operations under the permit, with complete copies of policies to be furnished to the City upon request. (4) The insurance requirement of this subsection (I) shall be waived by the Board of Supervisors if the applicant certifies in writing that (A) the purpose of the street fair is First Amendment expression and (B) the cost of obtaining insurance is so financially burdensome that it would constitute an unreasonable prior restraint on the right of First Amendment expression, or that it has been impossible for the applicant to obtain insurance coverage.
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (l)(J) of this Section 6. 7, an applicant seeking permission for the temporary use or occupancy of a public street for an Entertainment Zone Event under Administrative Code Chapter 94B shall maintain insurance coverage in a form and amount satisfactory to the City, which shall not be less than the coverage required by subsection (l)(J) of this Section 6. 7.
* * * *
(p) Entertainment Zone Events. In addition to complying with all applicable provisions of this Article 6, any person or organization seeking permission for the temporary use or occupancy of a portion of a public street (or an Entertainment Zone Event as defined in Administrative Code Section 94B.1 shall comply with all a72plicable provisions of Administrative Code Chapter 94B.

Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after enactment. Enactment occurs when the Mayor signs the ordinance, the Mayor returns the ordinance unsigned or does not sign the ordinance within ten days of receiving it, or the Board of Supervisors overrides the Mayor's veto of the ordinance.

Mayor Breed; Supervisors Dorsey, Melgar, Engardio, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Mandelman, Stefani BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 9

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Section 7. Scope of Ordinance. In enacting this ordinance, the Board of Supervisors intends to amend only those words, phrases, paragraphs, subsections, sections, articles, numbers, punctuation marks, charts, diagrams, or any other constituent parts of the Municipal Code that are explicitly shown in this ordinance as additions, deletions, Board amendment additions, and Board amendment deletions in accordance with the "Note" that appears under the official title of the ordinance.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DAVID CHIU, City Attorney
By: /s/ Victoria Wong

VICTORIA WONG
Deputy City Attorney
n :\legana\as2024\2400299\017 56536.docx
Mayor Breed; Supervisors Dorsey, Melgar, Engardio, Ronen, Safai, Walton, Mandelman, Stefani BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 10

City and County of San Francisco
Tails
Ordinance
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
File Number: 240475 Date Passed: June 25, 2024
Ordinance amending the Administrative, Police, and Transportation Codes to allow the establishment and management of Entertainment Zones in which the outdoor consumption of alcoholic beverages during designated events is allowed, subject to certain conditions; to establish insurance requirements for Entertainment Zone events; to establish an Entertainment Zone on Front Street between California Street and Sacramento Street; to allow the outdoor consumption of alcoholic beverages in areas subject to a Shared Space permit where the permit holder also holds a permit or license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and affirming the Planning Department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act.

June 10, 2024 Rules Committee - RECOMMENDED
June 18, 2024 Board of Supervisors - PASSED ON FIRST READING Ayes: 11 - Chan, Dorsey, Engardio, Mandelman, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani and Walton
June 25, 2024 Board of Supervisors - FINALLY PASSED
Ayes: 11 - Chan, Dorsey, Engardio, Mandelman, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani and Walton
File No. 240475
London N. Breed
Mayor
City a11d Cou11ty of Sm, Fm11cisco Page I
I hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance was FINALLY PASSED on
6/25/2024 by the Board of Supervisors of the
City and County of San Francisco.

Angela Calvillo
Clerk of the Board
Date Approved
Pri11ted at 12:09 pm 011 6/26/24

1 Front Street Entertainment Zone Management Plan
Updated March 12, 2025
San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development

SECTION I: SAN FRANCISCO ENTERTAINMENT ZONE PROGRAM OVERVIEW ............................. 2 SECTION II: FRONT STREET ENTERTAINMENT ZONE ORDINANCE ................................................ 2 SECTION III: FRONT STREET ENTERTAINMENT ZONE VISION ......................................................... 3 SECTION IV: ENTERTAINMENT ZONE OPERATING REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 5

2 SECTION I: SAN FRANCISCO ENTERTAINMENT ZONE PROGRAM OVERVIEW

1. About San Francisco Entertainment Zones

Entertainment Zones are designated areas in San Francisco where people can buy open container drinks (alcoholic drinks “to-go”) from local bars, restaurants, wineries, and breweries and enjoy them outside in common spaces like plazas, sidewalks, and streets during certain hours. Learn more at www.sf.gov/entertainmentzones.

2. Program Objectives

Guiding objectives for San Francisco’s Entertainment Zone Program include:

a. Activate commercial corridors downtown and citywide
b. Increase revenue for San Francisco restaurants and bars c. Catalyze broader economic stimulus
d. Ensure equitable distribution of program benefits
e. Amplify the perception of San Francisco as a vibrant cultural hub

SECTION II: FRONT STREET ENTERTAINMENT ZONE ORDINANCE

1. San Francisco Admin. Code Sec. 94B.4

San Francisco Admin. Code Sec. 94B.4 specifies the location, hours, and permit requirements for the Front Street Entertainment Zone.

a. Permissible Area - All public streets, public rights-of-way, and sidewalks on Front Street between California Street and Sacramento Street, and all establishments holding permits or licenses from ABC that are adjacent thereto, are hereby designated as the Front Street Entertainment Zone under Sections 23039.5 and 25690 of the California Business and Professions Code.

b. Permissible Hours - Outdoor consumption of alcoholic beverages within this Entertainment Zone is authorized during any Entertainment Zone Event on any day of the year between the hours of noon and 11:59pm, inclusive, subject to any additional limitations imposed by any ABC permit or license and by the Management Plan for this Entertainment Zone.

c. Street Closure Permit Requirement - An Entertainment Zone Event within the Front Street Entertainment Zone must receive a permit for the use of a public street under Transportation Code Division I, Section 6.6 or 6.16 or Transportation Code Division II, Section 206, or other applicable authority of the SFMTA.

3 SECTION III: FRONT STREET ENTERTAINMENT ZONE VISION

1. Overview

The Front Street Entertainment Zone Operators aim to create a dynamic entertainment destination that reshapes how people perceive downtown San Francisco. Their vision is to establish a flexible urban amenity that caters to both the local community and visitors. See the Front Street Entertainment Zone Vision Rendering in the Appendices (Section V.1). Three main objectives steer their vision:

a. Implement signature special events that draw attention and signal change

b. Offer more frequent and reoccurring events that keep people staying downtown longer and engaging in new ways

c. Create a “third place” that supports impromptu and planned gatherings and entertainment through temporary and permanent streetscape improvements

2. Operators

The Front Street Entertainment Zone is operated in partnership by the following groups:

a. Entertainment Zone Lead

As Entertainment Zone Lead, Downtown SF Partnership coordinates the Participating Businesses and Community Partners to manage the Entertainment Zone in alignment with the Management Plan and serves as the Point of Contact for inquiries (see Section IV.2)

b. Participating Businesses

As participating businesses, Schroeder’s, Harrington’s Bar and Grill, and Royal Exchange may serve open containers for consumption within the Entertainment Zone.

c. Community Partners

As Community Partners, BOMA San Francisco (Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco) and BXP provide input and support on the operation of the Entertainment Zone.

3. Activation and Programming

a. Events
The Front Street Entertainment Zone Operators plan to offer various types of events that cater to a range of interests:
• Signature Events: Special one-day events aim to attract a cross-section of downtown workers and visitors. Examples include celebrations for national or cultural holidays, wine walks, movie screenings, themed parties, art showcases, and dance parties.

Signature events could attract thousands of people over an eight-hour period.

4 • Regular Activation: Recurring events, held monthly or weekly, could include live music performances and games.
b. Design
The Front Street Entertainment Zone Operators aim to enhance the area with low-cost physical and programmatic interventions that cultivate a sense of place and pride. • Physical Improvements: This might involve planters with lush greenery, movable furniture for flexible use, overhead string lighting, branded banners affixed to street poles, and street and wall murals.
• Programmatic Elements: This might include performances by small musical groups, bands, and DJs, along with engaging activities such as ping-pong tables, kid- friendly games, and book readings.
c. Arts, Culture, and Entertainment
The Front Street Entertainment Zone Operators will curate artistic, cultural, and entertainment programming that draws on the district’s layered cultural history to create a welcoming and inclusive experience.

4. Economic Development and Community Benefit
a. Maximizing Economic Benefit for Participating Businesses The Front Street Entertainment Zone Operators will prioritize strategies that enhance economic benefits for brick-and-mortar bars selling open containers, including:
• Placemaking as Economic Development: The proposed activation and programming can draw new customers to Front Street. By creating a clean, safe, and sociable street atmosphere with engaging signature and regular events, the Front Street Entertainment Zone will encourage people to socialize and linger, ultimately benefiting Participating Businesses.
• Media Promotion: The Entertainment Zone Lead will leverage its social media channels and collaborate with the public relations firm BerlinRosen to generate positive media coverage about Front Street's success as California's first Entertainment Zone. This can attract more visitors to boost sales for participating bars. b. Collaboration for Broader Economic Stimulus
The Front Street Entertainment Zone Operators are committed to collaborating with diverse businesses to stimulate economic growth throughout the neighborhood. The Entertainment Zone Lead has a history of collaboration and cross-promotion with ground-floor businesses for event programming and activation.

5 SECTION IV: ENTERTAINMENT ZONE OPERATING REQUIREMENTS

1. Compliance, Modification, and Evaluation

The operating requirements established in this section shall be considered mandatory and binding conditions for the operation of the Front Street Entertainment Zone. Failure to comply with these conditions or the creation of any significant health or safety concerns resulting from the operation of the Entertainment Zone may result in the modification or suspension of the Entertainment Zone.

The Office of Economic and Workforce Development reserves the right to publish an updated management plan with revised operating requirements at any time.

Additionally:

• Any Participating Business holding a liquor license that fails to comply with these operating requirements will be reported to the San Francisco Police Department, which may transmit the information to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Non- compliance could result in the business’s future ineligibility to participate within the Entertainment Zone.

• The San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development will evaluate the Entertainment Zone’s compliance with the conditions of this Management Plan every two years. Both the Entertainment Zone Lead and Participating Business must promptly respond to requests for information during this evaluation process. Failure to meet these conditions may lead to modification or suspension of the Entertainment Zone.

2. Entertainment Zone Lead and Point of Contact

The Entertainment Zone Lead must serve as the designated Point of Contact that should be contacted with inquiries about the operation of the Entertainment Zone. The designated Entertainment Zone Lead and Point of Contact for the Front Street Entertainment Zone is:

Downtown SF Partnership
Address: 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 828
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 415-634-2251

3. Participating Businesses

Only licensed restaurants, bars, breweries, and wineries are eligible to participate in selling open containers for consumption within the Entertainment Zone. The following establishments are confirmed to participate in the Entertainment Zone:

Schroeder’s
Address: 240 Front Street

Harrington’s Bar and Grill
Address: 245 Front Street

6 Royal Exchange
Address: 301 Sacramento Street (with patrons entering the Entertainment Zone only through Royal Exchange’s Front Street entrance)

Any other businesses wishing to participate must notify the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development and the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

4. Location, Hours and Information

a. Location of Operation

Subject to all other applicable requirements, the Front Street Entertainment Zone may operate within the entire area permitted by S.F. Admin Code Sec. 94B.4, Front Street between Sacramento and California Streets. A map can be found in the Appendix (Section V.2).

b. Hours of Operation

The Front Street Entertainment Zone may operate any Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday year-round between 12:00 PM to 11:00 PM, subject to all requirements included in this management plan, including a street closure permit from SFMTA.

Additional "signature events" may be permitted outside these regular operating hours, on any day of the year between 12:00 PM and 11:59 PM with the required permit from SFMTA and prior approval from OEWD.

Businesses may only sell open containers for consumption within the Entertainment Zone during these hours. Businesses are prohibited from selling open containers for consumption within the Entertainment Zone outside these hours.

c. Event Notification

In order to host an Entertainment Zone event, at least 14 days prior to the event the Entertainment Zone Lead must:

• Email notification to all of the following OEWD and SFPD addresses:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

o Email notification must include:
§ event date and hours of operation
§ event name
§ brief description
§ attendance estimate

o The Entertainment Zone Lead must receive confirmation of receipt from OEWD prior to operating the Entertainment Zone for the event.

d. Website

7 The Entertainment Zone Lead must provide the following accurate, up-to-date information on a public website or event page:

● Location and basic information on the operation of the Entertainment Zone ● Calendar or list of upcoming events
● Contact information for the Entertainment Zone Lead
● Link to the City’s dedicated Entertainment Zone web page (www.sf.gov/entertainmentzones) and email address
([email protected])

5. Health and Safety Measures

a. Age Verification

Patrons of all ages may be admitted into the Entertainment Zone. Alcohol-serving businesses may admit patrons under the age of 21 if allowed by their liquor license.

During the duration of any Entertainment Zone event, every patron purchasing an alcoholic beverage for consumption in the Zone or drinking an alcoholic beverage within the Zone must be wearing a wristband identifying them as 21 years of age or over. All of the businesses within the Zone must use a single style of wristband agreed upon prior to the operation of any Entertainment Zone event.

If a patron is not wearing a wristband, staff within licensed businesses may check patrons’ IDs to confirm their age and provide them wristbands. For larger events, staff or volunteers may also choose to check patrons’ IDs and distribute wristbands at the entrances to the Entertainment Zone or other locations within the Zone.

b. Safety and Security

Every business participating within the Entertainment Zone is responsible for the safety and security of their patrons and the surrounding neighborhood. A security plan shall be submitted to the appropriate San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) District Station prior to any Entertainment Zone event, and the SFPD-approved security plan shall be followed during the entirety of the event.

Where Entertainment Zone events follow a recurring format/site plan (i.e., recurring weekday afternoon happy hours), the Entertainment Zone events may operate pursuant to one security plan governing all of the events of that format. For any unique or larger-scale event, a unique security plan shall be submitted to and approved by SFPD prior to the event.

During Entertainment Zone events, each business participating within the Entertainment Zone shall always have at least one staff member on site who is able to provide a copy of this management plan and the approved security plan and is aware of all relevant conditions within these plans.

Within 24 hours of any violent incident, or any time SFPD responds to a call for service at or within the Entertainment Zone, any business connected to that incident or call for service,

8 or the permit holder of the SFMTA street closure permit for the Entertainment Zone, shall complete and send an incident report to their SFPD District Station Permit Officer.

c. Signage

The boundaries of the Entertainment Zone must be clearly marked by easily visible signage posted at every intersection around the perimeter of the zone. This signage must instruct patrons not to carry alcoholic beverages outside the Entertainment Zone (e.g., “No Alcoholic Beverages Beyond This Point”).

Signs must be illuminated well enough to be sufficiently visible during nighttime hours of the Zone’s operation.

6. Cup Requirements

a. Material

A licensed business within the Zone must serve any alcoholic beverage for consumption in the Zone in a compostable or reusable cup.

A business may not serve any alcoholic beverage for consumption in the Zone in any metal or glass container.

b. Disposal

The Entertainment Zone Lead or Participating Businesses will provide receptacles sufficient for patrons to dispose of their compostable cups or return their reusable cups before exiting the Entertainment Zone.

7. Permits

a. Street Closure Permit

An Entertainment Zone event may only be held in conjunction with an approved street closure permit issued through the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation (ISCOTT). The operation of the Entertainment Zone shall be subject to any conditions imposed upon the street closure permit.

8. Insurance

The holder of the street closure permit shall maintain sufficient insurance as required by ISCOTT during the operation of any Entertainment Zone event.

9 SECTION V: APPENDICES

1. Front Street Entertainment Zone Map and Existing Infrastructure

10

11

12 2. Front Street Entertainment Zone Vision Rendering

Rendering courtesy of Gensler

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council and Members of the Public FROM: At-Large Councilmember Rowena Brown
SUBJECT: Town Alive: Economic Activation Zones DATE: November 13, 2025

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt The Following Pieces Of Legislation:
(A) A RESOLUTION (1) ESTABLISHING ECONOMIC ACTIVATION ZONES UNDER THE

TOWN ALIVE PROGRAM TO SUPPORT ENTERTAINMENT ZONES AND

RESPONSIBLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) ACTIVATION ZONES IN THE CITY

OF OAKLAND, BRINGING INNOVATIVE PROGRAMMING TO PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SPACES; AND (2) AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO

AWARD, NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE

OAKLAND FUND FOR PUBLIC INNOVATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) TO IMPLEMENT THE TOWN ALIVE PROGRAM FOR A TWO-YEAR TERM FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2025, THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2027
(B) AN ORDINANCE (1) ADDING CHAPTER 9.54 OF TITLE 9 OF THE OAKLAND

MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH AND REGULATE ENTERTAINMENT ZONES PURSUANT TO SB 969 (2024) TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC ACTIVATION; (2) MAKING OTHER CONFORMING CHANGES TO SECTIONS 9.08.180 AND 9.08.190 OF THE OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE; (3) CLASSIFYING AN ENTERTAINMENT ZONE

EVENT AS A TIER TWO OR TIER THREE SPECIAL EVENT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 9.52 OF THE OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE; AND (4) ADOPTING

APPROPRIATE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town Alive initiative establishes Economic Activation Zones—designated areas that re-energize Oakland’s public spaces, strengthen small businesses, and connect residents to innovation opportunities.

The program launches with two pilot components:
1

1. Entertainment Zones to activate commercial corridors with family-friendly outdoor events and cultural festivals

2. Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) Activation Zones to foster equitable, community-based innovation and create hubs for community-based AI programming Together, these pilots make Oakland’s economy more vibrant, inclusive, and future-ready.

The proposed pieces of legislation formally launch the Town Alive initiative; enable four pilot Entertainment Zones (Jack London District, Broadway Valdez/Northlake District, Temescal District, and Uptown Downtown), which permit outdoor alcohol consumption as authorized by Senate Bill 969 (2024); and authorize $1,000,000 in grant funding to provide initial support for programming across Oakland, administered by the Oakland Fund for Public Innovation.

BACKGROUND / LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, Oakland has been rebuilding its local economy to address several significant challenges, such as employment recovery, downtown revitalization, consumer confidence, and tourism generation. Many of our commercial corridors are in particular need of structured opportunities for economic and cultural activation.

Town Alive bridges that gap by:
● Reviving local commercial corridors through safe, family-friendly programming. ● Partnering with community institutions to expand access to the growing responsible AI economy.

Oakland’s economic recovery depends on reconnecting people to places—and ensuring innovation benefits every neighborhood.

Entertainment Zones Under Senate Bill 969
Senate Bill (SB) 969 (Weiner, 2024) authorizes cities to establish designated “entertainment zones” where to-go alcoholic beverages from licensed bars, restaurants, breweries, and wineries may be consumed in public streets, sidewalks, or other public rights-of-way during permitted special events. Cities across California—including San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica, and Sacramento—have already established or launched Entertainment Zones to support local businesses, activate commercial corridors, and enhance cultural life.

SB 969 requires a city, county, or city and county that establishes an entertainment zone to (1) establish a process or procedure by which persons in possession of alcoholic beverages in the entertainment zone may be readily identifiable as being 21 years of age or older; and (2) provide to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) a copy of the ordinance establishing or modifying the entertainment zone and identifying the entertainment zone’s boundaries, days and hours of operation, types of alcoholic beverages permitted, and approved non-glass and nonmetal containers, pursuant to Section 25690 of the California Business and Professions Code.

Before enacting an ordinance to establish or modify an entertainment zone, a city, county, or city and county shall notify local law enforcement and request feedback about both of the following:
(1) potential health and safety impacts that might be generated by the entertainment zone and strategies to mitigate those impacts; and (2) the entertainment zone’s proposed boundaries, days and hours of operation, types of alcoholic beverages permitted, and approved non-glass and nonmetal containers, pursuant to Section 25692 of the California Business and Professions Code.
2

SB 969 requires that a city that establishes an entertainment zone, or its designated subordinate officer or body, shall review the operation of the entertainment zone every two years following the adoption of the entertainment zone to ensure that the entertainment zone is being maintained in a manner that protects the health and safety of the general public.

Responsible AI
AI is technology that can perform tasks that would normally require human intelligence. The pace of AI adoption and commercialization has increased significantly in recent years. Current estimates count tens of thousands of AI-related companies worldwide, as startups and existing businesses work to build products spanning the spectrum from narrow daily tools to large generative models.

Private investment in AI crossed the $100 billion mark in 2024 and accounted for a major share of global venture capital, with generative AI companies receiving particular focus. Business adoption has increased as well, with surveys showing AI use by organizations jumping from about 55% in 2023 to roughly 78% in 2024.

AI has also spurred a historic amount of policy and legislation compared to past emerging technologies. At the state level alone, over 1,600 AI bills have been proposed nationwide since 2019.

Responsible AI refers to the use of AI systems in ways that are ethical, transparent, accountable, and aligned with community wellbeing. Responsible AI presents the opportunity to leverage the rapid development of AI to advance Oakland’s economic and community development goals and transform how the City delivers services.

ANALYSIS AND POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Entertainment Zones
Entertainment Zones will create opportunities for outdoor gatherings, performances, and cultural festivals in Oakland’s commercial corridors to celebrate Oakland’s diversity and creativity.

Utilizing SB 969 (as detailed above), adjacent bars and restaurants will be permitted to sell alcohol in to-go containers for on-site consumption within the designated zones during permitted events. Entertainment Zone programming is proposed to launch in summer 2026.

Implementation Landscape
Several jurisdictions across the state have already launched Entertainment Zones to revitalize their commercial corridors:

City Program Status Key Features
San Francisco It was the first City to receive
state authorization and
launched its program in June
2024. Now has 21
Entertainment Zones.

Includes Chase Center,
Valencia St, Front St, and
Fisherman’s Wharf zones
San Jose Established Entertainment Location selection prioritized 3

Zones in June 2025. existing pedestrian-friendly
spaces, like the Post Street
Pedestrian Mall.

Santa Monica Established the Third Street
Promenade Entertainment
Zone in May 2025.

The Entertainment Zone has
standard hours every
weekend, and isn’t reliant on
specific events.

Sacramento Established three
Entertainment Zones in June
2025.

Includes an Entertainment
Zone surrounding the city’s
Convention Center.

Pilot Entertainment Zone Locations
To promote public safety, maintain manageable capacity, and effectively test the model, Oakland will launch four pilot Entertainment Zones. Potential locations were evaluated based on the following criteria:
● Concentration of bars and restaurants that serve alcohol ● Potential Entertainment Zone lead organizer has a strong track record of hosting similar events in the neighborhood
● Geography that easily enables street and/or plaza closures ● Impacts to public transit & alternatives for traffic diversion ● Public safety impacts
The four pilot locations are:
● Jack London District (D2 & D3)
● Broadway Valdez/Northlake District (D3)
● Temescal District (D1)
● Uptown Downtown (D3)
Precise zone boundaries are depicted in Attachment A.

Future Entertainment Zone Locations
Any neighborhood commercial corridor in Oakland can become an Entertainment Zone in the future.

Beginning in 2026, new Entertainment Zones will be designated through the following process:

1. Contacting their Councilmember and the Economic & Workforce Development Department (EWD) to begin the process

2. Receiving City Council approval by ordinance establishing the zone

3. Developing a Management Plan with EWD outlining programming, safety, and operations

4. Applying for Entertainment Zone event funding (if applicable) 4

Management Plans
Management Plans are tailored plans for each Entertainment Zone to establish location-specific requirements for operations, public health, and public safety during Entertainment Zone events.

The plans will be produced by the Economic & Workforce Development Department and the lead community partner for the Entertainment Zone (e.g., a Business Improvement District), in collaboration with community partners and relevant City departments.

Management Plans will include:
● The lead community partner for the Entertainment Zone and businesses that will be selling to-go alcoholic drinks in the Zone
● A description of the potential programming to activate the Zone ● The precise Zone boundaries, hours, advance notice window and other logistical details ● Measures to ensure public health and public safety at events ● Procedures for ensuring that anyone in the Entertainment Zone with alcohol is at least 21 years old
● Requirements for uniform cups for outdoor alcohol consumption ● City permits that apply to the Zone’s proposed programming Several peer cities also require Management Plans for their Entertainment Zones, including San Francisco and Santa Monica.

Responsible AI Activation Zones
The City of Oakland recognizes the growing role of Responsible AI and emerging technologies in shaping economic opportunity, workforce development, and public service delivery.

Responsible AI Activation Zones will serve as physical and programmatic hubs to advance equitable, community-based AI innovation, ensuring that AI technologies are developed, implemented, and governed in alignment with Oakland’s values of equity, transparency, and inclusion.

Programming within the Responsible AI Activation Zones will connect residents, students, and small businesses to opportunities in the technology sector, including:
● Community education events and professional conferences ● Civic technology pilots
● Student internships & showcases
● Small business support for responsible AI adoption
● Workforce development programs
Programming will prioritize preparing local workers, especially those from historically disadvantaged communities, for opportunities in AI-related and impacted industries, ensuring that the economic benefits of AI are shared equitably, mitigating negative impacts, and promoting digital literacy.

Programs will be led and coordinated through the Oakland Fund for Public Innovation (OFPI), in pa
rtnership with Laney College, the Unity Council’s Unity Tech Hub, and Mills College at Northeastern University, providing citywide access to resources and training. 5

Programming Partners
Responsible AI Zone programming will be located in three hubs across the city, which will host community programming:
● Laney College: Laney College launched the first Applied AI program in California, and anchors an area adjacent to downtown that includes the Oakland Museum of California and the Henry J. Kaiser Center for the Arts.
● Unity Tech Hub: The Unity Tech Hub is a partnership between the Unity Council and Google to increase community access to tech education, workforce development, and business development. The Unity Tech Hub will ensure access for Central Oakland neighborhoods to programming.
● Mills College at Northeastern University: Mills at Northeastern already hosts several AI initiatives, including the Bridge to AI program for Oakland Unified School District students, and partnerships with the business community. Mills at Northeastern will ensure access for East Oakland neighborhoods to programming.

Oakland Fund for Public Innovation
OFPI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to improve the prosperity, safety, and quality of life for all Oaklanders by establishing innovative public-private partnerships in our most vulnerable communities. OFPI achieves its mission by partnering with government agencies to pilot new strategies to meet the needs of Oaklanders, and by scaling the most promising solutions
OFPI’s mission and approach are strongly aligned with the vision for the Town Alive program.

OFPI is proposed to be the project manager for program implementation, which will entail:
● Serving as the fiscal sponsor for the program, receiving and managing funds in accordance with nonprofit accounting and compliance standards, including disbursements, contracting, and reporting
● Supporting program design, curriculum development, and project management in coordination with City departments
● Hiring and supervising a Program Manager, who will be employed through OFPI and dedicated to advancing the Town Alive program, particularly stewarding the development of the Responsible AI Activation Zones
● Supporting future fundraising efforts, in partnership with the Kapor Foundation, which works to ensure equitable access to the technology industry, to sustain and expand the Town Alive program

FISCAL IMPACT
On June 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90827 C.M.S., which approved the FY 2025–2027 Biennial Budget, including One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for “Economic Opportunity Zones” across two years with Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) in each year. The proposed legislation will support initial Town Alive programming with these funds.

Funding for “Economic Opportunity Zones” is available in the General Purpose Fund (1010), Economic Development Organization (85411), Third-Party: Grant Contracts Earned Account (54912), Entertainment & Activate Project (1008217), Administration Program (IP03). 6

The funding will include an allowable administrative fee not to exceed Ten Percent (10%) or One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) and a program management fee not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) total over the two years.

Program FY26 Budget FY27 Budget Total
Entertainment Zones $100,000 $300,000 $400,000
AI Activation Zones $250,000 Fundraise $250,000
Program Manager $125,000 $125,000 $250,000
Administrative Costs
(10%)
$50,000 $50,000 $100,000
Total $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000

PUBLIC OUTREACH / INTEREST
Councilmember Brown’s office has engaged extensively with community members and community partners in developing this proposal over the last six months via direct meetings, including ongoing collaboration with potential Entertainment Zone lead organizations and Responsible AI Activation Zone programming partners.

COORDINATION
Councilmember Brown’s office consulted with the City Administrator’s Office, Economic and Workforce Development Department, Department of Transportation, Public Works Department, Police Department, Planning & Building Department, City Attorney’s Office, and the Port of Oakland to develop this legislation.

SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: The Town Alive program will energize local commercial corridors and expand access to the responsible AI economy. This initiative implements a two-pronged strategy to advance Oakland’s continued economic recovery by supporting small businesses, increasing tax revenue, and offering new workforce development opportunities.

Environmental: At present, AI is incredibly energy- and water-intensive, and AI data centers also have negative local environmental impacts on neighboring communities, such as air and noise pollution. As the City increases its use of AI to improve services and works to ensure equitable access for Oaklanders to economic opportunities in the AI sector, it will be imperative to collaborate with state and federal government partners on legislation and regulations to address the environmental impacts of AI.

Race & Equity: Enter
tainment Zones will strengthen small businesses and revitalize Oakland’s commercial corridors. As the program expands citywide, it will create greater economic opportunity for businesses owned by historically disadvantaged communities— improving outcomes in entrepreneurship, employment, and neighborhood vitality. Energizing 7

these corridors will also drive tax growth, helping sustain and expand key City services that advance equity across multiple areas, including economic development, housing, public health, education, public safety, environmental quality, and transportation. Similarly,Responsible AI Activation Zones will promote equitable access to one of the fastest-growing sectors of the economy. These zones will help close gaps in education, income, and wealth—mitigating downstream inequities that affect overall community wellbeing. Finally, the City must continue to collaborate with state and federal partners to address the racialized environmental impacts emerging from the global proliferation of AI technologies.

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Adopt The Following Pieces Of Legislation:
(A) A RESOLUTION (1) ESTABLISHING ECONOMIC ACTIVATION ZONES UNDER THE

TOWN ALIVE PROGRAM TO SUPPORT ENTERTAINMENT ZONES AND

RESPONSIBLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) ACTIVATION ZONES IN THE CITY

OF OAKLAND, BRINGING INNOVATIVE PROGRAMMING TO PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SPACES; AND (2) AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO

AWARD, NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE

OAKLAND FUND FOR PUBLIC INNOVATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) TO IMPLEMENT THE TOWN ALIVE PROGRAM FOR A TWO-YEAR TERM FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2025, THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2027
(B)AN ORDINANCE (1) ADDING CHAPTER 9.54 OF TITLE 9 OF THE OAKLAND

MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH AND REGULATE ENTERTAINMENT ZONES PURSUANT TO SB 969 (2024) TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC ACTIVATION; (2) MAKING OTHER CONFORMING CHANGES TO SECTIONS 9.08.180 AND 9.08.190 OF THE OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE; (3) CLASSIFYING AN ENTERTAINMENT ZONE

EVENT AS A TIER TWO OR TIER THREE SPECIAL EVENT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 9.52 OF THE OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE; AND (4) ADOPTING

APPROPRIATE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS For questions regarding this report, please contact Chiamaka Ogwuegbu, Policy Director for At-Large Councilmember Rowena Brown, at [email protected].

Respectfully submitted,
Rowena Brown
City of Oakland, Councilmember At Large
Attachments (3):

Attachment A: Entertainment Zone Maps
Attachment B: Town Alive Program Summary
Attachment C: City of Oakland AI Equity Statement
8

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 1 CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author) and Councilmember Igor Tregub (Co-Author) Subject: The Berkeley Rule: Artificial Intelligence Municipal Framework

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a resolution which affirms Berkeley’s commitment to innovation in service of liberty, dignity, and the public good.

2. The City hereby endorses “The Berkeley Rule” and encourages City staff, commissions, and community partners to consider its Ten Principles in the planning, evaluation, and oversight of artificial intelligence systems. The Berkeley Rule: Put Residents First; Modernize City Services; Empower the Community; Ensure Transparency and Accountability; Standardize Operations; Certify Ethical Use; Protect and Prepare Our Workforce; Defend Civil Liberties; Social Advancement and Accessibility; and Catalyze Civic Wealth. The principles are meant to encourage the Artificial Intelligence (AI) industry to develop products and services aligned with these goals.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On January 28, 2026, the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Taplin/Tregub) to send the item to Council with a positive recommendation, and that items 3 and 4 in the recommendation be amended to be less prescriptive.. Vote: All Ayes.

BACKGROUND
The Berkeley Rule serves as a mental model for City staff, guiding effective, ethical AI deployment in municipal operations. This framework also signals to the private sector the AI tools and innovations Berkeley seeks to procure and pilot for municipal challenges.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to computer systems and robotics technologies, including autonomous or semi-autonomous machines, that perform tasks typically requiring human intelligence, movement, or judgment. This includes, but is not limited to: recognizing speech, interpreting images, decision-support

08

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 2 systems, independent analysis of information, generating text and images, and performing physical tasks through autonomous movement, manipulation, or interaction with the environment.

More specifically, AI systems use large datasets and advanced algorithms to identify patterns, make predictions, or generate content based on input data. Generative AI, a rapidly growing family of AI models, powers tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, Llama, and Gemini, which generates human-like text, images, or code. AI is having widespread impact across sectors. In government, it is being used to streamline service delivery, detect fraud, assist in emergency response, and analyze infrastructure maintenance needs. According to a 2023 report by the McKinsey Global Institute, generative AI could add up to $4.4 trillion annually to the global economy, while also reshaping labor markets and intensifying debates around fairness, transparency, and data privacy.1 In the public sector, cities like New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. are beginning to implement AI use policies that emphasize accountability, human oversight, and equity.2
The adoption of AI technologies is rapidly expanding, with an increasing number of individuals incorporating AI into their daily lives. According to a 2024 report by Statista, nearly 40% of Americans reported using AI-powered tools, such as virtual assistants, search engines, or recommendation systems, daily.3 Furthermore, a 2024 survey by McKinsey found that 65% of businesses are already utilizing AI in some capacity, with significant integration into customer service, data analysis, and process automation.4 These figures indicate that AI is not only being widely adopted by consumers but also becoming integral to various sectors, highlighting its broad utility and growing presence. Additionally, the AI services market is projected to reach $243 billion by 2025, highlighting the increasing reliance on AI across industries.5 A significant 25% of enterprises are expected to deploy AI agents this year, demonstrating the growing adoption of AI-driven solutions to improve efficiency and decision-making.6 McKinsey’s 2023 report reveals that nearly half (49%) of tech leaders now say AI is fully integrated into their business 1 McKinsey & Company. The Economic Potential of Generative AI: The Next Productivity Frontier. June 2023. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-economic-potential-of-generative-ai-the-next- productivity-frontier.
2 City of New York. AI Action Plan. 2023 https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oti/downloads/pdf/reports/artificial-intelligence-action-plan.pdf 3 Statista. (2024). Percentage of U.S. population using AI tools regularly. https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1480449/ai-tools- popularity-share-usa-adults
4 McKinsey & Company. (2024). State of AI in Busineshttps://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state- of-ai-2024
5 Marr, B. (2025, March 10). 15 Mind-Blowing AI Statistics Everyone Must Know About Now. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2025/03/10/15-mind-blowing-ai-statistics-everyone-must-know-about-now/ 6 Marr, B. (2025, March 10). 15 Mind-Blowing AI Statistics Everyone Must Know About Now. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2025/03/10/15-mind-blowing-ai-statistics-everyone-must-know-about-now/

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 3 strategy, a clear indication of its essential role in modern organizational operations.7 This widespread integration reflects the remarkable increases in AI usage, with enterprises harnessing its potential to streamline operations, enhance customer experiences, and drive growth.

The global AI market is projected to grow from $208 billion in 2023 to $1.85 trillion by 2030,8 and over 65% of organizations worldwide are expected to adopt AI by 2024, a significant increase from just 20% in 2017.9 Cities are already utilizing AI technologies in areas such as law enforcement, traffic management, and tenant screening, with over 40 major U.S. cities employing tools like predictive policing, automated license plate readers, and AI-powered chatbots, often without adequate oversight.10 While the White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights and NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework offer valuable guidance on AI governance, neither provides enforcement mechanisms.11 Additionally, over 45 states are now drafting or debating AI-specific legislation, signaling the growing need for formal regulation.12
As AI technology rapidly evolves, public and private institutions continue to develop coherent policies and frameworks. At the same time, public sentiment reveals growing concerns that aren’t always reflected in the integration and use of AI. For example, in the YouGov13 poll on AI regulation, many U.S. citizens still believe that there should be more regulation of AI. Accordingly, policy should meet the public’s demand for proactive, growth-oriented regulation, while avoiding federal pre-emption. 7 McKinsey & Company. (2023). The State of AI. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai 8 Artificial Intelligence - Worldwide ttps://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/worldwide 9 McKinsey & Company. (2024)). The State of AI.https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai- 2024
10 Brookings Institution (2023). The Geography of AI: Which Cities Will Drive the Artificial Intelligence Revolution? https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3933815 11 The White House. (2022). Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/ 12 National Conference of State Legislatures. (2023). State Artificial Intelligence Legislation. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and- communication/artificial-intelligence-2024-legislation
13 Orth, Taylor. “Americans Are Divided on AI’s Societal Impact, but Most Support Government Regulation.” YouGov, May 25, 2023https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45747-americans-are-divided-artificial-intelligence-poll

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 4 14
AI Alignment
AI alignment is the process of incorporating human values and public goals into artificial intelligence systems to ensure they operate safely, ethically, and as intended.15 Alignment helps mitigate unintended consequences, ensuring that AI systems operate as intended and are consistent with human values and goals. For example, if one were to ask a generative AI chatbot how to build a weapon, it may either respond with instructions or refuse to provide potentially dangerous information. Unlike older logic-based AI and software approaches whose responses are manually coded by human programmers, a modern machine learning based AI model's response is determined by how the creators arranged it. In addition, modern AI systems learn from vast amounts of data based on how people behave online. That data reflects real human beliefs and habits, including many conscious and unconscious biases. As a result, today’s AI systems can only be guided in general terms rather than precisely aligned with human values.

While using human-like language can help us understand how AI systems work, it may also lead to distorted notions about AI's capabilities.16
Any municipal AI framework should incorporate principles of alignment and transparency. A major challenge is that, since nearly every principle conflicts with others, nontrivial processes are needed to resolve contradictions that confront AI Alignment.17 Deployments of AI systems should specify such processes.
14 Orth, Taylor. “Americans Are Divided on AI’s Societal Impact, but Most Support Government Regulation.”YouGov, May 25, 2023. https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45747-americans-are-divided-artificial-intelligence-poll 15 Jonker, Alexandra, and Alice Gomstyn. “What Is AI Alignment?” IBM, April 17, 2025. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai- alignment.
16 De Kai. Raising AI: An Essential Guide to Parenting Our Future. 2025. MIT Press. https://dek.ai/raising-ai. 17 De Kai. “Should A.I. Accelerate? Decelerate? The Answer Is Both.” New York Times, December 10 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/opinion/openai-silicon-valley-superalignment.html

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 5 Aligning AI with Berkeley’s Values & Strategic Goals
When aligned with Berkeley values, AI can help advance the city’s strategic goals, including social advancement, improved public services, environmental protection, and civic trust. As Berkeley adopts new technologies, AI could be used to support, not replace, human judgment, expand access to essential services, and accelerate progress on the priorities most important to residents. The following sections describe how AI can support the values and goals set forth in the City of Berkeley Strategic Plan:
1) Improve residents’ lives by delivering accessible and innovative services.

AI presents the opportunity to liberate residents from bureaucratic friction and unnecessary expense. When thoughtfully implemented, AI can streamline processes, support both residents and staff, and promote fairer access to public resources. The result is a more efficient, responsive, and inclusive city that better serves the community.
2) Safeguarding civil liberties, equity, and democratic participation.

Berkeley’s commitment to civil liberties and democratic governance requires that any use of AI protects privacy, free expression, and due process. As AI is integrated into City services, it must align with Berkeley’s civil liberties framework and strengthen the protection of fundamental rights.

AI systems should be transparent, include public input, and remain subject to human oversight.

When guided by equity and democratic accountability, AI can support fair employment practices, workforce development, and inclusive economic growth while safeguarding labor rights.

With strong privacy protections and meaningful community engagement, AI can reduce bureaucratic barriers, expand access to public resources, and advance Berkeley’s commitments to justice, sustainability, and democracy.
3) Create affordable housing and support services for our most vulnerable community members.18
18City of Berkeley, Strategic Plan (Berkeley, CA: City of Berkeley), accessed July 10, 2025, https://berkeleyca.gov/your- government/our-work/strategic-plan.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 6 AI-aligned decision tools can help Berkeley distribute housing assistance more equitably and improve planning for affordable housing..1920 These systems could identify high-need areas, streamline application processes, and inform land-use decisions, making housing support more accessible and effective. AI can also support the City’s efforts to produce, preserve, and protect housing by improving financing strategies, prioritizing maintenance, and targeting subsidies to prevent displacement and preserve existing units.

For example, this approach can directly support Berkeley’s Middle Housing ordinance by enabling more efficient planning for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes across the city.21 By expanding housing options and improving affordability, aligned AI tools can help advance Berkeley’s commitment to housing security for its most vulnerable residents.22 4) Be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

AI alignment can help advance the city’s climate sustainability plans and goals such as the Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan and Realize Vision 205023 by improving infrastructure condition assessments, emissions tracking, energy optimization, and environmental justice analysis. These tools can support smarter infrastructure planning, including water reuse systems, grid modernization, and targeted decarbonization efforts.24
AI can also strengthen climateresilience through monitoring of heat, air quality, and wildfire risk,25 while supporting urban greening, irrigation management, solar and heat pump permitting, and enforcement in underserved neighborhoods.26 By directing investments where they have the 19 Orozco, D., & Das, S. (2023). How AI Can Help Cities Advance Housing Equity. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/building-ai-cities-how-to-spread-the-benefits-of-an-emerging-technology-across-more-of-america/ 20 University of California, Berkeley Urban Displacement Project. (2022). Using Data and Technology to Advance Housing Justice. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/
21 City of Berkeley. (2024). Middle Housing Ordinance Overview. https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use- development/general-plan-and-area-plans/middle-housing-zoning#:~:text=Project%20overview,in%20a%20range%20of%20sizes. 22 California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2023). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Local Planning https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 23 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-12- 02%20Special%20Item%2001%20Sharing%20the%20Final%20Report%20of%20the%20Mayor.pdf 24 World Economic Forum. (2022). Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for the Earth. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Harnessing_Artificial_Intelligence_for_the_Earth_report_2018.pdf 25 National Institutes of Health (2023). Smart City Tools for Air Quality and Heat Monitoring https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10280551/
26 Climate TRACE. (2023). AI-Based Emissions Tracking Platform. https://climatetrace.org/explore/#admin=&gas=co2e&year=2024&timeframe=100&sector=&asset=

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 7 greatest impact, AI can help Berkeley reduce emissions, optimize energy use, and promote environmental justice for a healthier, more sustainable future. 5) Champion Social Advancement.27
AI aligned with Berkeley’s social advancement goals can help strengthen labor protections, uphold civil rights, and prioritize community needs across health, housing, and employment programs. By monitoring for disparate impacts and incorporating ongoing feedback from historically marginalized communities,28, these systems can support equity, social mobility, and resident well-being.

AI can also expand public participation by making local democracy more accessible and understandable. Tools such asplain-language summaries, multilingual public comment translation, and participatory budgeting simulations can help residents engage more meaningfully in City decision-making29.30 Together, these uses of AI can make local government more transparent, inclusive, and responsive to the community. 6) Provide an efficient and financially-healthy City government.31 AI can help Berkeley shift away from regressive revenue models that rely on fines and fees and toward support, prevention, and equity. AI audits can identify the City’s reliance on penalties that disproportionately impact low-income residents,32 , while predictive tools can prevent fines through real-time reminders, hardship-based forgiveness, sliding-scale assessments, and service- based alternatives. This approach moves enforcement from punishment to restoration.

AI can also help the City maximize public assets and improve operational efficiency. By reusing proven models across departments, adopting open-source frameworks, and automating administrative oversight, Berkeley can reduce costs and increase transparency. AI tools can modernize lease and asset management by standardizing data, tracking city-owned properties in 27 City of Berkeley, Strategic Plan (Berkeley, CA: City of Berkeley), accessed July 10, 2025, https://berkeleyca.gov/your- government/our-work/strategic-plan.
28City of Berkeley. (2021). Health Equity and Racial Justice Framework. https://berkeleyca.gov 29 Introducing OpenAI for Government https://openai.com/global-affairs/introducing-openai-for-government/ 30 Mozilla Foundation. (2023). Building Inclusive AI for Public Engagement.https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/research/library/public-ai/ 31 City of Berkeley, Strategic Plan (Berkeley, CA: City of Berkeley), accessed July 10, 2025, https://berkeleyca.gov/your- government/our-work/strategic-plan.
32 Upturn. (2021). The Use of Fines and Fees in U.S. Cities. https://www.upturn.org

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 8 real time, and flagging inconsistencies or renewal risks, addressing long-standing gaps in oversight.

In addition, AI can support responsible revenue generation by identifying underutilized assets, improving compliance, and optimizing systems such as parking, business licensing, and short- term rental enforcement. By modernizing asset and revenue management, Berkeley can strengthen accountability, improve efficiency, and support long-term fiscal health while advancing its equity goals.
7) Provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.33 AI can help Berkeley monitor, maintain, and improve public infrastructure through predictive maintenance that identifies wear and tear in roads, water systems, lighting, and civic buildings.

This approach allows the City to prioritize repairs, extend asset lifespans, and reduce costs and service disruptions.

AI can also improve transportation and mobility by reducing congestion, lowering emissions, and enhancing safety. Smart traffic systems can support Vision Zero goals, while accessible, real-time transit tools and AI-assisted public input can ensure community needs shape infrastructure decisions.

Within the education and youth service sectors, AI can help close opportunity gaps through personalized academic support, multilingual college and career guidance, and better targeting of resources. Together, these uses can help ensure Berkeley’s public services are inclusive, efficient, and future-ready.
8) Foster a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy34 AI could strengthen Berkeley’s economy by connecting residents to emerging job markets and supporting small businesses with accessible, data-driven tools. By analyzing labor trends, AI could guide job training programs, inform local hiring, and support the City’s Economic Dashboards and procurement strategies. For job seekers, AI-powered tools like resume builders, interview simulators, and job-matching platforms (e.g., Jobscan, LinkedIn AI Coach) help level 33 City of Berkeley, Strategic Plan (Berkeley, CA: City of Berkeley), accessed July 10, 2025, https://berkeleyca.gov/your- government/our-work/strategic-plan.
34 City of Berkeley, Strategic Plan (Berkeley, CA: City of Berkeley), accessed July 10, 2025, https://berkeleyca.gov/your- government/our-work/strategic-plan.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 9 the playing field, especially for historically under-resourced communities.35 Entrepreneurs benefit from AI assistants that explain permitting, grants, and legal basics in clear terms, lowering barriers to small business ownership.36 AI assistants can help draft small business setup documents, such as incorporation forms, operating agreements, and basic contracts, lowering barriers to entry and reducing start-up costs. In the workplace, large language models (LLMs) integrated with tools like Microsoft 365 and Slack automate tasks like summarizing meetings, drafting emails, or translating documents boosting productivity and job satisfaction37.38 In fields like law and healthcare, they support professionals with document review and compliance checks.39 For contractors, AI-powered rendering tools can generate visualizations and design options, making project planning faster, clearer, and more affordable.

The City can make these AI tools available to the broader community through libraries, workforce training centers, and small business resource hubs, ensuring that all residents benefit from the efficiencies and opportunities AI provides.
9) Create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared City.

Aligned AI systems could are essential for enhancing public safety, emergency response, and urban resilience in Berkeley. These tools could support wildfire risk mapping, aiding zoning decisions and enforcement of defensible space in hillside neighborhoods, where threats are most acute. AI also enhances community preparedness, facilitates hazard response coordination, and supports data-driven resilience planning, as outlined in the City’s Resilience Strategy. AI could improve public safety outcomes without expanding surveillance. The use of real-time language translation and medical history alerts during emergency calls enable quicker and more equitable responses for non-English speakers and individuals with disabilities. AI-assisted acoustic systems could distinguish between fireworks and gunfire more accurately, thereby reducing false alarms and fostering community trust. Predictive models analyzing heat, crime, and public health data 35 Koustas, D., et al. (2023). Barriers to Employment and AI Tools. NBER. https://conference.nber.org/confer/2025/DTs25/farronato.pdf 36 Ghosh, R. (2022). AI and Small Business Resilience. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/hybrid-jobs-how-ai-is- rewriting-work-in-finance/
37 Binns, R., et al. (2023). AI in Knowledge Work. Oxford Internet Institute.https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news-events/2023-the-year-ai- redefined-work-skills-and-the-future-of-employment/
38 California State Bar. (2024). Ethical AI Use in Legal Services. https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative- AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf
39 Simbo.ai, “The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Streamlining Document Review Processes for Legal Practitioners in 2024,” Simbo.ai Blog, accessed July 14, 2025, https://www.simbo.ai/blog/the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-streamlining-document-review- processes-for-legal-practitioners-in-2024-251528/.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 10 could direct emergency outreach or mental health crisis teams to areas of highest need, avoiding reliance on carceral tools. In health and social services, AI could extend the City’s reach to vulnerable residents. Tools could guide users through enrollment in programs like CalFresh, Medi-Cal, and city wellness initiatives using plain language and mobile-first design. Mental health chatbots could provide anonymous, culturally competent emotional support, encouraging early access to care. For frontline staff, AI could flag service gaps, track referrals, and monitor outcomes, creating a more coordinated and compassionate care system. 10) Be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily-accessible service and information to the community40
Properly aligned AI can help Berkeley deliver faster, fairer, and more accessible public services.

AI-powered virtual assistants can enhance 311 services, streamline workflows, and support public health communications by providing clear, real-time responses to resident inquiries around the clock, reducing wait times and service backlogs.AI dashboards can give City staff real-time insights to proactively address community needs, reinforcing Berkeley’s commitment to transparency and responsive governance. Tools such as permit chatbots, proactive alerts, and simplified dispatch systems can reduce administrative burdens for both residents and staff.

Aligned AI can also modernize ticketing and permitting by making traditionally punitive processes more transparent and equitable. AI tools can guide residents through contesting tickets by explaining violations, assisting with evidence submission, supporting multilingual appeals, and tracking cases in real time. In permitting, AI can help complete applications, flag errors, triage requests, and accelerate low-risk approvals. Together, these tools can improve accountability, reduce bias, and make everyday interactions with City Hall more efficient and just.
11) Attract and retain a talented and diverse City government workforce41 AI alignment can modernize Berkeley’s human resources systems by supporting inclusive hiring, reducing bias in recruitment, and strengthening employee training and advancement. AI tools can 40City of Berkeley, Strategic Plan (Berkeley, CA: City of Berkeley), accessed July 10, 2025, https://berkeleyca.gov/your- government/our-work/strategic-plan.
41City of Berkeley, Strategic Plan (Berkeley, CA: City of Berkeley), accessed July 10, 2025, https://berkeleyca.gov/your- government/our-work/strategic-plan.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 11 help forecast staffing needs, identify skill gaps, and recommend professional development pathways, supporting the City’s goal of building a diverse and future-ready workforce.

Properly aligned AI should support workers rather than replace them, reinforcing Berkeley’s commitment to fair employment practices and workforce development. Public-sector examples show how AI can help identify internal talent, reduce turnover, and monitor indicators of burnout or attrition to support employee well-being.

To ensure these benefits, AI systems shouldoperate transparently and with ongoing oversight to enhance human decision-making. Emerging governance frameworks highlight the importance of fairness, explainability, and accountability when using AI in public-sector workforce management.

Potential Pitfalls of AI Systems
While holding significant promise, artificial intelligence also presents serious risks if not carefully governed. Without appropriate safeguards, AI systems could produce inaccurate or misleading outputs, often referred to as "hallucinations," that may result in flawed decisions in high-stakes areas such as housing, public benefits, policing, and financial catastrophe.42 AI tools could also reinforce systemic biases if trained on incomplete or discriminatory data, leading to unequal treatment or outcomes, especially for communities of color, low-income residents, and people with disabilities.43 Moreover, without transparent processes, the use of AI in surveillance or decision-making could violate privacy rights, reduce public trust, and erode due process protections, particularly when algorithms are used to allocate resources, flag individuals, or influence enforcement actions.44These dangers are amplified when AI systems operate without public scrutiny or accountability mechanisms. To successfully realize the benefits of AI while minimizing harm, the City of Berkeley should adopt a formal AI framework.

Toward Artificial Intelligence Municipal Use Guidelines Currently, the city lacks a consistent, citywide approach to AI deployment. Often, AI tools are independently applied, without a centralized inventory or standardized procurement and oversight protocols. This fragmented approach could result in operational vulnerabilities. 42DigitalOcean. (2023). What Is AI Hallucination? https://www.digitalocean.com/resources/articles/ai-hallucination 43U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2021). Artificial Intelligence: An Accountability Framework for Federal Agencies and Other Entities. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-519sp 44 AI Now Institute. (2018). Algorithmic Accountability Policy Toolkit https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/algorithmic-accountability- policy-toolkit

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 12 To reap the benefits of AI while mitigating its risks, the City of Berkeley should develop an Artificial Intelligence Systems and Alignment framework that includes: Put Residents First; Modernize City Services; Empower Community; Ensure Transparency and Accountability; Standardize Operations; Certify Ethical Use; Protect and Prepare Our Workforce; Defend Civil Liberties; Social Advancement and Accessibility; and Catalyze Civic Wealth. Any framework should consider the elements herein referred to as the Berkeley Rule.

The Berkeley Rule:

I. Put Residents First
The City of Berkeley is committed to ensuring that any AI framework prioritizes the well-being of residents above all else. This policy aims to liberate residents from bureaucratic friction, eliminate unnecessary expense, and expand fair access to city services.

The City could seek to streamline internal operations, reduce operational costs, enhance the coordination and delivery of public services. Thoughtfully implemented, AI could improve workflows such as permitting, resident request routing, and document processing, resulting in faster and more consistent outcomes across departments. Cities like New York and San José are already seeing results: New York uses AI to prioritize housing inspections and assist with city service requests.45 Likewise, San José uses predictive maintenance tools to identify infrastructure issues before they become costly emergencies.46 More efficient permitting and service response times reduce delays and frustration for individuals and businesses. Improved infrastructure management powered by predictive tools means fewer service disruptions, better street conditions, and faster emergency responses. By enhancing coordination across departments, residents experience a more connected, responsive, and equitable government.

The City of Berkeley could use AI to rapidly review its municipal code to eliminate unnecessary reports and cut red tape. By automating routine administrative tasks, AI could allowBerkeley staff to focus on higher-impact work that encourages critical thinking, creativity, and direct public engagement. Moreover, AI-driven data analysis could also help departments identify gaps, target resources more efficiently, and support long-term planning in areas such as housing, workforce 45 Mayor’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer, City of New York. (2023). AI Action Plan. pg 2 https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oti/downloads/pdf/reports/artificial-intelligence-action-plan.pdf 46 City of San José. (2023). AI and Emerging Technology Strategy. https://www.sanjoseca.gov

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 13 development, and public health by exploring cooperative care models that address current institutional insecurity. For example, this could include shared health coverage pools for freelancers and families, collective care planning for gig workers, wellness reward programs to encourage healthy habits, and neighborhood networks for exchanging caregiving services. The City should also consider recognizing and rewarding residents who contribute to improving city systems through civic dividends and benefits, thus ensuring that modernization directly supports the people who live and work in Berkeley.

The ultimate goal of AI adoption is to improve the lives of Berkeley residents. Any framework should be guided by the principle of improving service quality and efficiency, ultimately contributing to a higher quality of life for all community members and the eventual elimination of regressive fines, fees, and taxes.

II. Modernize City Services
The city should advocate for responsible use of AI in modernizing its municipal operations to improve efficiency, responsiveness, and service delivery. Potential use cases include 311 service triage, service kiosks, assistance with permits and licensing, emergency dispatch optimization, autonomous service delivery, maintenance, and transport, and emergency air deployments. AI systems could provide predictive solutions for vital infrastructure, such as roads, energy systems, and sidewalks, water systems, public health, and public buildings before routine problems become critical issues.

Berkeley could also utilize AI to develop and pilot new service models to make city services more accessible. For example, prepaid service savings programs might help residents secure discounted utilities, while optimized parking revenue systems and a community-owned broadband network could improve affordability and equity. Smart licensing processes and value- based pricing might guide development toward inclusivity. Additionally, predictive dashboards, better use of idle fleets, and AI-powered maintenance scheduling could streamline operations, reduce downtime, and make everyday services more reliable.

A key area for modernization is the city’s permitting process. The City could explore AI- powered tools to pre-check construction and building permit applications for compliance with zoning and building codes. This is likely to provide immediate feedback to applicants, reduce the

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 14 potential for costly errors, and significantly decrease staff review time and backlogs. To implement this without direct cost to taxpayers, the City could adopt models like CivCheck Permitting AI in Seattle, where the permit applicants pay a small pre-screening fee directly to the vendor.

Finally, to ensure accountability and public trust, the City could mandate explicit documentation of human oversight protocols and backup measures for all AI systems used in time-sensitive or safety-critical situations. This includes determining when and how much human intervention should be encouraged, as well as ensuring that non-automated options are available where applicable.

III. Empower the Community
Community trust is the foundation of ethical AI governance. For Berkeley to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence while safeguarding civil rights, residents should have a direct voice in how these systems are adopted and used.

AI Advisory Board: If resources permit the City of Berkeley could consider establishing an advisory board composed of labor representatives, community leaders, civil rights and disability advocates, entrepreneurs, ethicists, technologists, and academic experts to ensure that AI is utilized in an ethical, equitable, and transparent manner.

Digital Ombudsman: To further strengthen accountability, the City could consider implementing a dedicated AI Ombudsman, an AI bot, to serve as a public-facing point of contact for questions, concerns, and complaints regarding municipal AI use. This solution would support algorithmic redress by helping residents understand how decisions are made by AI systems, and by facilitating rapid review, appeal, or correction when errors or harms occur.

AI Sandbox: Similarly, the City should consider creating an AI Sandbox program to pilot innovative tools in low-risk environments. These pilot programs would be reviewed by the AI Advisory Board, evaluated with public input, and include opt-in participation only. This approach ensures that new AI technologies are tested responsibly, with community involvement and safeguards in place prior to broader implementation.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 15 IV. Ensure Transparency and Accountability
The City of Berkeley could consider maintaining a public AI use registry. This registry couldpresent a clear and accessible listing of every AI tool being used by City departments. For each system, the registry would provide detailed information, including what the system does, what data it uses, who oversees it, and how residents can ask questions or challenge its outcomes.

This registry could becritical for systems that impact high-stakes processes such as permits, housing applications, benefits, and enforcement. All entries should be written in plain language to ensure accessibility and kept up to date as new tools are adopted. By implementing this approach, the City can enhance public accountability and make sure residents are informed partners in the use of the new technology.

Moreover, vendors should demonstrate maximum possible explainability in AI systems deployed in high-stakes areas. Explainable AI means systems are designed so that their outputs can be interpreted by experts and made understandable to the public. Explainable AI is subject to significant technical limits, including misleading, contradictory, unstable, mismatched, counterintuitive explanations, as well as the illusion of explainability which is logically unavoidable.47 User misinterpretation and human factors can lead to explainability pitfalls. While acknowledging the limitations, this registry could help build trust in the AI systems by improving the transparency and comprehensibility of their decision-making processes.

Building on its AI registry, Berkeley could expand transparency by introducing consent portals where residents manage how their data is used. Algorithmic bias tracking might help identify and address systemic inequities, while municipal data exchanges and open licensing marketplaces could create clear, accountable systems for sharing public data. These measures would ensure that the value of information is managed with fairness, oversight, and full resident awareness, and economic inclusion in the deployment of automated decision-making systems across all City operations.
47 De Kai. Raising AI: An Essential Guide to Parenting Our Future, chapter 16. 2025. MIT Press. https://dek.ai/raising-ai

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 16 V. Standardize Operations
Berkeley should consider strengthening its AI governance by centralizing inventory management, streamlining procurement, and applying uniform oversight procedures across all departments.

AI tools deployed in City operations should align with certain cybersecurity standards, including encryption in transit and at rest, regular audits, and protections against injection or tampering. To further strengthen privacy and civil liberties safeguards the city could employ:
a. Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) could include a public comment period and could be reviewed by the AI Advisory Board before AI system deployment. b. Integrate the Resident Data Rights Charter, a clear process for residents to opt out of AI- processed data collection, modeled after the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) principles.

To ensure strong compliance, the City could consider adopting the following operational standards:

1. Risk-Based Tiering Framework: The City should establish a risk-based tiering framework to classify AI systems based on their potential impact on residents. This framework, to be developed by the City Manager and reviewed by the AI Advisory Board, would include at a minimum:
a. Tier 1: Low-Risk Systems: AI tools that support internal administrative tasks and do not directly impact the public’s rights or safety. Examples: meeting summarizers, internal project management software.
b. Tier 2: Medium-Risk Systems: AI tools that interact with the public in non- critical ways or assist City employees in making decisions with a low-to- moderate impact. Examples: public information chatbots, initial sorting tools for permit applications.
c. Tier 3: High-Risk Systems: AI systems that have a significant direct impact on residents’ rights, safety, finances, or access to essential services, or that manage critical infrastructure. Examples: systems used in housing or benefits eligibility, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure management. The principles outlined in the Berkeley Rule would apply to all tiers, with specific procedural suggestions scaling with the level of risk.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 17 2. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Guidelines: All AI systems should consider adhering to the NIST frameworks as the foundation for enforcement mechanisms.
a. External Applications: For constituent-facing use cases, the City should considerpursuing ISO27001 and/or ISO9001 certifications, ideally within 12 months of deployment. For applications involving personally identifiable information (PII), SOC2 compliance would be encouraged. Tools like Vanta or Workstreet can support these efforts.
i. ISO 27001 and ISO 9001 are internationally recognized standards that help organizations manage information security and quality ii. ISO 27001 focuses on establishing an Information Security Management System (ISMS)
iii. ISO 9001 focuses on establishing a Quality Management System (QMS). iv. SOC2, or System and Organization Controls 2, is a framework developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) to assess and report on the controls of a service organization relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. b. Internal Applications: Policies should consider enforcing NIST standards with periodic internal audits. Vendors such as can provide cost-effective solutions to ensure compliance.
c. Regulatory Parallels: Identify existing policies and referrals that regulate the use of technologies, hard and software.
i. Example: Council’s 2017 referral to develop a franchise application policy for robotic deliveries.48

3. Procurement Standards: All external vendors, whether providing platform applications or custom development work for the City, would comply with these measures. A procurement framework should include a checklist to verify compliance or establish reasonable timelines for vendors to meet these guidelines. Standard contract templates 48 Councilmember Ben Bartlett. (2017, December 19). Personal Delivery Service Franchise Agreements. City of Berkeley, District 3. https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/AY6Z5utuMHPCP6K72V2ETpqWhGYOZF7GÉhPtOJPDmkxowc51O buEKBjeoFzegHorIARtR4LfcRwbJpbwojXg3yY%3D/

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 18 (MSAs) would include language for correction timelines in response to adverse events or audit findings.

4. Considerations for Return on Investment (ROI) Posture:
a. Direct ROI: Key performance indicators (KPIs) for AI deployments would include measurable benchmarks, such as time saved in administrative tasks, reduced turnaround times for policy implementation, and other quantifiable outcomes. Pilot programs should follow a structured framework to validate vendor claims.
b. Indirect ROI: AI initiatives should align with Berkeley’s core values, such as affordability, access, education, environmental sustainability, and social advancement. Vendors might justify how their solutions support these goals, ensuring no adverse impacts on these key pillars. Agentic LLM deployments would include guiding principles in their context windows to notify users and administrators of any misalignment with City values.

5. Possible Ongoing Governance and Evaluation: deployed systems could benefit from the following:
a. Annual Re-validation: The AI Advisory Board could conduct and publish an annual review of all Tier 3 (High-Risk) systems to re-validate their safety, performance, and equity impacts.
b. Incident Response: All issues reported to the Digital Ombudsman could be investigated and logged in the public AI Use Registry to further assure transparency. Significant incidents would be escalated to the AI Advisory Board for formal review and remediation.

6. System Decommissioning: A formal decommissioning plan could be encouraged for all Tier 3 (High-Risk) systems and specify the protocols for data processing, retention and disposal in compliance with City Auditor and public records requirements, and include a plan for the transition of public services to ensure continuity.

7. Government AI (GovAI) Coalition: the city should consider joining the Government AI (GovAI) Coalition facilitated by the City of San Jose49 at no cost and partner with other cities to evaluate the adoption of its toolkits and practices. 49 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/information-technology/ai-reviews-algorithm-register/govai- coalition

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 19 By implementing these suggested operational standards, compliance measures, and procurement accountability practices, Berkeley can ensure that AI systems are deployed responsibly, transparently, and in alignment with the City’s strategic goals, while maximizing both direct and indirect benefits for its residents.

VI. Certify Ethical Use
The City of Berkeley could consider collaborating with not-for-profit organizations to establish independent AI ethics certification programs, ensuring safety, fairness, and accountability in its work with vendors who build and deploy artificial intelligence systems. These certifications should establish clear guidelines for safety, environmental responsibility, justice, and transparency. To achieve this, the City can partner with organizations with expertise in technology, policy, civil rights, and public interests to develop standards for its procurement procedures.

Certifications should include independent audits, inclusive design principles, and community impact protections to ensure that AI systems align with Berkeley’s values. The City should prioritize workforce transition plans, explicit equitable targets, and methods to track performance and results over time in all AI-related contracts.

To further support ethical use, the City could establish a formal appeals mechanism for decisions made or influenced by AI systems. This mechanism would allow citizens to contest outcomes, request human review, and receive timely and accessible explanations.

By implementing an ethical use certification program and ensuring accountability measures, Berkeley should set a high standard for the responsible and transparent deployment of AI technologies.

VII. Protect and Prepare Our Workforce
As the City introduces more AI tools into its government operations, it should ensure that its workforce is supported and protected. Before rolling out a new system, departments could prepare a Workforce Impact Statement that examines how the technology may alter job duties, identifies any trainings, and outline opportunities for employees to transition into new roles.

These plans should be reviewed by a labor-management team that includes union representatives, with the goal of no layoffs resulting from AI adoption. Instead, AI should be utilized to automate repetitive tasks, freeing up time for public service and creating space for meaningful work.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 20 The City should also invest in retraining and upskilling programs, ensuring that employees have access to continuing education, technical certifications, and cross-training opportunities to remain competitive and fulfilled in their roles. New professional development pathways should be created to help staff grow alongside advancing technology, reinforcing Berkeley’s commitment to a strong, future-ready public workforce. During its implementation, to foster an inclusive approach to regulation development,staff engagement initiatives could be pursued through employee surveys and internal research to better understand their attitudes, expectations, and knowledge of AI threats and capabilities, while also empowering them to take the lead in developing case proposals.

As part of its ethical AI framework, the City could invest in public-sector innovation fellowships, rotational learning programs, and incentives for internal talent development. By protecting worker rights and preparing employees for the future of municipal service, Berkeley can lead in equitable workforce transformation.

VIII. Defend Civil Liberties
The City of Berkeley should safeguard civil liberties by not using facial recognition, biometric surveillance, or real-time tracking unless approved by the City Council, and then only after a robust public process is conducted and clear legal safeguards are in place. One potential use could be the use of a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA). These AI systems assessments should not use sensitive or personal data, and any use thereafter should require a formal PIA to be completed before deployment. The privacy and civil liberties protections would identify what data is being used, how it is protected, and whether there are safer alternatives. The results of these assessments would be made public to ensure transparency and accountability.

The City could consider developing a set of Resident Data Rights to accentuate transparency andgive people more control over their information in order to ensure it is as transparent as possible when AI is being used, how decisions are being made, and how to request human review or deletion of their data.

Furthermore, the City of Berkeley affirms that all AI systems with enforcement capabilities should preserve human judgment at the point of action. No automated system may take punitive or coercive measures, such as issuing citations, restricting access, or initiating legal consequences

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 21 without meaningful human oversight, and rapid appeal. Nor may any AI system employ martial force under any circumstance. These safeguards ensure that innovation serves to protect due process, community trust, and individual freedom.

IX. Social Advancement and Accessibility
AI developers could be encouraged to create a productized approach for Risk Assessment for high-impact AI technologies, particularly those used in housing, public safety, and transportation, and code enforcement to encourage AI systems to improve life for all residents. These evaluations should include pre-deployment social impact forecasts, conducted by third-party auditors using demographic data, scenario modeling, and participatory input to identify and mitigate potential harms. If these evaluations uncover biased outcomes, harmful system behavior, or deeper structural inequities, the City could take immediate action to correct both the technology and the underlying condition.

Berkeley can ensure that its AI systems promote fairness and inclusive outcomes by adopting standardized bias assessment frameworks. Tools developed by the Algorithmic Justice League and requirements such as New York City’s Local Law 144 can help measure, disclose, and mitigate disparate impacts across communities.

Berkeley could use AI to promote cultural growth and shared prosperity. With AI as an accessible tool for social advancement, residents might have opportunities to co-invest in local solar and renewable energy projects, crowdfund green infrastructure, and share in the benefits of climate impact returns. Housing equity programs and land stewardship trusts could expand access to stable homes. Meanwhile, cultural life would be free to flourish through community-funded art restoration, neighborhood business pools, festival revenue sharing, and pop-up market activations. By blending sustainability with cultural vitality, these initiatives could ensure that AI benefits every resident in our community.

X. Catalyze Civic Wealth
Cities everywhere struggle with budget deficits and shrinking revenue bases. Berkeley has the opportunity to move beyond this scarcity model. Beyond compliance and cost recovery, AI offers a transformational path to design new forms of civic wealth and municipal entrepreneurship. This approach opens pathways to shared value creation and community-owned innovation rather than relying on regressive fines, fees, or incremental efficiencies.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 22 Artificial intelligence presents opportunities for the City of Berkeley, in partnership with nonprofit organizations, local innovators, and mission-aligned enterprises, to explore new ways of maximizing the value of public assets and advancing shared prosperity. Potential applications include identifying underutilized land, supporting dynamic leasing strategies, and forecasting value-based permitting opportunities responsive to changing economic conditions. Predictive tools may help surface untapped revenue potential, inform collaborative public-private and public-benefit partnerships, and support innovative models of municipal and community entrepreneurship.

Through such partnerships, AI-enabled systems could help activate vacant land, open rooftops for solar energy and urban farming, and optimize public facilities for broader community use. Digital billboards and archival collections may be responsibly licensed to generate cultural revenue, while vehicles and public equipment could be managed through shared-use models that return value to the community. Concepts such as community venture funds, real estate investment pools, and land value growth sharing illustrate ways residents might participate more directly in the city’s prosperity. Emerging data-driven opportunities, including municipal data markets, neighborhood sentiment exchanges and digital twin licensing, further highlight Berkeley’s potential role as a hub of civic and digital innovation.

More broadly, AI creates space to prototype new civic economies through cross-sector collaboration, where services are co-produced, benefits are equitably shared, and public data serves as a platform for innovation. Illustrative examples include decentralized licensing for local creators, micro-contracting opportunities for small businesses, and revenue-sharing models that support community infrastructure. In this context, public benefit–sharing approaches in civic technology collaborations reflect Berkeley’s values, including shared intellectual property arrangements, royalty structures, open-source access, and reinvestment of proceeds into community-led initiatives and digital equity efforts.

In this vision, AI becomes a catalyst for inclusive prosperity and long-term fiscal resilience.

The City’s commitment to its strategic plan would benefit from a high-level framework being codified into operational AI standards. The absence of a formal review process for algorithmic systems has allowed for multiple pathways of adoption, each with variable levels of risk, due process protection, and labor input. These Ten guidelines should serve as the foundation of Berkeley’s AI Framework and be

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 23 embedded in the Berkeley Rules: Put Residents First; Modernize City Services; Empower Community; Ensure Transparency and Accountability; Standardize Operations; Certify Ethical Use; Protect and Prepare Our Workforce; Defend Civil Liberties; Social Advancement and Accessibility; and Catalyze Civic Wealth.

Comparative Civic Innovation Models
San Jose - Human-centered design principles guide the development of systems, and privacy safeguards protect sensitive information.50 Security and safety are ensured through safeguards, and personnel empowerment is prioritized through education, training, and collaborative opportunities. These concepts should be linked to community benefits and human monitoring to ensure reliable AI deployment.

Boston - The 2023 “Interim Guidelines for Using Generative AI”51 from the City of Boston emphasize that public servants are still responsible for AI-generated material and offer a framework for responsible experimentation with programs like ChatGPT, Bard, and DALL·E. While cautioning against relying too heavily on unconfirmed AI results and encouraging the equitable, open, and safe use of these tools, the City encourages learning through workshops and provides contacts and resources for further research.52 Seattle - The City of Seattle has announced its Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) policy, which enables staff to utilize new technologies while adhering to established standards. The policy requires employees to obtain AI technology through approved procurement channels, review output to ensure consistency with City standards, attribute AI-generated content to the AI system, and ensure data is free of harmful bias, privacy concerns, and complies with the State of Washington Public Records Act and City policies. The guideline also requires a human to oversee the AI technology review.53 Washington, D.C.- Washington, D.C.’s AI Values and Strategic Plan outlines54 a citywide approach for the safe, equitable, and effective use of artificial intelligence in local government. The plan, based on five 50 AI Reviews & Inventory | city of san josé. Accessed June 30, 2025. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments- offices/information-technology/digital-privacy/ai-reviews-algorithm-register 51 City of Boston, Interim Guidelines for Using Generative AI, Version 1.1, prepared by Santiago Garces, Chief Information Officer, May 18, 2023.https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2023/05/Guidelines-for-Using-Generative-AI-2023.pdf 52 City of Boston. City of Boston Interim Guidelines for Using Generative AI. Boston, MA: City of Boston, May 2023.https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2023/05/Guidelines-for-Using-Generative-AI-2023.pdf 53 “Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) Program.” Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) Program - Tech. Accessed June 30, 2025. https://www.seattle.gov/tech/data-privacy/the-citys-responsible-use-of-artificial-intelligence 54 District of Columbia Office of the Chief Technology Officer, DC’s AI Values and Strategic Plan, 2023.https://techplan.dc.gov/page/dcs-ai-values-and-strategic-plan

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 24 guiding principles: transparency, accountability, justice, privacy, security, and inclusivity; emphasizes the wise application of AI to enhance public services while protecting the rights of residents.

Denver - The act mandates high-risk AI and system developers and deployers to protect the public from the risks of algorithmic discrimination. Developers must provide detailed disclosures, publicly summarize their systems, and notify the attorney general. Employers might implement risk management policies, conduct impact assessments, notify consumers, and provide mechanisms for data correction. Compliance with risk management framework provides an affirmative defense. 55 Chicago- Chicago's AI Principles56, which place a strong emphasis on accountability, transparency, equity, dependability, privacy, and public involvement, provide a framework for the moral and efficient application of AI in local government. The city also places a high priority on public trust through interdisciplinary cooperation and participatory governance, emphasizing ongoing assessment and adapting AI systems in response to public input and real-world effects.

New York - The New York State Comprehensive guidelines for the responsible use of AI systems by state agencies, especially those that could have an immediate impact on the public, are established under NYS-P24-001: Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies. The regulation requires human oversight, which means that no entirely automated judgments that have a significant impact on the public are permitted. Instead, humans must continue to be held accountable and participate in the decision- making process. It encourages transparency by requiring public-facing systems to disclose their use of AI and places a strong emphasis on fairness by mandating authorities to monitor and correct bias. Agencies are required to maintain an AI inventory, which is submitted to the Office of Information Technology Services (ITS), and conduct risk assessments using the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. Strict privacy and data security guidelines are also included in the policy.

City Investments and Capacity Development
Berkeley has already committed significant internal resources toward digital transformation. The City’s Information Technology Department has expanded cloud capabilities and data infrastructure. The Office 55 “Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence.” Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence | Colorado General Assembly, May 8, 2024. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-205.
56 City of Chicago. AI Principles. Department of Innovation and Technology. Accessed June 30, 2025. https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/chitech/home/roadmap-for-AI/ai-principles.html.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 25 of Economic Development has initiated pilot partnerships with local tech firms and universities.57 Departments, including Planning, Finance, and Public Works, are exploring data-driven tools to increase responsiveness and optimize staffing.

Summary: Berkeley's Path to Responsible AI Governance
The proposed guidelines of the Berkeley Rule: Put Residents First; Modernize City Services; Empower Community; Standardize Operations; Ensure Transparency and Accountability; Certify Ethical Use; Protect and Prepare Our Workforce; Defend Civil Liberties; Social Advancement and Accessibility; and Catalyze Civic Wealth provide an aspirational framework for the responsible use of AI which prioritizes civil liberties, public trust and benefit with substantial human oversight. Such policies should anchor AI oversight in procurement discretion, ethical review, and internal use controls.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
City of Berkeley Strategic and Policy Commitments
The City of Berkeley has adopted numerous strategic plans, ordinances, and administrative regulations that implicitly support but do not yet explicitly govern the responsible deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) within municipal operations. While these policies reflect strong commitments to transparency, social justice, privacy, and technological innovation, none currently provide detailed standards for the procurement, oversight, or ethical evaluation of AI systems.

Context at the State and Federal Level
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Provides baseline privacy rights for California residents, including the right to access, delete, and opt out of the sale of personal data. While not designed for municipal use cases, its principles inform best practices for consent, transparency, and data minimization in AI deployment.58
Automated Decision Systems Accountability Act (AB 2930): The Automated Decision Systems Accountability Act (AB 2930) is proposed California legislation that would require government agencies to assess the risks and impacts of automated decision systems (ADS) used in public services. It mandates 57 U.S. Economic Development Administration, Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs Program, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/regional-technology-and-innovation-hubs. 58 California Department of Justice, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) 5, https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 26 transparency, equity analysis, and documentation of how such systems affect individuals, particularly in high-stakes areas like housing, healthcare, education, and public safety. Agencies would be required to conduct impact assessments, mitigate potential harms, and disclose the use and function of these systems to the public.

In alignment with AB 2930, the City of Berkeley could proactively collaborate with the California Office of Data and Innovation (ODI) to ensure that local AI deployments meet the highest standards of transparency, equity, and ethical oversight. This partnership would support Berkeley’s efforts to pilot responsible AI practices, contribute to statewide standards, and share best practices for municipal implementation of ADS accountability frameworks.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The proposed resolution could advance Berkeley’s environmental sustainability and climate resilience goals by guiding the ethical and strategic use of artificial intelligence (AI) within city operations. AI can support emission reductions, infrastructure efficiency, and climate adaptation through applications like smart energy management, predictive climate analytics, and digital permitting for green infrastructure.

The framework ensures that these tools are deployed in alignment with the City’s Climate Action Plan and Resilience Strategy, while centering on environmental justice and equitable access to environmental data.

Recognizing AI’s substantial resource demands, particularly from energy-intensive model training and data processing, the resolution includes measures to assess and mitigate the environmental footprint of high-computation systems. Vendors should disclose projected energy usage and emissions, and the City should favor cloud-native, carbon-conscious, and open-source solutions that minimize resource consumption. These safeguards ensure that Berkeley’s use of AI enhances, rather than undermines, its long-term environmental and equity commitments.

PROJECTED FISCAL OUTCOMES WITH AI
The fiscal impacts of implementing the proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance resolution are expected to be moderate and manageable within existing departmental budgets, particularly in the early phases. The proposal is designed to leverage existing staff capacities, align with current procurement and digital modernization practices, and utilize external certification infrastructure rather than creating new regulatory bodies or bespoke municipal frameworks.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 27 Artificial Intelligence should be considered for its potential to help staff workload and operational costs by automating routine tasks and streamlining service delivery. Establishing ethical safeguards, workforce protections, and oversight mechanisms may demand upfront time and coordination, but doing so is essential to ensure that AI deployment aligns with City values and avoids unintended harm.

Short-term costs primarily involve staff time for compliance integration, legal review, and development of an AI Use Registry, activities that could be absorbed through existing resources or targeted grants.

Over the mid-term, minor capacity adjustments may support equity reviews and staff training.

Long-term benefits are anticipated through improved operational efficiency, enhanced revenue recovery, reduced legal exposure, and increased access to external innovation funding.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected]
Councilmember Igor Tregub [email protected]
James Chang [email protected]
Olga Bolotina [email protected]
Artemisia Spencer Mace [email protected]
Shamaila Ahmed [email protected]
Jayla Johnson (510) 981-7130
Mia Surratt (510) 981-7130
Nicole Liu (510) 981-7131
Thelonious Spencer Mace (510) 981-7135
Alejandro Ramos (510) 981-7140
Samuel Chen (510) 981-7140
Special Thanks to:

Kathryn Camp, Public Policy Consultant
[email protected]
James A. Wolff, Chair, Emerging Technologies Law Group Warshaw Burstein, LLP [email protected]
De Kai, AI & AI Ethics Professor
[email protected]
Peter Hirschberg, Director, City Science Lab San Francisco [email protected]

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 28 ATTACHMENTS AND MATERIALS

1. Resolution
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution establishing “The Berkeley Rule” artificial intelligence framework and vision to maximize public benefit through innovation and accountability.

WHEREAS, Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies offer transformative potential to improve the lives of residents, enhance municipal services and operational efficiency, and support data-driven policymaking within the City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, responsibly deployed AI could streamline service delivery, reduce bureaucratic friction, improve emergency response, and enhance infrastructure resilience, while ensuring alignment with Berkeley’s values of transparency, sustainability, and social advancement; and WHEREAS, the City acts solely in its proprietary capacity as a municipal service provider and market participant, exercising discretion over its own procurement, deployment, operations, and service delivery, and does not regulate or impose obligations on private-sector or individual uses of AI outside of City contracts or activities; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the risks associated with AI, including algorithmic bias, privacy violations, and procedural opacity, and is committed to mitigating these risks through ethical oversight, transparency, and public accountability; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley hereby endorses "The Berkeley Rule," a values-based framework for the ethical adoption, procurement, deployment, and oversight of AI systems, ensuring alignment with Berkeley’s strategic goals and community values; and
WHEREAS, "The Berkeley Rule" incorporates the following principles to guide the use of Artificial Intelligence systems in municipal operations:

1. Put Residents First: Centering AI use on serving the health, safety, prosperity, and well-being of residents by improving access to essential services, reducing bureaucratic friction and eliminating unnecessary expense.

2. Modernize City Services: Leveraging AI with human oversight to upgrade service delivery.

Ensure fairness and reliability by enhancing efficiency, responsiveness, and accessibility in City operations, including 311 services, permitting, and faster emergency response.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 29 3. Empower the Community: Consider participatory governance models, such as an AI Oversight Advisory Board of diverse stakeholders to ensure ethical use, with public reporting, a Digital Ombudsman to support algorithmic review and redress, and an AI Sandbox to test new tools with community input, foster learning, and spark innovation and entrepreneurship.

4. Ensure Transparency and Accountability: AI Use Registries to provide residents accessible information about AI systems, their purpose, data use, and oversight mechanisms.

5. Standardize Operations: Operational consistency and safeguards, including centralized inventory management, streamlined procurement procedures, uniform oversight protocols, and adherence to robust cybersecurity and compliance standards, and rapid communication, to ensure responsible, transparent, and equitable adoption of AI systems.

6. Certify Ethical Use: Collaborating with independent organizations to establish AI ethics certification programs, ensuring voluntary vendor compliance with principles of fairness, transparency, environmental responsibility, and the preservation of humanity.

7. Protect and Prepare Our Workforce: Ensure that City employees grow alongside technological change by requiring Workforce Impact Statements for AI systems, providing retraining opportunities, and empowering existing workers via AI adoption.

8. Defend Civil Liberties: Build community trust, protect privacy, due process, and individual freedom. Prohibit unchecked surveillance, ban martial force, ensure residents control their data, encourage privacy impact assessments, and guarantee that all enforcement-related AI includes human oversight and the right to rapid appeal.

9. Social Advancement and Accessibility: Ensure AI expands opportunity and representation, reflecting the needs of all residents. Encourage equity risk evaluations for high-impact systems, pro-actively address harms and disparities, and design accessible tools through inclusive, community-led processes.

10. Catalyze Civic Wealth: Harness AI to optimize non-regressive revenue streams and spark new civic economies through municipal entrepreneurship. Generate public wealth for community reinvestment and deliver material benefits to all residents.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Berkeley affirms its values of ethical, aligned, and transparent AI use by endorsing "The Berkeley Rule," a municipal AI Framework for consideration that prioritizes commitment to innovation in service of liberty, dignity, and the public good.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
Igor Tregub, Councilmember, District 4

CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 10, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Igor Tregub (Author), Councilmember Brent Blackaby (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Referral: Strengthen Berkeley’s Micromobility Regulatory Framework to Improve Public Safety, ADA Accessibility, and Operator Accountability

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager and Transportation and Infrastructure Commission the development of recommendations to enhance safety and eliminate or reduce conflicts between shared micromobility devices and pedestrians/wheelchair users on Berkeley’s sidewalks.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On February 4, 2026, the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Humbert/Taplin) To forward the item to Council with a positive recommendation. Vote: All Ayes.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This item supports a key priority for the District 4 Council office and the City of Berkeley as a whole: ensuring that our public spaces are safe and accessible to all. Following consultation with city staff, various community stakeholders, and micromobility providers, in response to comments from the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Environmental Sustainability (FITES) Committee, and in recognition of limited City resources, the recommendation prioritizes the required education of micromobility users

09

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
by micromobility companies in safety requirements and protocols to ensure our sidewalks remain safe and accessible to all.

Such recommendations may include:
- Requiring operators to implement rewards and incentive programs based on clear metrics for responsible ridership behavior and to reduce sidewalk obstructions, repeat violations, or unsafe riding behaviors. App-based nudges and targeted outreach can also help to promote safe, equitable practices across the community.
- Requiring operators to provide mandatory certifiable rider safety training with recurring reminders through apps and other means.
o Training should cover safe riding practices, proper parking, and the impact on vulnerable populations, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities.

The intent of this recommendation to allow interested council offices and other stakeholders, through relevant committees and with the expertise of applicable commissions, to advise on the development of an education program and make other recommendations to enhance safety and eliminate or reduce conflicts between micromobility devices and pedestrians/wheelchair users on Berkeley’s sidewalks.

Micromobility companies should be responsible for continuously educating their users on safety practices and enforcing rider requirements. Focus areas of such an education program could include: (1) protocols for proper parking of shared micromobility devices following the conclusion of the ride; (2) prohibitions on micromobility use on public sidewalk; and (3) applicable state law concerning the use of helmets in conjunction with uses of micromobility devices.

We expect micromobility companies to be responsible stewards of their industry and trusted partners in the community, as safe and inclusive micromobility benefits everyone, including the companies themselves. Should these educational efforts be insufficient in and of themselves to affect the abovementioned goal, a range of potential options, outlined in the “Alternative Measures Considered” section of this report, could also be considered as staff capacity and financial resources become available.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The goal of implementing the recommendation in this revised referral is to not require additional staffing to support the City’s micromobility coordinator (1 full-time equivalent) and can be achieved through partnerships with external stakeholders such as UC Berkeley. The recommendation is intended to leverage ongoing improvements to

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
infrastructure updates the cost of which is intended to be anticipated to be offset through revised fee and penalty structures incorporated into operator contracts. By requiring micromobility companies to contribute to the costs of enforcement, signage, designated parking, and other safety infrastructure, the City of Berkeley is minimizing or obviating additional impacts to the General Fund.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Micromobility devices including e-scooters, bikes, e-bikes, skateboards, and hoverboards have become an increasingly popular mode of transportation in Berkeley, providing sustainable, low-emission, and convenient first- and last-mile travel options.1 Currently, Berkeley has approximately 200 Lime scooters and 800 devices, including stand scooters and sit scooters, operated by Veo Micromobility,2 reflecting the growing presence of shared micromobility options. However, current regulations and enforcement mechanisms have not kept pace with the challenges posed by their growing use and need to be closer aligned with Vision Zero Action Plan passed by the City in 2018.3
Improperly parked devices routinely block sidewalks, curb ramps, and transit access points, creating hazards for seniors, people with disabilities, and pedestrians. Unsafe riding behaviors including sidewalk riding, speeding, and double riding continue to be reported, yet the city lacks clear, publicly accessible reporting channels specific to micromobility.4

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Climate Change Center “Shared Micromobility & Micro Transit” https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2025- 01/Shared%20Micromobility%20%26%20Microtransit.pdf
2 Kwok, Iris. Berkeleyside. https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/07/05/berkeley-fleet-of-lime-rental-e- scooters
3 Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Vision-Zero-Annual- Report-2020-2021.pdf
4 Berkeley Police Department, “Annual Traffic Safety Report,” 2023 (internal document).

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
Examples of improperly parked Veo Micromobility and personal micromobility devices on Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA, Summer 2025.

In Berkeley, micromobility vendors have the primary responsibility for enforcing the rules on their customers and to address noncompliance, including through disincentives (e.g., penalties on riders who violate the terms of their agreement with the vendor up to a prohibition on future use of the platform) and physically addressing issues in the field (e.g., picking up and moving poorly parked vehicles for example within a defined timeframe).

The City of Berkeley, particularly the Public Works Transportation Department, has a secondary role in inspecting the streets, document poor behavior, notify device operators, and, when necessary, fine vendors for poor performance of the terms of their contract with the city. The City of Berkeley currently provides detailed information for members of the public to report poor behavior and how to help us monitor and report items to the device operators. Public participation helps expand the reach of our inspection and data collection. While this information is currently concentrated on a single webpage, opportunities exist to disseminate it more broadly beyond providing it through mayor and council newsletters.5 Micromobility operators should increase educational requirements in their app and conduct safety outreach at more community events.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reports over 50,000 emergency department visits linked to e-scooter use nationwide in recent years, underscoring the urgent need for clear enforcement, public education, and infrastructure improvements to mitigate risks and enhance public safety. Overall emergency department visits associated with micromobility increased significantly from 2017 to 2022.6 Emergency Department Visits Associated with Micromobility Devices, 2017-2022 5 City of Berkeley, https://berkeleyca.gov/city-services/getting-around/shared-bikes-and-scooters 6 https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Micromobility-Products-Related-Deaths-Injuries-and-Hazard-Patterns- 2017-2022.pdf

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
In addition to a documented increase in collisions involving micromobility devices in Berkeley, several of which have tragically led to serious injuries or even fatalities7,8, the District 4 office routinely receives complaints of shared micromobility devices in the downtown being improperly parked (e.g., blocking sidewalks and points of ingress to crosswalks and BART stations) or users of shared micromobility devices riding on the sidewalk.

Based on a number of instances of noncompliance with terms of micromobility contracts with the city (e.g., documented instances of illegally parked scooters not being picked up within the designated time frame required per their contract), the accountability structure appears to be less than adequate. The current City of Berkeley micromobility payment structure is $1500 per vendor application fee, a $15,000 Annual Operating Fee per vendor, and a permitting fee of $64 per vehicle. The penalty structure is $27 per violation if the City of Berkeley or member of the public submits a violation ticket, and the vendor does not respond within 72 hours. The penalty rises to $127 per violation if the noncompliance occurs in an ADA zone or the blocking a sidewalk or entrance way.

Several jurisdictions with comparable micromobility use cases appear to have a fee and penalty structure that imposes higher fees and penalties than Berkeley.9 Public Works Department staff agree that the City of Berkeley’s goal should be to revise these fees for next permit cycle.

On September 30, 2025, the City Council unanimously adopted a referral to the City Manager in collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office to develop proposed increases to the shared micromobility program fees and return to Council within 120 days. The proposed amendments would evaluate adjustments to the application fee, operating fee, fee per vehicle, and fee per ride.10
Since this item was first introduced, several positive changes have been observed, including improved organization of micromobility devices within designated areas, indicating that the City’s efforts are beginning to pay off. Transportation Division staff have confirmed that the Public Works Parking Services and Traffic Maintenance team did an excellent job expediting the design and rollout of a pilot involving physical infrastructure improvements such as dedicated corrals and designated parking locations 7 https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2026/01/06/uc-berkeley-crime/berkeley-father-dies-scooter-crash-uc- berkeley/
8 https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2025/12/14/traffic-safety/man-dead-berkeley-solo-scooter-crash/ 9 City of Berkeley, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-09- 30%20Item%2015%20Refer%20to%20the%20City%20Manager%20in%20Collaboration%20with%20the %20CAO.pdf
10 ibid.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
for shared micromobility devices. These improvements have been discussed with micromobility device vendors and are anticipated to be funded through possible future increases in micromobility vendor and/or user fees subject to the abovementioned Council referral.

As part of the pilot, the primary objective remains maintaining clear, continuous, ADA- compliant pedestrian access at all times, with placement prioritized in daylit areas and red-curbed zones where feasible to minimize sidewalk impacts. In many locations, this approach is working well and likely explains some of the improved organization observed; however, there are a few constrained locations where no daylit areas or red curbing are available. In those limited cases, sidewalk placement may be used only where required ADA clearances can be fully maintained, and this is intended to be the exception, not the norm.

In addition to a documented increase in collisions involving micromobility devices in Berkeley, several of which have tragically led to serious injuries or even fatalities, the District 4 office routinely receives complaints of shared micromobility devices in the downtown being improperly parked (e.g., blocking sidewalks and points of ingress to crosswalks and BART stations) or users of shared micromobility devices riding on the sidewalk.

The District 4 office has been in communication with the micromobility vendors regarding other technological advances to help them monitor and modify user behavior in real time, which at least one of the vendors is expecting to roll out in the future. These include geofencing, pavement-sensing speed regulators, and AI guidance to ensure that a ride can only be completed once a shared micromobility device is parked in a designated or acceptable location.

Our office looked at several other local jurisdictions with programs and technologies that improve micromobility use.

San Francisco, CA
● San Francisco’s Powered Scooter Share Permit Program requires application and annual permit fees, along with fleet size caps, effectively shifting enforcement costs to operators and ensuring responsible management.11 11 SFMTA, “Powered Scooter Share Permit Program,” https://www.sfmta.com/projects/powered-scooter- share-permit-program