Agenda Committee 03/05/12

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016 2:30 P.M. 6th Floor Conference Room, 2180 Milvia Street Committee Members: Mayor Bates, Councilmembers Linda Maio and Susan Wengraf (Alternate: Councilmember Anderson)

AGENDA

1. Roll Call

2. Public Comment

3. Approval of Minutes: January 11, 2016

4. Review and Approve draft agendas: a. 2/9/16 – 5:30 p.m. Special City Council Meeting b. 2/9/16 – 7:00 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting 1. Referred items c. Adjournments in memory of -

5. Council Items: a. Council Worksessions – Review updates and approve b. Council Referrals to Agenda Committee c. Land Use Calendar

6. Adjournment – next meeting Monday, February 8, 2016

Monday, January 25, 2016 AGENDA Page 1 1 Additional items may be added to the draft agenda per Council Rules of Procedure. Rules of Procedure Resolution No. 67,178-N.S., Article III, C3c - Agenda - Submission of Time Critical Items Time Critical Items. A Time Critical item is defined as a matter that is considered urgent by the sponsor and that has a deadline for action that is prior to the next meeting of the Council and for which a report prepared by the City Manager, Auditor, Mayor or council member is received by the City Clerk after established deadlines and is not included on the Agenda Committee’s published agenda. The City Clerk shall bring any reports submitted as Time Critical to the meeting of the Agenda Committee. If the Agenda Committee finds the matter to meet the definition of Time Critical, the Agenda Committee may place the matter on the Agenda on either the Consent or Action Calendar. The City Clerk shall not accept any item past the adjournment of the Agenda Committee meeting for which the agenda that the item is requested to appear on has been approved. This is a meeting of the Berkeley City Council Agenda Committee. Since a quorum of the Berkeley City Council may actually be present to discuss matters with the Council Agenda Committee, this meeting is being noticed as a special meeting of the Berkeley City Council as well as a Council Agenda Committee meeting. Written communications addressed to the Agenda Committee and submitted to the City Clerk Department by 5:00 p.m. the Friday before the Committee meeting, will be distributed to the Committee prior to the meeting. After the deadline for submission, residents must provide 10 copies of written communications to the City Clerk at the time of the meeting. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900.

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION: This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6346(V) or 981-7075 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

I hereby certify that the agenda for this special meeting of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of Council Chambers, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on January 21, 2016.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Monday, January 25, 2016 AGENDA Page 2 2 BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2016 2:30 P.M. 6th Floor Conference Room, 2180 Milvia Street Committee Members: Mayor Bates, Councilmembers Linda Maio and Susan Wengraf (Alternate: Councilmember Anderson)

AGENDA

1. Roll Call: 2:30 p.m. Present: Maio, Wengraf, Bates

2. Public Comment: 1 speaker.

3. M/S/C (Wengraf/Bates) to approve the Minutes of January 4, 2016.

4. Review and Approve draft agendas: a. M/S/C (Maio/Bates) to approve the agenda of the 1/26/16 – 5:30 p.m. Special City Council Meeting revised to reflect the following:  Item Added – Council Referrals and Prioritization Process (Droste). b. M/S/C (Bates/Maio) to approve the agenda of the 1/26/16 – 7:00 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting revised to reflect the following:  Item 7 Contract No. 9923 Amendment: Ralph Andersen and Associates for Recruitment Services – Removed from the Agenda by the City Manager.  Item 16 Amending BMC Chapter 13.42 to Adopt Additional Operating Standards for Mini-Dorms and Group Living Accommodations (GLAs) (City Manager) – Reordered on the Agenda to immediately follow the public hearing. 1. Referred items - None c. Adjournments in memory of – 1. Judah Aaron Marans

5. Council Items: a. Council Worksessions b. Council Referrals to Agenda Committee  Report on Workers' Compensation FY 2015 – Scheduled for the February 23, 2016 Worksession. c. Land Use Calendar

6. Adjourned at 2:44 p.m.

Monday, January 11, 2016 MINUTES Page 1 3

Rose Thomsen, Deputy City Clerk

Monday, January 11, 2016 MINUTES Page 2 4

DRAFT PROCLAMATION CALLING A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2016 5:30 P.M. Council Chambers – 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way TOM BATES, MAYOR Councilmembers: DISTRICT 1 – LINDA MAIO DISTRICT 5 – LAURIE CAPITELLI DISTRICT 2 – DARRYL MOORE DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF DISTRICT 3 – MAX ANDERSON DISTRICT 7 – KRISS WORTHINGTON DISTRICT 4 – JESSE ARREGUIN DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE

Preliminary Matters

Roll Call:

Worksession:

1. Discuss Possible Ballot Measures for the November 2016 Election and Which Issues to Include in a Community Survey From: City Manager Contact: Matthai Chakko, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000

Public Comment – Items on this agenda only

Adjournment

I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 28th day of January, 2016.

Tom Bates, Mayor Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.

5 ATTEST:

Date: 1/28/16 Mark Numainville, City Clerk

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny an appeal, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 and Government Code Section 65009(c)(1)(E), no lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny or approve a Zoning Adjustments Board decision may be filed and served on the City more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Zoning Adjustments Board decision, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B-TV (Channel 33), via Internet accessible video stream at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/CalendarEventWebcastMain.aspx and KPFB Radio 89.3. Archived indexed video streams are available at http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/CityCouncil. Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e- mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6908 or [email protected] for further information.

Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/CityCouncil and may be read at reference desks at the following locations: City Clerk Department Libraries: 2180 Milvia Street Main - 2090 Kittredge Street Tel: 510-981-6900 Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue TDD: 510-981-6903 West Branch – 1125 University Fax: 510-981-6901 North Branch – 1170 The Alameda Email: [email protected] South Branch – 1901 Russell

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION: This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6346(V) or 981-7075 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.

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

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT WORKSESSION AGENDA Page 2 6 DRAFT AGENDA

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2016 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2134 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY

TOM BATES, MAYOR Councilmembers: DISTRICT 1 – LINDA MAIO DISTRICT 5 – LAURIE CAPITELLI DISTRICT 2 – DARRYL MOORE DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF DISTRICT 3 – MAX ANDERSON DISTRICT 7 – KRISS WORTHINGTON DISTRICT 4 – JESSE ARREGUIN DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900. The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda. The Mayor may exercise a two minute speaking limitation to comments from Councilmembers. Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a date/time to be specified.

Preliminary Matters

Roll Call:

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

City Manager Comments: The City Manager may make announcements or provide information to the City Council in the form of an oral report. The Council will not take action on such items but may request the City Manager place a report on a future agenda for discussion.

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters: Persons will be selected by lottery to address matters not on the Council agenda. If five or fewer persons submit speaker cards for the lottery, each person selected will be allotted two minutes each. If more than five persons submit speaker cards for the lottery, up to ten persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda and each person selected will be allotted one minute each. Persons wishing to address the Council on matters not on the Council agenda during the initial ten-minute period for such comment, must submit a speaker card to the City Clerk in person at the meeting location and prior to commencement of that meeting. The remainder of the speakers wishing to address the Council on non-agenda items will be heard at the end of the agenda. Speaker cards are not required for this second round of public comment on non-agenda matters.

Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: The Council will take public comment on any items that are either on the amended Consent Calendar or the Information Calendar. Up to three speakers will be entitled to two minutes each to speak in opposition to or support of a Consent Calendar Item. The Presiding Officer will ask additional persons in the audience to stand to demonstrate their respective opposition to or support of the item. In the event that there are more than three persons wishing to speak either in opposition to or support of a “Consent” item, the Presiding Officer will move the item to the beginning of the Action Calendar. Prior to moving the item, the Presiding Officer will fully inform those persons in the audience of this process. Additional information regarding public comment by City of Berkeley employees and interns: Employees and interns of the City of Berkeley, although not required, are encouraged to identify themselves as such, the department in which they work and state whether they are speaking as an individual or in their official capacity when addressing the Council in open session or workshops.

Consent Calendar

The Council will first determine whether to move items on the agenda for action or “Information” to the “Consent Calendar”, or move “Consent Calendar” items to action. Items that remain on the “Consent Calendar” are voted on in one motion as a group. “Information” items are not discussed or acted upon at the Council meeting unless they are moved to “Action” or “Consent”. After hearing from public speakers regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar, any Council Member may move any Information or Consent item to “Action”, however no additional items can be moved onto the Consent Calendar at that point. Following this, the Council will vote on the items remaining on the Consent Calendar in one motion. For items removed from the Consent Calendar to the Action Calendar for additional public comment, at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar, public comment will be limited to persons who have not previously addressed that item during the Consent Calendar related public comment period.

1. Formal Bid Solicitation and Request for Proposal Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on February 9, 2016 From: City Manager Recommendation: Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be, or are planned to be, issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager's threshold will be returned to Council for final approval. Financial Implications: Various Funds - $8,654,194 Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, 981-7300

2. Amending the Relocation Ordinance, Chapter 13.84 of the Berkeley Municipal Code From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending the Relocation Ordinance, Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.84, to add clarifying language to Section 13.84.020.C to define "Natural Disaster"; Section 13.84.070.A to include households specified in Section 13.84.040.B; and Section 13.84.070.O to address tenants with renter's insurance. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kelly Wallace, Health, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 2 8 Consent Calendar

3. Grant Agreement: Alameda County for HIV Testing in Public Health Clinical Settings From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to submit a grant agreement to Alameda County, accept the grant, execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments, and implement the projects and appropriation of funding for related expenses to conduct public health promotion, protection, and prevention services for the following revenue agreement for Fiscal Year 2016 and 2017: HIV Testing program in the amount of $50,000 each fiscal year for a total of $100,000. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kelly Wallace, Health, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

4. Contract No. 10036A Amendment: Truepoint Software Solutions for Accela Professional Services From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 10036A with Truepoint Software Solutions for professional services, increasing the amount by $50,000, for a total not to exceed of $99,950 from June 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. Financial Implications: Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund - $50,000 Contact: Savita Chaudhary, Information Technology, 981-6500

5. Contract No. 9906 Amendment: Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for Extension of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Advisory Services From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 9906 with Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for extension of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Advisory Services to replace the current FUND$ system, increasing the amount by $95,095, for a total not to exceed $144,835 from March 15, 2016 to July 31, 2017. Financial Implications: $95,095 Contact: Savita Chaudhary, Information Technology, 981-6500

6. Contract No. 5224D Amendment: Application Associates for Computer Training From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 5224D with Application Associates for Citywide Computer Training, increasing the amount by $30,000 for a total not to exceed $300,000, from April 1, 2001 to June 30, 2016. Financial Implications: Employee Training Fund - $30,000 Contact: Savita Chaudhary, Information Technology, 981-6500

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 3 9 Consent Calendar

7. Lease Agreement: Berkeley Rowing Club for the property at 2851 W. Bolivar Drive, Aquatic Park From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a lease agreement with the Berkeley Rowing Club for the use and management of the City's property at 2851 W. Bolivar Drive in Aquatic Park for a term of fifteen years. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, 981-6700

8. Contract: ERA Construction, Inc. for Fiscal Year 2016 Responsive Sidewalk Project From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Fiscal Year 2016 Responsive Sidewalk Project, 16-10989-C; 2. Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, ERA Construction, Inc.; and 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, in an amount not to exceed $307,321. Financial Implications: Various Funds - $307,321 Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

9. Contract: Pacific Trenchless, Inc. for 5th Street, Francisco Street, Curtis Street, Delaware Street, Lincoln Street, Virginia Street, Sutter Street, Henry Street, Hopkins Street and Eunice Street From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Sanitary Sewer Project, 16-10998-C, located on 5th Street, Francisco Street, Curtis Street, Delaware Street, Lincoln Street, Virginia Street, Sutter Street, Henry Street, Hopkins Street and Eunice Street; 2. Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Pacific Trenchless, Inc.; and 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, in an amount not to exceed $1,608,102. Financial Implications: Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund - $1,608,102 Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 4 10 Council Consent Items

10. Supporting Worker Cooperatives and Referral to City Manager to Develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance From: Councilmember Arreguin Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution supporting worker cooperatives, and refer to the City Manager to develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance, which includes: 1. Revising the existing Buy Local contracting preference to include a specific percentage preference for worker cooperatives; 2. Revising the business permit application to allow registration as a worker cooperative; 3. Creating business tax and land use incentives, and 4. Developing educational materials in coordination with community stakeholders. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4, 981-7140

11. City Manager Referral: Re-naming of Bret Harte Lane (#72) in Honor of California Poet Laureate Ina Coolbrith From: Councilmember Wengraf Recommendation: In accordance with the City of Berkeley's naming policy, refer to the City Manager the renaming of Bret Harte Lane (#72) to honor California's first poet laureate, Ina Coolbrith. Request that this be sent to the appropriate commission for consideration and return to Council with a recommendation. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Susan Wengraf, Councilmember, District 6, 981-7160

12. City Manager Referral: Expanding Gun Safety Measures in Berkeley From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to consider the following ordinances: 1. Banning Unsecured Firearms And Ammunition Located In Unattended Vehicles In The Public Right Of Way And "Public Places" As Defined In The Ordinance; and 2. Requiring That City-Issued Firearms In Unattended Vehicles Be Secured. Financial Implications: Minimal Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

13. Extend the Berkeley Police Department Drone Moratorium for One Additional Year From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: Extend the moratorium on the use of unmanned aircraft systems, or “drones,” by the Berkeley Police Department for one additional year. Financial Implications: Unknown Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 5 11 Council Consent Items

14. Budget Referral: Including BigBelly Solar Compactor Bins Allocation in the 2016 Mid-Year Budget Process From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: Refer to the 2016 Mid-year budget process the purchasing of BigBelly Solar Compactor Bins in order to save money, meet zero waste goals, and reduce Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

15. Support H.R. 2612 and S. 1473 to Fund Federal Gun Violence Research and Send a Letter to President Barack Obama and Senator Diane Feinstein From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution calling upon Congress to pass, and the President to sign, H.R.2612/S.1473, in relation to congressional funding for gun violence research. Financial Implications: None Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

16. Calling for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Reject License Renewal and Plan to Shut Down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and Send a Letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution calling for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reject the license renewal of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and to create a plan to shut down the Diablo Canyon reactors; and 2. Send letters to the NRC and our state and national elected officials requesting the rejection of license renewal and to create a plan to shut down the Diablo Canyon reactors. Financial Implications: Minimal Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

Action Calendar

The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. Where an item was moved from the Consent Calendar to Action no speaker who has already spoken on that item would be entitled to speak to that item again. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue. Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 6 12 Action Calendar – Public Hearing

Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. This is followed by five-minute presentations each by the appellant and applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak, line up at the podium to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue. Each member of the City Council shall verbally disclose all ex parte contacts concerning the subject of the hearing. Councilmembers shall also submit a report of such contacts in writing prior to the commencement of the hearing. Written reports shall be available for public review in the office of the City Clerk.

17. ZAB Appeal: 2029-2035 Blake Street From: City Manager Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution approving Use Permit No. ZP2014-0069 to demolish two existing non- residential buildings and construct a new 5-story mixed-use project with 82 residential units, two live/work units, a 1,896 sq. ft. ground-floor retail space, 68 auto parking spaces in a basement level garage, and 67 bike parking spaces, determining that appeal issues of scale, traffic and noise are without merit and rejecting the appeal as to those issues, and determining that the appeal issue of air quality has merit and adding a Condition of Approval as a result. Financial Implications: None Contact: Eric Angstadt, Planning and Development, 981-7400

Action Calendar – Old Business

18. Living Wage for All City of Berkeley Employees (Continued from January 12, 2016) From: City Manager Recommendation: Direct the City Manager to develop a more detailed plan for raising eight (8) unrepresented classifications to the Living Wage level, and to analyze its fiscal implications citywide. The plan would include adjustments to the current salary pay schedule for the impacted classification, and a corresponding budget adjustment for those City departments that have employees in the impacted classifications. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kelly Wallace, Health, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 7 13 Action Calendar – Old Business

19. Restrict Parking in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area (Continued from January 12, 2016) From: Disaster and Fire Safety Commission Recommendation: Refer to staff the design of a parking restriction program in the Hills Fire Zone to ensure access for emergency vehicles and to allow for safe evacuations in an emergency and to hold public meetings to get community input in the design of such a program. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Keith May, Acting Commission Secretary, 981-3473

20. In Support of Ending Drone Warfare (Continued from January 12, 2016) From: Peace and Justice Commission Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution urging the U.S. government to: 1. Halt the use of all drones for extrajudicial killing, since extrajudicial killing is illegal under international law, 2. Halt all drone surveillance that assaults basic freedoms and inalienable rights and terrorizes domestic life in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia, 3. Prohibit the sale, and distribution of drones and drone technology to foreign countries in order to prevent the proliferation of this menacing threat to world peace, freedom and security, and 4. Work with the international community to ban the use of drones for military purposes. Urge Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Representative Barbara Lee to help to end the use of drones in warfare by promoting legislation that will achieve these ends; and Direct the City Clerk to send copies of this resolution to President Barack Obama, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, and Representative Barbara Lee. Financial Implications: Unknown Contact: Eric Brenman, Commission Secretary, 981-5400

21. a. Recommendation for the Five-Year Paving Plan (Continued from January 12, 2016) From: Public Works Commission Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the first two years (2016-2017) of the Five Year Paving Plan as proposed by staff. The Public Works Commission recommends further consideration of the last three years (2018-2020) of the plan to: Better incorporate potential changes due to on-going drought; Assure the City of Berkeley takes full advantage of lessons learned from prior test sites; Best optimize green infrastructure to provide multiple benefits; Better evaluate full life-cycle costs, especially of alternative treatments. Financial Implications: Unknown Contact: Sean Rose, Commission Secretary, 981-6300

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 8 14 Action Calendar – Old Business

21. b. Draft Mid–Program Review Report for Measure M Integrated Streets Investment Plan and Update of the 5-Year Street Paving Plan, FY 2016 to FY 2020 (Continued from January 12, 2016) From: City Manager Recommendation: 1. Adopt the recommendation from the Public Works Commission; and 2. Review the attached Draft Mid-Program Review Report for Measure M Integrated Streets Investment Plan. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

22. Final Status Report on West Berkeley Industry (Continued from January 19, 2016) From: Councilmembers Maio and Droste Contact: Linda Maio, Councilmember, District 1, 981-7110

23. Develop a Provision for the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance to Allow for the De-designation of a Landmark Designation for a Building that has been Legally Demolished (Continued from January 12, 2016) From: Councilmember Moore Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to develop a provision for the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) that would allow a landmark designation to be de-designated for a building that has been previously landmarked but subsequently has been legally demolished. Financial Implications: None Contact: Darryl Moore, Councilmember, District 2, 981-7120

24. Supporting Worker Cooperatives and Referral to City Manager to Develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance (Continued from January 12, 2016) From: Councilmember Arreguin Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution to support worker cooperatives, and refer to the City Manager to develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance, which includes: 1. Revising the existing Buy Local contracting preference and adding a worker cooperative preference; 2. Revising the business permit application; 3. Incentivizing existing businesses to convert to cooperatives; 4. Creating business tax and land use incentives, and 5. Developing educational materials. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4, 981-7140

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 9 15 Action Calendar – Old Business

25. Zoning Amendments to B.M.C. Chapter 23C.08 - Demolition and Dwelling Unit Controls (Continued from January 12, 2016) From: Councilmember Arreguin Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance (as developed by staff) repealing and re-enacting Berkeley Municipal Code Sections 23C.08.020 and 23C.08.030, and adding Section 23C.08.035 to modify and clarify the conditions under which dwelling units may be demolished. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4, 981-7140

26. City Manager Referral: Implementation of Tier One Recommendations from the Homeless Task Force (Continued from January 12, 2016 – Item includes supplemental materials.) From: Councilmember Arreguin Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to develop a plan to implement the Tier One Recommendations of the Homeless Task Force, which involve expanding the City's Homeless Outreach Team and Mobile Crisis Team, increasing funding for the Crisis Intervention Training (CIT), increasing the number of public restrooms, and providing additional storage spaces and warming centers for the homeless population. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4, 981-7140

27. City Manager Referral: Create a Pathway for City Employees to Earn a Living Wage Within Two Years (Continued from January 12, 2016 – Item includes revised materials.) From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to create a pathway for City full-time and part-time employees to earn a living wage within two years. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

28. Refer to the Rent Stabilization Board to Consider Creating an Ordinance Preventing Evictions for Minor Offenses (Continued from January 12, 2016) From: Councilmembers Worthington, Anderson, and Arreguin Recommendation: Refer to the Housing Advisory Commission, and the Rent Stabilization Board to consider creating an ordinance preventing evictions for minor offenses. Financial Implications: Minimal Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 10 16 Action Calendar – Old Business

29. Prioritizing the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Action Plan (Continued from January 12, 2016) From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: 1. Prioritize the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Action Plan to improve housing affordability in Berkeley through local funding and policy reform; and 2. Refer 7, 8, 9 to the Rent Board Stabilization Board and all other items to the Housing Advisory Commission. Financial Implications: Unknown Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

30. Housing Trust Fund Loan for $1,000,000 (Continued from January 19, 2016) From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: Loan $1,000,000 to the Housing Trust Fund. Financial Implications: $1,000,000 Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

Action Calendar – New Business

31. Discussion and Direction Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for the November 2016 General Municipal Election From: City Manager Recommendation: Discuss possible ballot measures for November 2016, and provide direction to the City Manager about which issues to include in a community survey. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Matthai Chakko, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000

32. Proposed Amendments to the Minimum Wage Ordinance, Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.99 From: City Manager Recommendation: Review and consider information regarding the activities and costs associated with implementing and enforcing the proposed amendments to the Minimum Wage Ordinance (MWO), including the potential impact of the proposed amendments on the City's minimum wage employees, employers, on-call workers and Youth-in-Training program workers, and either: 1. Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.99 which includes revisions to the Ordinance per the Council directive and proposal presented at the November 10, 2015 Council meeting; -OR- 2. Refer the MWO back to the City Manager for further analysis and revisions. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kelly Wallace, Health, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 11 17 Action Calendar – New Business

33. a. Designate Surplus Transfer Tax Funds for Parks Capital Projects for Budget Years 2017-2019 From: Parks and Waterfront Commission Recommendation: Designate surplus Transfer Tax funds for previous, current, and upcoming years to fund parks capital improvement projects for budget years 2017 - 2019 at the rate of $2M per year using the following project list: Grove Park ballfield phase 2; James Kenney Park basketball and tennis courts; Ohlone Park basketball court and picnic area; Rose Garden improvements (trellis phase 2, tennis courts, pathways); San Pablo Park tennis courts; Skate Park improvements; Strawberry Creek Park courts phase 2; Willard basketball courts/play structure/ picnic area. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Roger Miller, Commission Secretary, 981-6700

b. Designate Surplus Transfer Tax Funds for Parks Capital Projects for Budget Years 2017-2019 From: City Manager Recommendation: Accept the Parks and Waterfront Commission’s report entitled “Designate Surplus Transfer Tax funds for Parks Capital Projects for Budget Years 2017 – 2019” and add the list of projects in the report to the City’s Capital Improvement Program for its annual budget discussions. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, 981-6700

Council Action Items

34. Allocating Additional Property Transfer Tax Revenue to the Housing Trust Fund From: Councilmember Arreguin Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution modifying Council Budget Development Policies to allocate 25% of Funds from the Property Transfer Tax above $10.5 million to the Housing Trust Fund. The remaining 75% of funding in excess of $10.5 million will be allocated to the Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 610). Financial Implications: See report Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4, 981-7140

35. Homeless Task Force Recommendations: Expand Homeless Outreach and Mobile Crisis From: Councilmember Arreguin Recommendation: Direct the City Manager to analyze the following Tier One Recommendations from the Berkeley Homeless Task Force and return to Council in time for the FY 16-17 Mid-Biennial Budget Process with recommendations and information on financial and staff implications: 1. Expand city Homeless Outreach Team staff; 2. Expand the city’s Mobile Crisis Team to provide 24/7 coverage. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4, 981-7140

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 12 18 Information Reports

36. Feasibility of iPhone Use by City Staff & Backup Blackberry/IT System From: City Manager Contact: Savita Chaudhary, Information Technology, 981-6500

37. 800 University, Berkeley - Review of Planning Commission Approval of Tentative Tract Map 8183 From: City Manager Contact: Eric Angstadt, Planning and Development, 981-7400

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda – Adjournment

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B-TV (Channel 33), via internet accessible video stream at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/CalendarEventWebcastMain.aspx and KPFB Radio 89.3. Archived indexed video streams are available at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil. Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

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

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street as well as posted on the City's website at http://www.cityofberkeley.info.

Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil and may be read at reference desks at the following locations: City Clerk Department Libraries: 2180 Milvia Street Main - 2090 Kittredge Street Tel: 510-981-6900 Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue TDD: 510-981-6903 West Branch – 1125 University Fax: 510-981-6901 North Branch – 1170 The Alameda Email: [email protected] South Branch – 1901 Russell

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 13 19

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6346(V) or 981-7075 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 DRAFT AGENDA Page 14 20

Jesse Arreguín City Councilmember, District 4 CONSENT CALENDAR February 9, 2016

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Jesse Arreguín

Subject: Supporting Worker Cooperatives and Referral to City Manager to Develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance

RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt a Resolution to support worker cooperatives, and refer to the City Manager to develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance, which includes:

1) Revising the existing Buy Local contracting preference to include a specific percentage preference for worker cooperatives; 2) Revising the business permit application to allow registration as a worker cooperative; 3) Creating business tax and land use incentives, and 4) Developing educational materials in coordination with community stakeholders.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time.

BACKGROUND Worker cooperatives have become important components of local economies and communities. Owned and run by employees, these businesses provide higher wages, benefits, professional development, job security, and upward mobility for low to moderate income people. Just as importantly, these small businesses provide a diversity of locally owned services that become valuable community assets. In the City of Berkeley there are a number of worker cooperatives that have become part of our community’s fabric such as The Cheeseboard and Missing Link Cooperative (see the attached map of existing worker cooperatives in Berkeley). Workers own their business, reinvest more in the local economy, and operate their businesses in ways that truly benefit our city.

Due to a lack of familiarity with the cooperative business model, these businesses face a unique set of challenges. Those wishing to start a cooperative receive little to no information from city offices and are not financed by equity capital, making every additional expense count. It is time to recognize the contributions of worker cooperatives and remove as many barriers as possible by developing a Worker Cooperative Ordinance.

Worker Cooperative Preference in Procurement and Contracting The City of Berkeley extends a 5% preference on bids to local business enterprises for supplies, equipment and nonprofessional services from $100 to $25,000. Bids received from local vendors are reduced by the applicable percentage before an evaluation is made to determine the lowest responsible bidder. After this determination is made, an award is recommended in the amount shown in the vendor’s bid. For example, a local business bidding $1,000 for a pencil contract to the City would be evaluated as if it had bid $950. If the bid is awarded to the local business, that business is paid the bid price of $1,000. The “Buy Local Preference” policy is designed to focus expenditures from the City to nurture Berkeley based businesses.

This item requests that the City Manager revise the Buy Local preference to include a contracting preference for worker cooperatives.

Revising Business Permit Application To be eligible for business tax and land use incentives or preference in city procurement, a business must be recorded as a Worker Cooperative. To accomplish this, businesses that would like to establish as a cooperative must show proof and certification as part of the business permit application.

Business Tax and Land Use Incentives Exempting worker cooperatives from payment of business tax and business registration fees in their first year, and reducing business taxes in subsequent years, are effective ways to ease start-up costs. Making the land use review process less burdensome would create additional incentives.

Developing Educational Materials Before any owner can consider starting a new business or converting an existing business to a cooperative, they need to have information about this model. Developing educational materials will raise awareness of the numerous benefits of cooperatives, create staff expertise, and promote cooperatives as an economic development strategy. A number of non-profit organizations, including the Sustainable Economies Law Center, are working to establish policies to encourage worker cooperatives and can provide assistance to the city in developing educational materials. Future steps could include developing a Worker Cooperative Support Program that provides technical assistance and support through the process.

CONTACT PERSON Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4 510-981-7140

Attachments: 1: Resolution Exhibit A: Map of Berkeley Worker Cooperatives 2: Worker Cooperative Ordinance developed by Sustainable Economies Law Center

Page 2 22

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

SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF WORKER COOPERATIVES

WHEREAS, Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay Area have the highest concentration of worker-owned businesses in the United States; and

WHEREAS, worker cooperatives are owned and democratically governed by their members, provide wages and benefits above industry average, develop important leadership and management skills, and build wealth for low to moderate income residents; and

WHEREAS, worker cooperatives create and maintain quality, stable jobs in key industries throughout Berkeley, including food service, health care, manufacturing, and communications; and

WHEREAS, Berkeley is home to several well-known worker cooperatives including The Cheeseboard Collective, Missing Link Bicycle Cooperative, Inkworks Press, Heartwood Custom Woodworking, Cooperative Digital, Quilted, and Three Stones Hearth; and

WHEREAS, Berkeley-based Cheeseboard Collective is part of the Arizmendi Association, a network of six Bay Area cooperative bakeries which have over 160 members. Arizmendi Association bakers earn more than double the national median wage for bakers and receive health insurance, paid vacation and a share of all profits; and

WHEREAS, Berkeley ranked #10 among cities with the highest income inequality, with nearly 20% of its population living in poverty; and

WHEREAS, the worker cooperative sector is growing in other East Bay Cities, such as Oakland, Emeryville, and Richmond; and

WHEREAS, the United Nations declared 2012 the International Year of Cooperatives and encouraged governments “to establish policies, laws and regulation conducive to cooperative formation and growth”.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley recognizes the tremendous benefits of worker cooperatives and supports the development and growth of cooperatives.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council refers to the City Manager to develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance for Council consideration to include the following proposals:

1) Revising the existing Buy Local contracting preference to include a specific percentage preference for worker cooperatives;

2) Revising the business permit application to allow registration as a worker cooperative; 3) Creating business tax and land use incentives, and 4) Developing educational materials in coordination with community stakeholders.

Exhibits A: Map of Berkeley Worker Cooperatives

Page 4 24 Exhibit A

BERKELEY’S WORKER COOPERATIVE ECONOMY The San Francisco Bay Area has the highest concentration of worker owned businesses in the United States, and compared to most of the country, the number of Berkeley worker cooperatives is impressive. But we could still do more to be a national leader. Worker cooperatives have a powerful impact on community economic development, and the City of Berkeley can do more to level the playing ﬁeld for these wealth-building community enterprises. Envision Berkeley with dozens of worker cooperatives in every district -- providing digniﬁed, living-wage jobs to all of Berkeley’s neighborhoods and residents.

Berkeley’s Worker Cooperatives: The Bay Area is a hub of worker cooperatives, and the numbers are steadily growing! Berkeley’s worker cooperatives have entered a broad range of sectors, and include: • Biofuel station, Biofuel Oasis • Pizzeria and bakery, The Cheese Board Collective • Cafe, Alchemy Collective Cafe • Furniture manufacturer, Heartwood Custom Woodworking • Bicycle retail and repair shop, Missing Link Bicycle Cooperative • Healthy juice bar and cafe, Juice Bar Collective • Prepared food manufacturer, Three Stone Hearth Cooperative • Graphic and web design ﬁrm, Quilted • Printing press, Inkworks Press • Landscaping, Mariposa Gardening and Design (forthcoming*)

Total # worker cooperatives: 10

*Mariposa Gardening and Design is listed as a forthcoming worker cooperative because the business is currently undergoing conversion from a sole proprietorship to a worker cooperative. 25 WORKER COOPERATIVES BY COUNCIL DISTRICT

Counncic l DDistrictt 5: Laurie Capa itele li • 3 woorker cooopsps • JuJuicce BaB r CoC lll ece tivev - HeHealalththy juj icce bar annd cafe • TThe ChC eee see Boao rd Collectivve - BaBakery andd pizzeria • MaM rir poosa Gararddenningn andd Desiggn - LaL ndsccaapini g (fforo thhccoming) 5 6 CoC unu cil Dissttriict 6: Susaan Wengraaf • 0 wow rker cooopss Coounciil Distririctt 1: LiL ndda MaMaioo • 1 wow rker cooop • ThThreee Stonne Heeara tht Cooopeperaatitivev - Preepaareed Councic l DiDists rict 4: JeJ ssse AArreguinn fof odd mana ufu acctutureer • 1 woorkerr cooop 1 • MMissing Link Bicycle Coopperaatit vee - Bicycle retail and repair shhopp • Coounccilmemberr Jesses Arrrregguin is ssppearhheeading an effffort too recoggnizee Beerkrkeleyy’s worker coopperraative CoCoununcicil DiD stricct 2: Daarryl Mooore sesecttoro andn supuppoportt its connttinuedd • 3 woorkrkere cooopss ggrowth and succcecesss. • Inkworrksk Press - Printing press • QQuili ted - Grrapaphih c annd web design ﬁrm 4 • HeHearartwtwooo d CuC stomm Woodworrkikingng - Furnituree maanun facttururere 7 2 CoCoununcicil DDistricctt 7: Krrisi s Worthhington • 0 woorkrkere cooopsp

CoCouunncicil DiD striictc 3: Max Anded rssonn • 2 woorkr er cooops 3 8 • AAlccheemy Coolllective Cafe - CaCafefe • BBiioofueuel Oaasis - Biofuel stata ion CoC unncic l DDiiststrir ctct 8: LLooriri Droosts e • 0 wow rkkere cooops

Information prepared by the Bay Area Cooperative Ecosystem collaborative: the Arizmendi Association of Cooperatives, the Artisan Hub, the Democracy at Work Institute, Green-Collar Communities Clinic of the East Bay Community Law Center, Network of Bay Area Worker Cooperatives, PODER, Project Equity, Prospera, Sustainable Economies Law Center, and the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives. 26 Attachment 2

Draft Worker Cooperative Ordinance – October, 2015 By Sara Stephens, Staff Attorney Sustainable Economies Law Center

Executive Summary

The purpose of this set of recommendations is to facilitate the adoption of city policies that incentivize and enable the formation of worker cooperatives. Worker cooperatives are owned and democratically controlled by their employees, and are an important strategy for creating more resilient local economies. Worker cooperatives operate for the benefit of their workers rather than distant shareholders, thereby helping to combat income inequality and oppressive, low-wage jobs. Compared to typical corporations, worker cooperatives are more efficient wealth-creators, tend to reinvest in the local economy, and typically provide salaries and benefits that exceed industry standards.

Local governments can be instrumental in fostering development of worker cooperatives by enacting policies that remove key barriers and incentivize a thriving cooperative economy. Barriers to cooperative development include:

 Lack of public awareness and education about the worker cooperative business model and its benefits,

 Limited sources of technical support for forming, operating, or converting a business to a worker cooperative,

 Difficulty obtaining financing for cooperative formation or conversion, and

 Start-up costs and regulatory obstacles.

A city strategy that creates an environment conducive to worker cooperative success should prioritize the following three strategies:

 Develop expertise in worker cooperatives at the city level and promote cooperatives as an economic development strategy,

1 27

 Use the city’s convening power to forge strategic connections within the cooperative ecosystem, and

 Allocate grant funding for incubation and technical assistance with a focus on worker cooperatives or networks with 50-100+ jobs.

This paper uses the city of Oakland, California, as a case study to demonstrate how a worker cooperative ordinance can fit into an existing city code. Oakland, like most other cities, has already adopted ordinances and invested resources in the creation of small businesses, affordable housing, and anti-poverty measures. Promoting worker cooperatives is a strategic means of achieving these same ends, and has the potential to be more effective than traditional economic development models. Investment in cooperatives supports entrepreneurship, creates jobs, raises workers’ income, increases the local tax base, and leads to reinvestment in local communities.

The model ordinance below provides specific language tailored to Oakland’s current Municipal Code that will enable the following suggested policies:

 Cultivate expertise in worker cooperatives at city-supported business development centers,

 Promote worker cooperatives as a business model through outreach and education,

 Create markets for worker cooperatives by giving preference to cooperatives in city contracting and purchasing,

 Facilitate access to funding by providing loan guarantees to financial institutions that lend to OWCs,

 Invest in worker cooperatives through grants to cooperative incubators and low-interest loans to finance cooperative start-ups and conversions, and

 Streamline regulatory processes and reduce land use fees and business taxes for newly formed worker cooperatives (start-ups or conversions).

2 28

Introduction and Policy Priorities

Worker cooperatives are playing a key role in ushering in a more democratic and equitable economy. Worker ownership and empowerment not only protects individuals from the exploitation of insecure, low-wage jobs, 1 but also benefits cities and communities, because cooperatives also tend to reinvest more in their local economies.2 Cooperative enterprises provide truly local economic development, with limits on external shareholders so benefits accrue to the local worker-owners. Wage differentials between lowest and highest paid workers are typically greatly reduced because workers decide key business policies. Workers own their jobs, tend to be more productive and happy at work,3 and tend to operate their business in ways that truly benefit the local community and protect the local environment.

Worker cooperatives face a unique set of barriers, due in large part to widespread lack of familiarity with the cooperative business model. Entrepreneurs wishing to start a cooperative, or employees seeking to become worker-owners of their current business, require particular knowledge and technical support that most traditional business development offices and incubators are unable to provide because they don’t have experience with the model. In addition, since cooperatives are generally not financed by equity capital, they are more reliant upon loans, which banks are more reluctant to offer them. These and other barriers put cooperatives at a disadvantage in the market, and the time has come to give cooperatives a powerful boost.

Throughout the world, governments and regulatory bodies are recognizing the value of cooperatives and the need to support them. In November 2014, Madison, Wisconsin allocated $1 million per year for five years to promote cooperative enterprise

1 Jessica Gordon Nembhard, Benefits and Impacts of Cooperatives 8-9 (Feb. 2014) (“Many of the worker- owned cooperatives, in particular, increase industry standards in wages and benefits, as well as provide self- management or team work between management and “labor”, job ladder opportunities, skill development and capacity building, job security, and general control over income and work rules”), available at http://community-wealth.org/content/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives; Hilary Abell, Worker Cooperatives: Pathways to Scale 11 (June 2014) (Noting that workers at Cooperative Home Care Associates and Women’s Action to Gain Economic Security earn above-market pay and benefits and have fuller work schedules than the industry average.), available at http://www.project-equity.org/worker-cooperatives- pathways-to-scale. 2 “Food cooperatives, for example, spend more revenues locally (38% compared with 24% spent by conventional grocers), buy more products locally (20% versus 6%) . . . for every $1,000 spent at a food co-op, $1,606 goes to the local economy—translating to 17% more money recirculating in the immediate community.” Nembhard, supra note 1, at 10. 3 Studies show that worker ownership correlates with greater business productivity and longevity. Worker cooperatives also have reduced employee turnover. Abell, supra note 1, at 12-13.

3 29

formation, the largest allocation by a U.S. city to date.4 Five months earlier, New York City passed a budget initiative that committed $1.2 million to organizations developing worker cooperatives in the city.5 In March 2015, New York City also passed a resolution that will “require the city to report on the number of city contracts awarded to worker cooperatives and the number of worker cooperatives that received assistance from the Department of Small Business Services (SBS).”6 The United Nations even declared 2012 the International Year of Cooperatives,7 an objective of which was to “[e]ncourage governments and regulatory bodies to establish policies, laws and regulation conducive to cooperative formation and growth.”8

Additionally, timing could not be better for an innovative ordinance facilitating cooperative conversions. The U.S. is facing a “silver tsunami” of retiring baby boomers, a generation that owns 66% of all businesses with employees.9 Less than half of business owners who expect to retire in five years have succession plans, so many of these businesses will either close or be sold and relocated. Conversions to worker cooperatives can keep these businesses anchored in their communities, preserve jobs, create local wealth, and provide the selling owner with tax advantages.10

Cities are in a unique position to influence how money circulates through the local economy by promoting start-up cooperatives and cooperative conversions as a key job retention strategy for local wealth building. The end goal of such a city initiative should be a thriving and supportive ecosystem for worker cooperatives that creates a diversity of stable jobs and recirculation of local wealth. A well-informed strategy must guide the pursuit of this goal; merely allocating dollars toward cooperative development may do little to change the current situation. Likewise, selecting city policies arbitrarily from a menu of suggestions may not effectively position new cooperatives to succeed and grow to scale.

4 Ajowa Nzinga Ifateyo, $5 Million for Co-op Development in Madison, Grassroots Economic Organizing (Jan. 26, 2015), http://www.geo.coop/story/5-million-co-op-development-madison. 5 New York City Invests in Worker Cooperatives, US Federation of Worker Cooperatives (June 25, 2014), http://www.usworker.coop/news/new-york-city-invests-worker-cooperatives-0 6 “Progressives Pass Bill to Support Worker Co-operatives” by the Progressive Caucus of the New York City Council. http://nycprogressives.com/2015/02/26/progressives-pass-bill-to-support-worker-co-operatives/. Find the bill language at “A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to worker cooperatives” http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1853950&GUID=917F9D68- 6081-4BE0-BABA-B9910461817F&Options=&Search= 7 International Year of Cooperatives 2012, http://social.un.org/coopsyear/objectives-of-the-year.html. 8 Id. 9 http://www.project-equity.org/business-conversions/ 10 Project Equity, Case Studies: Business Conversions to Worker Cooperatives, 6 (April 2015), available at http://www.project-equity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Case-Studies_Business-Conversions-to- Worker-Cooperatives_ProjectEquity.pdf. The selling owner can avoid capital gains tax through the 1042 Rollover. Id.

4 30

The following sample ordinance encompasses many different ways a city can encourage cooperative development. However, to be most effective, cities should prioritize these three strategies: 1. Allocate grant funding for incubation and technical assistance with a focus on worker cooperatives or networks with 50-100+ jobs. Worker cooperatives typically need training and technical assistance as a first step before accessing capital. It is not uncommon for loan funds earmarked for cooperatives to be underutilized, because the cooperatives were not “loan ready.” And even if there is a place in an anchor’s supply chain for cooperatives (see #3 below), those cooperatives still need to be viable and competitive. A first priority for city funds, therefore, should be strategic investment in incubators and technical assistance providers that support growth-oriented new cooperatives or outreach for, then support of cooperative conversions. Cities should evaluate grant proposals based on whether the program requires its cooperative participants to have the intent to grow and/or replicate, and whether the program will provide multi-year support for newly-formed cooperatives. Cities should support a mix of grant proposals—some supporting start-up or existing coops, and some supporting coop conversions. Coop conversion proposals should include aggressive outreach and education to business owners and employees about the opportunity to convert to cooperatives. The funding should also require that incubators or technical assistance providers facilitate well-rounded business skills training, either in-house or through partnerships with existing cooperatives and other organizations. Applicants should additionally have a plan for reaching historically marginalized populations like people of color, immigrants, and low-income workers. 2. Develop expertise in cooperatives at the city level and promote cooperatives as an economic development strategy. Economic development strategies as usual are not sufficient to create family-sustaining employment opportunities for low and moderate-income communities, let alone facilitate worker cooperative development. Rather than creating low- wage jobs and race-to-the-bottom corporate expansion, cities should focus on strategies for local wealth creation and job ownership. Cities must gain some fluency in cooperatives before they can facilitate a shift in the vision for economic development in their city and raise awareness of the benefits of cooperatives. City-funded technical assistance should employ staff with expertise in worker cooperatives, include tailored support for worker cooperatives, and encourage conversion to a cooperative as a succession plan. Cities should also actively incorporate cooperatives (both creation of

5 31

new ones and conversions of conventional businesses) into their job retention strategies and sector initiatives. Finally, cities can make proclamations and initiate public relations campaigns to bring cooperatives into the mainstream. 3. Use the city’s convening power to forge strategic connections within the cooperative ecosystem. The city government can play a strategic role in both connecting worker cooperatives to supply chains, and connecting existing businesses ready for conversion to technical assistance providers. For worker cooperatives to succeed, they must meet a need in the market. Connecting cooperatives to the supply chain of place-based institutions and businesses can facilitate this. This is known as an “anchor institution strategy.” “Anchors” could include universities, hospitals, cultural institutions, health care facilities, public utilities, existing cooperative businesses, or the city government itself. Cities must convene cooperative practitioners and others to identify where cooperatives can fit into the supply chain of local businesses or institutions, identify sectors ready for cooperatives, and help connect businesses nearing retirement to competent technical assistance providers who can facilitate cooperative conversion. To achieve this, the city might consider forming a cooperative ecosystem council. The city of Quebec, which has passed innovative policies to support cooperatives, took this approach. The council would administer city grants and negotiate with the city about programs and policies on behalf of its members.11

What follows is a sample ordinance based on the Municipal Code of Oakland, California, offering examples of how the city could incorporate incentives and support for worker cooperatives into its municipal code. Amendments and additions that directly support the above three policies should be prioritized. This ordinance begins with a “Findings” section that highlights the need for and benefits of worker cooperatives in Oakland. It then offers the following amendments and additions to the Municipal Code:

 Creation of a Worker Cooperative Preference Ordinance, which 1) provides criteria for and a method of certifying Oakland Worker Cooperatives (OWCs), 2) adds OWCs to Oakland’s existing system of bid discounts and preferences in contracting with local businesses, 3) establishes outreach requirements, and 4) creates a financing program for OWC

11 Jennifer Jones Austin, Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, Worker Cooperatives for New York City: A Vision for Addressing Income Inequality 27 (Jan. 2014), available at http://www.fpwa.org/binary- data/FPWA_BINARY/file/000/000/697-1.pdf.

6 32

contractors and subcontractors,

 Amendments to the City’s Purchasing System ordinance, instituting a preference for OWCs in purchases of supplies, and adding OWCs to the City’s pre-qualified business lists for City contracts,

 Creation of a Worker Cooperative Support Program that requires city- level cooperative expertise and establishes a Worker Cooperative Development Fund to advance technical support and incubation for cooperatives, and a Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund to provide low interest loans to new cooperatives and businesses converting to cooperatives,

 Addition of a section exempting OWCs from payment of business tax and business registration fees in their first year, and reducing business taxes in subsequent years, and

 Creation of a set of land use incentives for OWCs to make the review process less burdensome.

Model Ordinance for the City of Oakland

SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. Unemployment, poverty, and income inequality are serious concerns in Oakland.

1. The unemployment rate in Oakland increased from 5.6% to 16.9% between 2000 and 2010. In parts of West Oakland, 44-45% are unemployed; in East Oakland, 31-35% are unemployed. The poverty rate in Oakland was 22.3% in 2010, compared to 11.7%, the poverty rate in the East Bay as a whole.12

2. In 2010, half of all income earned went to the top 20% of households while the remaining 80% of households shared the other half.13

12 East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, The State of Work in the East Bay and Oakland: Wealth Concentration Amidst Bottoming Out for Low and Middle-Income Families, 1 (May 2012), available at http://www.workingeastbay.org/sowebo. 13 Id. at 2.

7 33

B. Local, cooperative businesses have the potential to benefit local economies far more than absentee-owned businesses or even traditional local businesses.

1. Locally based stores typically invest more in local labor rather than consolidate their administrative functions elsewhere. They are also more likely to purchase goods and services from within their local economies.14

2. Wealth generated by worker cooperatives tends to stay in the local economy, by virtue of the fact that profits are generally distributed to workers or reinvested in the cooperative.

3. Wealth generated by worker cooperatives is more equitably allocated, since profits generated by worker-members are generally distributed to worker- members on the basis of their labor input rather than to outside investors on the basis of their stock ownership.15

4. One recent study showed that, per square foot, local businesses have four times the economic impact of chain stores.16

5. Poverty reduction is more likely with the development of worker cooperatives, rather than traditional economic development, because worker cooperatives provide their workers with the opportunity to build wealth through joint ownership of the enterprise, rather than merely offering low- wage, dead-end jobs.17

C. Worker cooperatives can provide higher wages and greater job security for their workers.

1. The shared ownership structure of worker cooperatives causes each worker- member to be less vulnerable to unemployment, withholding of payment, and low-wage exploitation. This leads cooperative businesses to become more stable, as there is less employee turnover, as well as increased

14 Civic Economics, Economic Impact Analysis: A Case Study, Local Merchants vs. Chain Retailers 6 (2002), available at http://www.civiceconomics.com/app/download/5841748704/Lamar+Retail+Analysis.pdf. 15 Scott L. Cummings, Community Economic Development as Progressive Politics: Toward a Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice, Stan. L. Rev. 399, 475 (2011). 16 The Urban Conservancy in partnership with Civic Economics, Thinking Outside the Box: A Report on Independent Merchants and the New Orleans Economy 10 (Sept. 2009), available at http://civiceconomics.com/app/download/5841600904/Magazine+Street+2009.pdf. 17 See Evan Casper-Futterman, Back to (Non)Basics: Worker Cooperatives as Economic Development, Berkeley Plan. J., 115, 124 (2011).

8 34

profitability and longevity.18

2. Worker cooperatives can allow marginalized workers in industries such as day labor and domestic work to consolidate their bargaining power and combat worker exploitation.19

3. Because worker-members, rather than investors, control the business, the employees have a say in their work conditions and the business is focused on member benefits rather than merely profit. Worker-owners in the Bay Area’s Prospera cooperatives (formerly Women’s Action to Gain Economic Security) saw an increase of 158% in their incomes and an average return of 22 times their initial investments.20 The largest cooperative Prospera incubated, Natural Home Cleaning Professionals, pays its members twice the average starting wage for commercial cleaners in the county.21 Prospera-incubated cooperatives also provide benefits such as health and dental insurance and flexible vacation time.22

4. The average pay ratio between the lowest- and highest-paid employee in a Fortune 500 company is 341:1; in a worker cooperative it is rarely more than 4:1.23

D. Local, cooperative businesses provide wide-reaching benefits to communities.

1. Studies have shown that communities where local businesses make up a substantial portion of the economy have lower crime rates and poverty rates, and their residents are more engaged in community and civic organizations. Conversely, as big-box retailers enter a community, civic engagement declines.24

18 Scott L. Cummings, Developing Cooperatives as a Job Creation Strategy for Low-Income Workers, N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change, 181, 187 (1999). 19 Id. at 477. 20 2013 Year in Review, Women’s Action to Gain Economic Security, available at http://prosperacoops.org/sites/default/files/1_yir_2013_final.pdf. 21 Alumni Prospera, http://prosperacoops.org/alumni-co-ops. 22 Id. 23 Sara Tonnesen, Stronger Together: Worker Cooperatives as a Community Economic Development Strategy, Geo.J. on Poverty L. & Pol’y, 187, 196 (2013). 24 Stacy Mitchell, Locally owned businesses can help communities thrive—and survive climate change, Institute for Local Self-Reliance (April 26, 2013), http://www.ilsr.org/locally-owned-businesses-communities-thrive- survive-climate-change.

9 35

2. Worker cooperatives are uniquely suited to promote both community-based job creation and political involvement, as they are built on democratic principles and can encourage collective action.25

E. Converting existing businesses to worker cooperatives can transform low-wage jobs into empowering careers, and preserve local jobs as business owners retire.

1. Low-wage workers typically cannot afford to quit their jobs and become small business entrepreneurs, but could become co-owners of their workplaces through cooperative conversion.

2. The US is facing a “silver tsunami” of retiring baby-boomers, who own 66% of all business with employees. 26 Most do not have a succession plan in place, leaving many workplaces at risk of closing or being relocated. The time is ripe to equip businesses to convert to worker ownership, and the city can play a key role in facilitating these transitions.

F. City contracts and procurement can create stable markets for worker cooperatives and contribute to the economic development of the city.

1. Targeted purchasing and contracting with worker cooperatives will keep wealth from flowing out of the community and create empowering local jobs. Giving preference to worker cooperatives provides an alternative to relying on large corporations and minimum wage jobs to meet the city’s needs.

2. A promising model for promoting worker cooperatives and addressing urban poverty is the “anchor institution” strategy used in Cleveland. 27 This strategy calls for the development of contract agreements between large, place-based “anchor” institutions (such as schools and hospitals) and worker cooperatives. By leveraging the procurement contracts from anchor institutions, Cleveland’s minority-owned worker cooperatives were able to acquire financing for their capital-intensive industries, such as a commercial dry cleaning services for the area hospital. The City of Oakland can likewise act as an “anchor,” and partner with other local institutions, to develop markets for worker-owned businesses by channeling expenditures to these enterprises or working with cooperative developers to incubate businesses

25 Cummings, supra note 9, at 473-75. 26 http://www.project-equity.org/business-conversions/ 27 See http://community-wealth.org/content/cleveland-model-how-evergreen-cooperatives-are-building- community-wealth.

10 36

that will meet the needs of the city.

G. Worker cooperatives are a unique and less familiar form of business, in need of targeted technical assistance and funding to level the playing field.

1. Conventional small business development resources do not meet the needs of entrepreneurs seeking to start new worker cooperatives, or workplaces seeking to convert to worker-ownership.

2. Worker cooperatives have a harder time accessing funding due to lack of familiarity, difficult providing personal guarantees for loans, and legal restraints on outside equity investments.

3. City small business support centers are rarely equipped to assist worker cooperatives. Oakland’s Business Assistance Center could take advantage of local expertise on worker cooperatives and become an important source of technical support for worker cooperative startups and conversions.

4. City investments could support worker cooperatives through strategies such as funding targeted training, capitalizing a revolving loan fund, offering guarantees on loans to worker cooperatives, and linked deposits.

H. Inflexible, fixed land use costs and business taxes can create barriers to start-up cooperatives, leaving them at a disadvantage compared to their better-funded competitors.28

1. Waiving land use fees and providing tax incentives allow cooperatives to more effectively invest in their communities.

SECTION 2. Worker Cooperative Preference in Contracting and Procurement

Oakland Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 2.44 is created to read as follows:

Chapter 2.44 WORKER COOPERATIVE PREFERENCE ORDINANCE

2.44.010 Title.

28 See Stephen Clowney, Invisible Businessman: Undermining Black Enterprise with Land Use Rules, U. Ill. L. Rev. 1061, 1074-75 (2009) (describing the barriers that zoning expenses pose to small, black businesses compared to their white, multinational competitors).

11 37

This chapter shall be known as the Worker Cooperative Preference Ordinance.

2.44.020 Purpose and Intent.

The purpose of this program is to encourage and incentivize the development of worker-owned businesses in Oakland by creating new markets and providing financial assistance to enable worker cooperatives to obtain city contracts. This ordinance will require city preference of worker cooperatives in purchasing and contracting, and require targeted outreach to obtain bids from worker cooperatives. It will establish a city certification process for worker cooperatives, allowing streamlined application for various incentives. This program will promote economic development that creates resilient and democratic enterprises, reduces poverty, and enhances the public safety, health, and welfare of the City.

2.44.040 Oakland Worker Cooperative Certification.29

A. Criteria for Oakland Worker Cooperative certification.30 Only city-certified Oakland Worker Cooperatives shall be eligible for the incentives available to such entities under the Oakland Municipal Code, Planning Code, and relevant city programs. The City Administrator shall certify as an Oakland Worker Cooperative (“OWC”)31 any business that meets either of the following sets of criteria:

1. Worker cooperative corporations.

i. Local business. The business has its principal place of business within the geographical boundaries of Oakland.

29 See The Sustainable Economies Law Center & Green Collars Community Clinic at East Bay Community Law Center, Think Outside the Boss: How to Create a Worker-Owned Business (March 2013), available at http://www.theselc.org/cooperatives-program; Cummings, supra note 8, at 472-474. 30 If useful, the City could consider including the “union model” of cooperatives as a requirement of certification, and/or consider them a class of cooperatives eligible for additional incentives. A proposed definition of such a cooperative is one that: “includes the right of members to (i) select a committee to address and resolve with management issues such as wages, working conditions, grievances, etc., (ii) choose to affiliate with an existing trade union for such purposes, or (iii) choose neither option and resolve such issues on an individual basis or majority vote by the members of the cooperative.” 31 The label “Oakland Worker Cooperative” is meant to convey that this certification merely denotes eligibility for certain city benefits; the certification does not convey a broader accreditation of the business as a worker cooperative, a term that has no universally embraced definition.

12 38

ii. Worker Cooperative Corporation. The business was incorporated under the California Cooperative Corporation Law and elected to form as a worker cooperative under that law.32

2. Worker cooperatives formed as other legal entities.

i. Local business. The business has its principal place of business within the geographical boundaries of Oakland.

ii. Control by worker-members. A majority of voting power must be held by members who work in the business.

iii. Most workers are members. A majority of the cooperative’s workers are voting members, and the majority of the work done by the workers in the cooperative is done by worker-members, as opposed to non-member employees.

iv. Democratic member control. Members shall elect the majority of the board of directors. Members shall vote in board elections and on major decisions on a one-member, one-vote basis.

v. Cooperative distribution. A majority of allocated earnings are allocated based on the quantity or value of work done by each member, as opposed to on the basis of capital investment.

Note on above Worker Cooperative definition. A standardized definition of worker cooperatives does not yet exist in the United States and there is some debate among stakeholders as to what qualifies as a worker cooperative. Any city adopting this ordinance must decide how broad or narrow its definition should be. The definition above is one suggested method of balancing traditional guiding principles for cooperatives with more modern variations that have helped cooperatives compete in today’s economy.

32 This first set of criteria takes advantage of AB 816, which amends California’s cooperative corporation statute and goes into effect January, 2016. The worker cooperative community in the Bay Area spearheaded AB 816, which will create an official legal form for worker cooperatives, including a definition of worker cooperatives that is in line with cooperative principles.

13 39

is important to do so in a way that prevents dilution of those two key characteristics. Such a definition should generally not encompass a business where (1) a substantial number or majority of employees are not able to become members, (2) certain members or outside investors are given substantial control or profits, (3) the method for distributing earnings mimics conventional businesses, by rewarding investment of capital rather than contribution of time and energy by workers.

Beyond the above considerations, a definition of worker cooperative may also be shaped with an eye toward the seven International Cooperative Principles that have been embraced by the international cooperative movement: (1) voluntary and open membership, (2) democratic member control, (3) member economic participation, (4) autonomy and independence, (5) education, training, and information for members and the public; (6) cooperation among cooperatives; (7) concern for the community.33

Additional guidance may be found in the lengthy definition crafted by the International Organisation of Industrial, Artisanal and Service Producers’ Cooperatives, which was also approved by the International Co-operative Alliance General Assembly.34 Some programs, such as the Richmond Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund,35 require their applicants to adhere to the requirements of court cases applying Subchapter T of the Internal Revenue Code to worker cooperatives. Those requirements include: (1) subordination of capital, (2) democratic control by members, and (3) patronage distribution.36

B. Application and documentation. A proposed OWC shall apply for OWC status at the time of applying for or renewing a business permit under Chapter 5.02. The applicant shall include with the business permit application:

1. The company’s Articles of Incorporation, if any

2. The company’s Bylaws or Operating Agreement

3. Any other documents or information the Administrator finds necessary to determine whether the business meets the standards required by Section

33 http://www.rochdalepioneersmuseum.coop/about-us/the-rochdale-principles 34 http://www.cicopa.coop/IMG/pdf/Declaration_approved_by_ICA_EN-2.pdf 35 http://www.richmondcooploans.net/ 36 See Puget Sound Plywood, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 44 T.C. 305, 308 (1965), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10533906383006276804&q=44+T.C.+305&hl=en&as_sdt=200 6.

14 40

(A).

An existing business applying for OWC status shall submit the above documentation as well as financial statements from the previous fiscal year.

The City may rely on outside organizations such as the United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives to make certification decisions.

C. Maintenance of certification. To remain certified, a business must meet the criteria in Section (A) above for the duration of the certification period. Within four months of the end of each fiscal year, each certified OWC shall submit an annual report to the City, including financial statements, the prior year’s 1120(c) tax return showing patronage distributions, and any amendments to the articles, bylaws, and/or operating agreement that were adopted during the year. Notwithstanding the above, at any time, the City may require submission of other information it deems reasonably necessary to determine that the business continues to operate as a worker cooperative.

2.44.050 Bid discounts and preference points in city contracts.

A. An Oakland Worker Cooperative (“OWC”) category shall be added to Oakland’s existing Local and Small Local Business Enterprise Program (L/SLBE).37 Only city- certified OWCs, pursuant to Section 2.44.040, shall be entitled to the benefits of the program.

B. The value of preference points and bid discounts associated with OWC participation will be double-counted toward meeting the Small Local Business Enterprise participation level needed to earn bid discounts; and

C. The Request for Proposal evaluation process shall allow businesses to earn a maximum of an additional 5 preference points for certified OWCs.

2.44.060 Good faith efforts to obtain OWC bids.

A. Contract awarding authorities will use good faith efforts to solicit and obtain bids from OWCs directly, and from developers that subcontract with OWCs. Good faith

37 Program details (not codified) available at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/contracting/documents/form/oak029719.pdf; ordinance enacting most recent amendments to the program, available at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/contracting/documents/webcontent/oak034685.pdf.

15 41

efforts shall include the following:

1. Where feasible, dividing a contract into smaller contracts to maximize the opportunity for OWCs to participate.

2. Targeting advertisement of pre-bid meetings and contract opportunities to OWCs.

3. Working with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, other worker cooperative incubators, and local community organizations to recruit worker cooperatives to apply for OWC certification and submit bids.

4. Requiring lead contractors to solicit subcontracting bids from OWCs when possible.

2.44.070 Bonding and financial assistance program38

A. Program Description. The City of Oakland intends to provide guarantees to private bonding companies and financial institutions in order to induce those entities to provide required bonding and financing to OWC contractors and subcontractors bidding on and performing City public works/construction contracts.

B. Eligible businesses. Businesses must meet the following criteria to qualify for assistance under this section:

1. The business is either a prime or subcontractor applying for an Oakland public works or construction contract.

2. The business must be certified as an OWC according to Section 2.44.040

C. Agreements executed by the City Administrator. The Director is hereby authorized to enter into the following agreements in order to implement the bonding and financial assistance program described in this Section:

1. With respect to a surety bond, the agreement to guaranty up to 40 percent of the face amount of the bond or $750,000, whichever is less;

38 Modeled after San Francisco’s bonding and financial assistance program for local businesses, SF Administrative Code, Section 14B.16.

16 42

2. With respect to a construction loan to be made to a contractor or subcontractor, an agreement to guaranty up to 50 percent of the original principal amount of the construction loan or 50 percent of the actual loss suffered by the financial institution as a result of a loan default, whichever is less; provided that in any event the City's obligations with respect to a guaranty shall not exceed $750,000;

3. Any other documents deemed necessary by the Director to carry out the objectives of this program, provided that such documents shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney's Office.

2.44.080 Enforcement.39

A. The City, as appropriate, may impose any of the following sanctions on a certified OWC that loses certification:40 1. Reject all bids; 2. Declare a bid non-responsive; 3. Suspend a contract; 4. Withhold funds; 5. Assess penalties; 6. Debar a bidder.

These sanctions shall be in addition to any penalties imposed elsewhere in the Oakland Municipal or Planning Code, where OWC status is a condition of obtaining benefits or incentives.

Oakland Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 2.04, Purchasing System, is amended to read as follows:

2.04.010 Definitions.

. . .

39 Additional or alternative enforcement mechanisms could include: (1) requiring OWCs to enter into a contract for a period of years with the City in order to apply for benefits, whereby demutualization would constitute breach of contract (a comparable mechanism to the state’s Williamson Act, or San Francisco’s Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones Program); (2) giving the City veto power over an attempt to demutualize or sell the cooperative; (3) requiring the City to oversee and enforce a preferred method for distributing assets in the event of demutualization or sale. 40 This list of sanctions is derived from the San Francisco local business enterprise program, SF Administrative Code, 14.B.17.D.

17 43

“Oakland Worker Cooperative” (OWC) is defined as that term is defined in Oakland Municipal Code Section 2.44.040. . . .

2.04.020 Authority of the City Administrator.

. . . F. Local and Worker Cooperative Vendor Preferences. The City Administrator is authorized in the evaluation of all sealed, faxed and telephone bids for the purchase of supplies, to extend a two and one half percent preference to local business enterprises and an additional two and one half percent preference to small local business enterprises in award of all purchase orders. The City Administrator is authorized to extend a seven and one half41 percent preference to Oakland Worker Cooperatives (OWC) certified by the city pursuant to Section 2.44.040(A).

The City Administrator shall semiannually prepare and submit to the City Council a report on participation by local, and small local, and OWC business enterprises in City contracts for the prior year. . . .

2.04.045 Pre-qualification and bid processes for general construction services and the Preferred Small Local Business (“PSLB”) and Preferred Oakland Worker Cooperative (“POWC”) program.

A. Optional Prequalification for Construction Work over $250,000.00. The City may, in its discretion and when deemed by the City Administrator to be in the best interests of the City, establish a list of pre-qualified businesses to perform as-needed and specified construction work in excess of $250,000.00 (“large projects”).

1. When deemed by the City Administrator to be in the best interests of the City, the City will advertise a request for qualifications for licensed construction services in accord with Subsection 2.04.050 A., below, to perform as-needed or specified construction work exceeding $250,000.00.

2. When a pre-qualified list is established for large projects, the City may limit solicitations for bids for such work to three or more business on the pre-

41 This number represents an additional two and one half percent preference over small local businesses, reflecting the benefits unique to worker cooperatives.

18 44

qualified list.

3. Contracts awarded through a pre-qualified process are subject to the City’s insurance, bond, labor and all social equity policies such as, but not limited to, payment of prevailing wages, local and small local business participation, preference for Oakland Worker Cooperatives, and local hire.

B. Mandatory Preferred Small Local Business Program (MPSLB) and Mandatory Preferred Oakland Worker Cooperative Program (MPOWC)—Pre-Qualification for Construction Work Under $250,000.00. The City will establish a list of pre-qualified businesses to perform as-needed and specified construction work less than $250,000.00 (“small projects”).

1. The City will solicit qualifications solely from Oakland certified small, local, and OWC business enterprises in order to establish a MPSLB/MPOWC pre- qualified list of small local businesses and Oakland Worker Cooperatives to perform small project construction contracts.

2. When a pre-qualified list is established the City will limit solicitations for bids for such work to three or more business on the MPSLB/MPOWC pre- qualified list.

3. Reserved.

4. MPSLB/MPOWC contracts are exempt from the requirements of Oakland's Local and Small Local Business Enterprise (L/SLBE) program for construction contracts.

5. With the exception of the L/SLBE program, MPSLB/MPOWC contracts are subject to insurance, bond, labor and social equity policies such as, but not limited to, payment of prevailing wages and local hire.

6. Circumstance for Open Market Solicitation. The City Administrator may solicit bids on the open market, without advertising, when all responsive bids exceed the engineer's estimate.

19 45

OWCs, except that the discount shall be reduced in proportion to the share of the total contract price to be paid to the OWC sub-contractor.42

D. Construction contracts awarded through a pre-qualification process exceeding $100,000.00 are subject to Council approval in accord with Section 2.04.030, above.

2.04.051 Competitive process and qualification-based awards for professional services contracts.

. . . C. Pre-Qualification for Pre-Construction and Other Professional Services Work Under $250,000.00—Mandatory and Optional Preferred Small Local Business and Preferred Oakland Worker Cooperative Programs (MPSLB/MPOWC and OPSLB/OPOWC).

1. Mandatory Preferred Small Local Business /Mandatory Preferred Oakland Worker Cooperative (MPSLB/MPOWC) Program for Pre-Construction Services. The City shall establish a list of pre-qualified businesses to perform as-needed and specified pre-construction work, such as architectural and engineering work, less than $250,000.00 ("small projects"). The City shall solicit qualifications solely from Oakland certified small, local business enterprises and Oakland Worker Cooperatives to establish the pre-qualified business list for MPSLB professional pre-construction services.

2. Optional Preferred Small Local Business /Optional Preferred Oakland Worker Cooperative (OPSLB/OPOWC) Program for Other Professional Services (Pre- Construction Services Excluded). The City may, in its discretion and when deemed by the City Administrator to be in the best interests of the City, establish a list of pre-qualified Oakland certified small local businesses and OWCs to perform as-needed or specified professional services (pre-construction excluded) under $250,000.00 ("small projects"). When authorized by the City Administrator, the City shall solicit qualifications solely from Oakland certified small, local business enterprises and OWCs to establish a pre-qualified business list for OPSLB/OPOWC professional (non-pre-construction) services.

3. When a pre-qualified list is established for small projects, the City will limit solicitations for proposals for such work to three or more business on the

42 Oakland gives bid discounts of up to 5% to contractors who subcontract with small, local businesses. SF gives a 10% discount for bids from small local businesses, so maybe we could even propose that this discount should be higher. (See http://sfgsa.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=10695 , p.11)

20 46

MPSLB/MPOWC or OPSLB/OPOWC pre-qualified lists.

4. The City shall apply a 10% discount for bids submitted by city-certified OWCs.

5. MPSLB/MPOWC and OPSLB/OPOWC contracts are exempt from the requirements of Oakland's Local and Small Local Business Enterprise (L/SLBE) program for professional services.

6. With the exception of the L/SLBE program, MPSLB/MPOWC and OPSLB/OPOWC contracts are subject to insurance and social equity policies such as, but not limited to, living wages and equal benefits.

7. Circumstance for Open Market Solicitation. The City Administrator may solicit proposals on the open market, without advertising, if less than three proposals are submitted by MPSLB/MPOWC or OPSLB/OPOWC pre-qualified businesses.

8. MPSLB/MPOWC or OPSLB/OPOWC contracts exceeding $100,000.00 are subject to Council approval in accord with Section 2.04.030, above.

9. Removal From Pre-Qualified List. Businesses that lose necessary qualifications to perform the work, including, but not limited to, licenses or insurance, or that become disqualified or debarred, shall be removed from the MPSLB/MPOWC or OPSLB/OPOWC pre-qualified list.

SECTION 3. Worker Cooperative Support Program

Oakland Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 2.45 is created to read as follows:

Chapter 2.45 WORKER COOPERATIVE SUPPORT PROGRAM

2.45.010 Establishment.

The Office of Economic and Workforce Development shall create and administer a Worker Cooperative Support Program.

2.45.020 Purpose.

21 47

financial structures, and because the City currently lacks expertise in cooperative formation and governance, this program will provide the City with crucial tools to help these beneficial enterprises thrive. It will also strengthen existing organizations that are incubating and training worker cooperatives in Oakland, and help to equip other organizations to provide such services. Finally, the program will establish a source of low- interest loans for worker cooperatives, since cooperatives typically rely on loans rather than outside equity investment. Worker cooperatives often struggle to secure loans from traditional sources due to their innovative structure and their commitment to member control and ownership of the business; this revolving loan fund will therefore fill a gap in the existing financial market.

2.45.030 Duties.

In administering the Program, the Office shall:

A. Appoint a city liaison who will work with community organizations and worker cooperatives to evaluate barriers or challenges faced by worker cooperatives to evaluate barriers or challenges faced by worker cooperatives in accessing City contracts and/or engaging with Oakland’s procurement system.

B. Coordinate efforts to support and promote worker cooperatives with other City agencies, including the Department of Planning, Building, and Neighborhood Preservation; and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

C. Develop partnerships and meet regularly with community-based organizations, existing worker cooperatives, incubators, anchor institutions, trade unions, and others. These meetings will guide the strategy of worker cooperative development, connect cooperatives with markets and technical assistance, and connect incubators with companies primed for conversion to a worker cooperative.

D. Identify obstacles deterring entrepreneurs from starting worker cooperatives, or employees and business owners from converting their business to worker cooperatives.

E. Provide public education and promote awareness of the worker cooperative as a business model, economic development strategy, and local wealth creation tool. Promote worker cooperative federations, associations, and development organizations on the City’s Economic & Workplace Development website.

22 48

F. Add Worker Cooperatives to the list of Oakland’s “Key Industries”.43 Retain on staff a minimum of one full-time Business Development Officer who is a Worker Cooperative “industry specialist” to provide technical assistance and information to entrepreneurs seeking to start worker cooperatives and to current business owners and employees seeking to convert to a cooperative. Alternatively, broaden the specialization of an existing Business Developer to include worker cooperative expertise. Create educational materials in English and Spanish.

G. Promote worker cooperative job opportunities at the Business Assistance Center, all One-Stop Career Centers, and city-sponsored workforce development programs. Provide education on forming and operating a worker cooperative and use local cooperative technical assistance providers as a referral service. Contract with trade unions to provide training and technical support to members of newly formed or established cooperative businesses in developing structures to protect workers’ interests in their role as workers, as well as to train them in their dual role as owners. Develop aggressive outreach campaigns in partnership with grant recipients to educate business owners and employees about conversion to worker cooperatives. Provide technical assistance and information to employees and business owners seeking to convert existing businesses into worker cooperatives.

H. Incorporate technical support for cooperative conversions into the Workforce Investment Board’s strategic plan and incorporate conversions into succession planning services to employers. Conduct Business Succession Planning events for Oakland business owners in which sale to the workers is a key topic, and target this outreach to businesses with low-wage workers, including but not limited to these sectors: manufacturing, commercial printing, logistics and shipping, and health services.44 Partner with local organizations with expertise in conversions and with local trade unions that can develop workers’ abilities to manage their work and take responsibility for their company’s success.

43 Oakland currently has Business Development Officers who specialize in one or more of the following “Key Industries”: Arts and Digital Media, Food Production and Distribution, Green Business, Healthcare & Life Sciences, Industrial, International Trade and Logistics, Office Retail. See Business Development, City of Oakland Economic & Workforce Development, http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityAdministration/d/EconomicDevelopment/o/BusinessDe velopment/index.htm. 44 These are sectors that Project Equity identified as being good targets for Oakland outreach. See Bay Area Blueprint, Project Equity, http://www.project-equity.org/bay-area-blueprint.

23 49

solicitation of grant and loan applications, and review of grant and loan applications. The Council shall include at least one worker-member of an OWC and one representative of a community-based worker cooperative technical assistance provider.

2.45.040 Worker Cooperative Development Fund.

A. The Office of Economic and Workforce Development shall establish a Worker Cooperative Development Fund and is hereby authorized to spend the monies appropriated to or received by the Fund. The Office shall delegate administration of the Fund to the Worker Cooperative Ecosystem Council as described in 2.45.030(H).

B. The monies in the Fund shall be spent on the following programs:

1. Worker Cooperative Incubation and Conversion Program. Awards will be given to support community organizations currently providing technical, legal, and/or financial support to entrepreneurs starting new worker cooperatives and/or to businesses seeking to convert to worker cooperatives. Recipients may be nonprofit incubators or technical assistance providers, or existing worker cooperatives with capacity to incubate new businesses. i. The Office shall consider a number of criteria in its evaluation of grant requests, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. The breadth of business skills training the program will offer; 2. Whether the program includes long-term mentoring or other training of new cooperatives over time; 3. Whether the program will include training on implementing structures to protect workers’ interests in their role as workers; 4. A track record of, or core commitment to reach underserved communities and make participation feasible for low-income workers; 5. The degree to which the program promotes development of cooperatives to scale and/or replication; 6. Agreement to standard reporting to enable the Fund to measure its impact.

24 50

2. Nonprofit Training Program. Awards will be given to support training of nonprofits to begin new cooperative incubation programs in Oakland targeted to low-income communities.45

2.45.050 Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund.46

A. The Office of Economic and Workforce Development shall establish and administer a Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund to make low-interest loans to city- certified OWCs and to employees seeking to convert their businesses into OWCs. Applicants may request grant funds to finance startup, growth, or conversion costs, including reasonable expenses for technical assistance and business development support. The Office shall delegate administration of the Fund to the Worker Cooperative Ecosystem Council as described in 2.45.030(H).

B. Eligibility shall require (1) current OWC certification, (2) demonstrated inability to get all financing needed from a private financial institution or other private source, (3) provision of other information and documentation that the Worker Cooperative Ecosystem Council deems necessary to assessing the risks, merits, and viability of the business.

Preference shall be given to applicants (1) who have a business plan that is growth- oriented, geared toward creating at least 50-100 jobs in-house or through replication, (2) who are low-income or located in / hiring from low-income communities, and (3) currently receiving, or planning to receive support from local technical assistance providers or business development organizations.

C. Payments of principal or interest on a low-interest loan pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited into the Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund. Investment earnings credited to the fund shall become assets of the Fund. Any balance remaining at the end of the fiscal year shall be carried forward in the Fund for the next fiscal year.

D. An annual report will be completed in January and presented to the City Council as public record of the performance and management of the fund. The report will

45 For example, in 2014 New York City awarded grant money to the nonprofit social services provider Center for Family Life to begin incubating new cooperatives. To date, CFL has successfully launched five worker cooperatives, creating nearly 150 jobs. http://community-wealth.org/content/center-family-life. 46 For other examples of such funds, see Richmond Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund (http://www.richmondcooploans.net); The Working World revolving loans for worker cooperatives (http://www.theworkingworld.org).

25 51

include (1) specifics about every outstanding loan during that period, (2) number of member-owner jobs created during the term, (3) efforts made to obtain state and federal funding to expand the fund, (4) recommendations for how the fund can more effectively create worker-owned jobs, and (5) any other information requested by the City Council.

E. The Worker Cooperative Business Development Officer may enter into contracts with nonprofit corporations for the administration of the Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund, provided no loan shall be made from the Fund without the authorization of the Officer.

2.45.060 Loan Guarantees for Worker Cooperative Financing

[details to be determined]

SECTION 4. Revision to Business Permit Application

Oakland Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.02, Business Permits Generally, is amended to read as follows:

5.02.020 Application.

Application for any permit referred to in Section 5.02.010 shall be filed with the City Clerk in triplicate, the original of which shall be duly acknowledged before some person lawfully authorized to administer oaths, and upon forms to be furnished by said City Clerk, and shall set forth the following information:

A. A full identification of the applicant and all persons to be directly or indirectly interested in the permit if granted;

B. The residence and business address of the applicant, including all members of any firm or partnership, or all officers and directors of any corporation applying;

C. The location of the proposed business, establishment, place, thing, etc., for which the permit is requested, and the name of the owner and the present use of such premises;

D. The exact nature of the proposed business, establishment, place, thing, etc., for which the permit is requested, and the name under which it is to be operated;

26 52

E. Whether the proposed business is applying for city-certified Oakland Worker Cooperative status;

F. The past experience of the applicant in the matter to which the requested permit appertains; and the name, address, and past experience in such business or matter of the person to be in charge of the premises or business;

G. Whether or not any permit has been revoked, and if so, the circumstances of such revocation;

H. Such further information as the City Manager, or such official of the city to whom the application may be referred, may require.

SECTION 5. Business Tax Incentives

Oakland Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.04.621 is created to read as follows:

5.04.621 Oakland Worker Cooperative exemption.

A. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, OWCs certified pursuant to Section 2.44.040, shall, for the business’s first fiscal year, be exempt from payment of city business tax and from payment of the business registration fee. For the business’s second fiscal year, OWCs certified pursuant to Section 2.44.040 shall be taxed at half the rate of comparable non-cooperative businesses.

B. Exemption from business tax and registration fee payment is contingent on submission of an annual statement pursuant to Section 5.04.090, accompanied by evidence of current OWC certification.

SECTION 6. Worker Cooperative Land Use Incentives

Oakland Planning Code Title 17, Chapter 17.159 is created to read as follows:

Chapter 17.159 WORKER COOPERATIVE LAND USE INCENTIVES

17.159.010 Purpose and applicability.

The purpose of these provisions is to encourage the formation of worker cooperatives and the associated local wealth creation by reducing the permitting and review burdens faced

27 53

by such enterprises. The incentives described in Section 17.159.030 are only available to Oakland Worker Cooperatives certified pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.44.040.

17.159.020 Application

An application for worker cooperative incentives shall be filed with the Oakland Planning and Zoning Division as part of the land use review process. The application shall include:

A. Evidence of current, city-certified Oakland Worker Cooperative status pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.44.040;

B. A written statement specifying the incentives requested; and

C. Any other documents or information the Director of City Planning finds necessary for the review of the proposal

17.159.030 Incentives

Whenever action is taken on an application for planning or zoning permits for an Oakland Worker Cooperative, the City shall grant the following incentives:

A. Priority permit processing. The City shall prioritize and expedite the review and permitting of such projects.

B. Streamlined conditional use permit processing. A cooperative business that would otherwise require a major conditional permit under the uses in Section 17.134.020(A)(2) shall satisfy the requirement with a minor conditional use permit. However, such conditional use permit shall grant permission only for a city-certified Oakland Worker Cooperative to operate the business.

C. Permit fee waivers. The City shall waive _____% of the fees related to the following permits, as set by the City’s annual fee ordinance:47 1. Major, minor, and interim conditional use permits 2. Variances 3. Regular and small project design review

47 The city may want to consider reducing the fees instead of waiving them entirely, with a greater reduction awarded to cooperatives located in economically distressed areas of the city.

28 54

D. Parking requirement exemption. The City shall exempt cooperative businesses from the off-street parking requirements in Section 17.116.080, so long as such businesses remain certified as Oakland Worker Cooperatives.

17.159.040 Enforcement

For any business receiving an incentive described in 17.159.030, loss of OWC certification shall be considered a violation of a zoning regulation subject to penalties and revocation of the incentives granted under this section, pursuant to Section 17.152 enforcement provisions. All previously waived fees shall become due to the City.

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY

If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

SECTION 8.

To the extent this Ordinance is inconsistent with any other provisions of the Oakland Municipal Code or the Oakland Planning Code, this Ordinance shall apply.

Addendum Bay Area Worker Cooperative Ecosystem Members * = contributed significantly to the development of this model ordinance

 Arizmendi Association of Coops (Bay Area)  *Democracy At Work Institute (Oakland)  *Green Collar Communities Clinic, East Bay Community Law Center (Berkeley)  Network of Bay Area Worker Cooperatives (NoBAWC) (Bay Area)  *People Organizing to Demand Environmental & Economic Rights (PODER) (San Francisco)  *Project Equity (Oakland)  Prospera (formerly WAGES) (Oakland)  *Sustainable Economies Law Center (Oakland)  US Federation of Worker Cooperatives (national organization, based in Oakland)

29 55

Susan Wengraf Councilmember District 6 CONSENT CALENDAR February 9, 2016

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Susan Wengraf Subject: City Manager Referral: Re-naming of Bret Harte Lane (#72) in Honor of California Poet Laureate Ina Coolbrith

RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the City of Berkeley’s naming policy, refer to the City Manager the renaming of Bret Harte Lane (#72) to honor California’s first poet laureate, Ina Coolbrith. Request that this be sent to the appropriate commission for consideration and return to Council with a recommendation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Cost of new signage and installation

BACKGROUND: Ina Coolbrith was California’s first poet laureate. Coolbrith was a noted woman writer who contributed to the prestige of the University of California in its early years. In the 1920’s, she lived in three different houses in Berkeley and died here on February 29, 1928. Currently the City has no recognition of Coolbrith even though there is a cluster of streets in the Berkeley hills named after her famous male colleagues. In fact, the Berkeley Path Wanderer’s have obtained an undated map that indicates that Queen’s Road was once named Ina Way. There is no information available indicating when that name was changed. Whereas Berkeley already has a street and a path named after Bret Harte it would be fitting to name the Bret Harte Lane (#72) in honor of Ina Coolbrith.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY NA

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Susan Wengraf Council District 6 510-981-7160

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected] 57

Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR February 9, 2016 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: City Manager Referral: Expanding Gun Safety Measures in Berkeley

RECOMMENDATION: Refer to the City Manager to consider the following ordinances: 1. Banning Unsecured Firearms And Ammunition Located In Unattended Vehicles In The Public Right Of Way And "Public Places" As Defined In The Ordinance; and 2. Requiring That City-Issued Firearms In Unattended Vehicles Be Secured.

BACKGROUND: Nearly every city in California has experienced the negative effects of gun violence. Just in the first few weeks of January 2016, the Berkeley Police Department has had to service several emergency calls as a result of violence with guns. Berkeley can expect more gun violence as 2016 progresses.

On January 5, 2016 the Oakland City Council took an early leadership role on implementing new gun control laws. The Oakland City Council passed two important gun control measures; Banning Unsecured Firearms And Ammunition Located In Unattended Vehicles In The Public Right Of Way And "Public Places" As Defined In The Ordinance; and Requiring That City-Issued Firearms In Unattended Vehicles Be Secured.

It is important that the City of Berkeley help Oakland’s effort to secure firearms and ammunition. Oakland’s crime statistics showed that from 2004 to 2015 approximately 300 guns were stolen during auto burglaries. Gun violence has no borders. Thus, it is imperative that the Berkeley City Council support this common sense gun control measure and require firearms and ammunition to be secured.

Link to Oakland ordinances: http://oakland.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=f8c525a0- cbea-4d66-b156-24abd8b73226.pdf

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Consistent with Berkeley’s Environmental Sustainability Goals and no negative impact.

CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR February 9, 2016 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Extend the Berkeley Police Department Drone Moratorium for One Additional Year

RECOMMENDATION: Extend the moratorium on the use of unmanned aircraft systems, or “drones,” by the Berkeley Police Department for one additional year.

BACKGROUND: On February 24, 2015 the Berkeley City Council enacted a one-year moratorium on the use of drones, or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD). This moratorium will soon expire.

It is prudent that Berkeley extend the moratorium, for at least one more year, because drones continue to pose serious risks for health and safety to resident and visitors. According to an investigation by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the number of near-misses and actual collisions between drones and airplanes has “skyrocketed” by a factor of 20 since the Berkeley City Council established the moratorium. Since April 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration reported that almost 1,000 near misses or other incidents nationally occurred with approximately 20 percent of those incidents came from California.

In addition, drone technology poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the people, including the residents of Berkeley.

This moratorium does not preclude the Berkeley Fire Department from using drones for disaster response purposes.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Unknown.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Consistent with Berkeley’s Environmental Sustainability Goals and no negative impact.

CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR February 9, 2016 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Budget Referral: Including BigBelly Solar Compactor Bins Allocation in the 2016 Mid-Year Budget Process

RECOMMENDATION Refer to the 2016 Mid-year budget process the purchasing of BigBelly Solar Compactor Bins in order to save money, meet zero waste goals, and reduce Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions.

BACKGROUND BigBelly Solar Compactor bins are self-powered, patented, and compacting, with a capacity 5 times greater than traditional bins. This higher capacity lessens the need for collection trips, saving fuel, labor, and maintenance costs. Equally important, these innovative recycling, composting, and trash bins divert waste from the landfill, educate the public on what materials go into each bin, and have been shown to cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80%.

According to a news report from Cleveland.com, Philadelphia saved $900,000 in its first year after purchasing about 1,000 BigBelly Solar Compactors and the program reduced the number of collections downtown from 17 to 5 times a week. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/11/cleveland_tries_solar-powered.html

Oakland is the nearest city to have BigBelly solar compactors available on public property.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: $137,000 first year. Save money in the long run through reduced number of trash collections, fuel costs, and labor costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Increase Berkeley’s diversion rate and contribute to achieving the Zero Waste by 2020 goal. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through fewer collection trips and maximizing recycling and composting, contributing to meeting the Climate Action Plan Waste Reduction and Recycling goals.

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

Attachment: 1. BigBelly Executive Summary to DBA and TBID

63 Attachment 1

Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR February 9, 2016 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Support H.R. 2612 and S. 1473 to Fund Federal Gun Violence Research and Send a Letter to President Barack Obama and Senator Diane Feinstein

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution calling upon Congress to pass, and the President to sign, H.R.2612/S.1473, in relation to congressional funding for gun violence research.

BACKGROUND The Berkeley City Council has had a long history of supporting gun control measures at the local, state and national levels. As gun violence continues to plague communities across the United States, it is important to grant the Center for Disease Control funding to research firearm safety or gun violence prevention.

H.R. 2612 is co-sponsored by 33 members of the U.S. House of Representative, including Congresswoman Barbara Lee. S 1473 is co-sponsored by 14 U.S. Senators, including Senator Barbara Boxer.

For Congressional Bill information: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2612/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1473/text

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Consistent with Berkeley’s Environmental Sustainability Goals and no negative impact.

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

Attachment: 1. Resolution 2. Letters to President Barack Obama and Senator Diane Feinstein

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

CALLING UPON CONGRESS TO PASS, AND THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN, H.R.2612/S.1473, IN RELATION TO CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING FOR GUN VIOLENCE RESEARCH

WHEREAS, according to the Gun Violence Archive, there were 51,377 incidents of gun violence in the United States in 2014, resulting in 12,518 deaths and 22,886 injuries; and

WHEREAS, gun violence has once again become the focus of national attention, with recent mass shootings in San Bernardino, at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon, and at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina; and

WHEREAS, according to Mother Jones’ A Guide to Mass Shootings in America, there have been at least 73 mass shootings in this country since 1982, defined as an incident that killed at least four people in a public place; and

WHEREAS, while mass shootings tend to dominate media coverage, there are gun violence injuries occurring every day in many American cities; and

WHEREAS, data from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services show that New York City had 6,839 incidents of violent crime by firearm in 2014; and

WHEREAS, CompStat records from the New York City Police Department show that in New York City, there were 1,234 shooting victims this year through November; and

WHEREAS, the national debate on gun violence has been contentious for decades; and

WHEREAS, in 1996, Congress passed an amendment to restrict federal funding for gun violence research; and

WHEREAS, dubbed the Dickey Amendment after its author, former U.S. Representative Jay Dickey, it remains in effect today and prohibits funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) to be used “to advocate or promote gun control”; and

WHEREAS, although the language of the amendment allows funding for research not aimed at advocacy for gun control, in effect it has been interpreted such that no research related to gun violence is funded through the CDC; and

WHEREAS, in a December 1, 2015 letter to U.S. Representative Mike Thompson, Chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, Rep. Dickey stated that “research could have been continued on gun violence without infringing on the rights of gun owners, in the same fashion that the highway industry continued its research [on how to reduce head-on collisions on highways] without eliminating the automobile”; and

66 WHEREAS, Rep. Dickey also stated in the letter that “scientific research should help answer how we can best reduce gun violence… Doing nothing is no longer an acceptable solution”; and

WHEREAS, momentum is building to restore funding to the CDC for gun violence research; and

WHEREAS, in 2012, in the aftermath of the shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, President Barack Obama instructed the CDC to strictly interpret the Dickey Amendment-so that the restriction is on advocacy, not research; and

WHEREAS, in June 2015, U.S. Representative Carolyn Maloney and U.S. Senator Edward Markey introduced H.R. 2612/S.1473, respectively, to authorize the appropriation of at least $10 million a year to the CDC for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention; and

WHEREAS, in October 2015, addressing the nation after the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, President Obama said, “We spent over a trillion dollars and passed countless laws and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet we have a Congress who explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths”; and

WHEREAS, in November 2015, dozens of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter urging leaders of the Appropriations Committee to repeal the Dickey Amendment; and

WHEREAS, in early December of 2015, over 2,000 physicians from nine medical associations publicly urged Congress to repeal the Dickey Amendment, citing gun violence as a public health crisis.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council calls upon Congress to pass, and the President to sign, H.R.2612/S.1473, in relation to congressional funding for gun violence research.

67 Attachment 2 Dear President Obama

The Berkeley City Council requests that you support H.R. 2612 and S. 1473

The Berkeley City Council has had a long history of supporting gun control measures at the local, state and national levels. As gun violence continues to plague communities across the Unites States, it is important to grant the Center for Disease Control funding to research firearm safety or gun violence prevention.

Mass shootings to suicides by guns need to be studied and examined in order to best prevent deaths by guns. Granting the Center for Disease Control $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2021 is just the beginning of preventing the unnecessary deaths of innocent people. .

We urge you to support and sign H.R. 2612 and S. 1473.

Respectfully,

The Berkeley City Council

Dear Senator Diane Feinstein,

The Berkeley City Council requests that you support and co-sponsor S. 1473.

We urge you to support and co-sponsor S. 1473.

Respectfully,

The Berkeley City Council

Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected] CONSENT CALENDAR February 9, 2016

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Calling for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Reject License Renewal and Plan to Shut Down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and Send a Letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a Resolution calling for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reject the license renewal of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and to create a plan to shut down the Diablo Canyon reactors; and 2. Send letters to the NRC and our state and national elected officials requesting the rejection of license renewal and to create a plan to shut down the Diablo Canyon reactors.

BACKGROUND: On June 19, 2012, the Berkeley City Council passed a Resolution petitioning Governor Brown to direct the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to decommission Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and transition to green non-nuclear power generation sources. Berkeley has a history of restricting the use of nuclear power and weapons. In 1986, Berkeley became a Nuclear Free Zone which limits the City from entering contracts with any person or business that knowingly engages in work for nuclear weapons.

The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant poses serious health and safety concerns. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant sits near several earthquake fault lines. In fact, one particular fault line is a mere 2,000 feet from Diablo Canyon's two reactors and only 985 feet from the plant's intake structure. Any serious earthquake causing serious ground movement could cause substantial damage to the reactors, which inevitably threatens the health and safety of surrounding communities. Moreover, according to a whistleblower report, the NRC hasn't sufficiently enforced seismic regulations at Diablo Canyon.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Consistent with Berkeley’s Environmental Sustainability Goals and no negative impact.

CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

Attachment: 1. Resolution 2. Letter to Elected officials

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

CALLING FOR THE CLOSING OF DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

WHEREAS, on June 19, 2012, the Berkeley City Council passed a Resolution Petitioning Governor Brown to direct the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to decommission Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants and to initiate renewable power generation

WHEREAS, this action called upon Governor Brown to exercise his powers to direct the PUC to call for replacing aging reactors with clean and renewable energy generation by the end of the current licenses of California’s nuclear power plants at Diablo Canyon and at San Onofre; to decommission California Nuclear Power Plants and Transition to Green Non-Nuclear Power Generation Sources; and calling for withholding "license renewal for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre Nuclear Power plants until seismic issues and offsite permanent storage are resolved"; and

WHEREAS, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant sits near several earthquake fault lines with one fault a mere 2,000 feet from Diablo Canyon's two reactors and only 985 feet from the plant's intake structure; and

WHEREAS, despite enforcing seismic regulations in similar situations elsewhere, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hasn't sufficiently enforced them at Diablo Canyon; and

WHEREAS, the Diablo Canyon reactors are not in full compliance with state and federal water quality laws; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council calls on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reject the license renewal of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council requests the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to create a plan to shut down the Diablo Canyon reactors, at least until a satisfactory federal and state investigation has been conducted to evaluate the ability of Diablo Canyon to withstand an earthquake and until its owners have installed the necessary equipment to come into compliance with the law, and have demonstrated that they are doing so.

71 Attachment 2

Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

That the Council calls on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reject the license renewal of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Moreover, we urge the NRC to create a plan to shut down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant reactors, at least until a satisfactory federal and state investigation has been conducted to evaluate the ability of Diablo Canyon to withstand an earthquake. Lastly, we highly recommend that the NRC require the owners of the property to install the necessary safety and seismic equipment for the DCNPP to come into compliance with all federal, state and local law.

The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant poses serious health and safety. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, DCNPP sits near several earthquake fault lines. In fact, one particular fault line is a mere 2,000 feet from Diablo Canyon's two reactors and only 985 feet from the plant's intake structure. Any serious earthquake causing serious ground movement could cause substantial damage to the reactors, which inevitably threatens the health and safety of surrounding communities. Moreover, according to a whistleblower report stemming from the then chief safety inspector for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the NRC hasn't enforced seismic regulations at Diablo Canyon.

Please do everything in your power to provide safety to our communities. If you find that the DCNPP cannot immediately come into compliance with all federal, state and local law, we request that you decommission the DCNPP and transition the facility to a green non-nuclear power plant to generate environmentally friendlier sources of energy.

Sincerely,

The Berkeley City Council

Cc: Governor Jerry Brown California Attorney General Kamala Harris State Senator Loni Hancock Assembly member Tony Thurmond Senator Dianne Feinstein Senator Barbara Boxer Congressmember Barbara Lee President Barack Obama California Energy Commission California Water Quality Board

[Commission Name] ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 12, 2016) To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Disaster and Fire Safety Commission Submitted by: Robert Flasher, Chairperson, Disaster and Fire Safety Commission Subject: Restrict Parking in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area

RECOMMENDATION Refer to staff the design of a parking restriction program in the Hills Fire Zone to ensure access for emergency vehicles and to allow for safe evacuations in an emergency and to hold public meetings to get community input in the design of such a program.

SUMMARY Parking on Berkeley’s narrow, winding streets in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area is out of compliance with the State Fire Code. This will impair both the ability of emergency vehicles to respond to emergencies and the likelihood that citizens will be able to evacuate. Many jurisdictions in southern California have already created successful restricted parking programs. A Parking Restriction pilot program would enhance public safety and begin to address the challenges of safe emergency evacuation and emergency vehicle access.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION The costs will vary depending on program design recommended by staff. Staff evaluations could include an analysis on the relative minor cost of possible revenue loss from diverting parking enforcement resources versus the enormous cost of cleanup after an event like the 1991 Tunnel Fire. Long term additional costs of not implementing a program to mitigate risks might include loss of sales tax revenues, long term insurance premium hikes and reduced insurance coverage. The city may also find itself incurring expensive legal fees for defending litigation against the city because of possibly avoidable loss of life and private property.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS Some public safety measures have been taken since 1965 to address increasing density in what is known as the Berkeley Hills. Less has been done after the initial backlash from the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire storm-one of the worst urban blazes in U.S. History. Approximately 25% of Berkeleyʼs population has settled in the Hill Fire District. The remaining empty, steep lots are now being developed; in addition the city has relaxed its housing code to permit an increase in accessory dwelling units- further

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager 73 Restrict Parking in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 exacerbating the ability of hill residents, visitors and first responders to safely and quickly navigate the narrow, winding streets in the Berkeley hills.

Most Hills Hazardous Fire Area streets do not meet the California Fire Code* standards for road width and allowable street parking. By failing to enforce Berkeleyʼs adoption of these fire code standards, most of these streets can only function as one way streets. Not only are the streets obstructed by parked vehicles, but vehicular traffic is hampered by persons walking in the road because there are few sidewalks. Vegetation on city and private property at the edges of road pavement affects visibility. Trash bins, construction materials and bins, large trucks, and accessory trailers parked on the streets all contribute to further narrowing already narrow roadways. There have been repeated incidents where busses and delivery trucks have gotten stuck, stopping traffic in both directions for hours at a time.

In this unprecedented drought and rising average temperatures, fuel moisture is at an all time low, the fire fuel load is abnormally high and the number and severity of wildland fires has increased substantially. Hill residents, participating in 2014 and 2015 public information forums, have raised concerns about parking on these narrow streets, Residents are aware and concerned that emergency vehicle access to those needing medical or firefighting assistance is unfavorably impacted and residents’ ability to evacuate safely is impaired. Their disquiet has generally been brushed aside by officials claiming the public will not support Hills Hazardous Fire Area parking restrictions because hill residents prefer on-street parking over their own and their familiesʼ safety.

At the September 16, 2015 special meeting of the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission, the below motion was passed.

Motion to recommend to City Council to refer to staff the design of a possible parking restriction program in the Hills Fire Zone to ensure access for emergency vehicles and to allow for safe evacuations in an emergency and to hold public meetings to get community input in the design of such a program and authorize the Chair of the Commission to work with to prepare the report: Smukler; Second: Legg; Vote: (6 Ayes: Flasher, Jones, Legg, Grimes, Zummo, Smukler; 0 Noes; 2 Absent: Degenkolb, King;)

BACKGROUND In 1983 a report from the Assistant Fire Chief to Planning and Community Development outlined the fire departmentʼs recommendations for limiting the number of living units on specifically named streets deemed to have an ʻadverse impact to safety”.

In the 1983 report and later reports, reference was made to 1965, 1973 and 1978 reports expressing continuing concern. These dates roughly correlate to the residential development taking place in the Berkeley Hills around that time.

74 Restrict Parking in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016

In response to the 1991 hills fire, the City Manager wrote a hills community letter outlining recommendations for a designated assessment district to include parking restrictions on streets deemed to be “bottlenecks”.

The FEMA grant application of 2004 made no mention, other than identifying the particularly hazardous risks for residents of Panorama Way, of the need to develop a comprehensive vehicular traffic plan for the hills. The grant proposal did specifically state that “Berkeley intends to do everything in its power not to let that (meaning huge property loss) happen, or to be able to contain such a blaze with significantly increased speed and efficiency, saving lives and property.”

The Disaster and Fire Safety Commission Priorities Report for 2007 and 2008 addresses critical traffic choke points, specifically Panorama Way.

In 2008 and 2009 a discussion memo was prepared to urge the city to complete its underground utility project based on “established criteria of widespread and significant public use, including evacuation routes”.

A memo from 2009 encouraged city personnel to participate in “city walkabouts” so they could experience first hand “neighborhoods having problems that adversely affect public safety”, including conditions that impede emergency response. A walkabout did take place- but only on Panorama Way.

After the 1991 fire, some 68 streets were deemed too narrow for fire apparatus to safely get by and one sided parking was instituted on select blocks or sections of blocks. These are listed on the City of Berkeley website. However in the October 4, 1983 memo from the then Assistant Fire Chief to the Planning and Community Development Department, 144 street and pathway areas were identified as being in the “Hazardous Fire Area” and considered ”narrow or otherwise restricted” with respect to fire suppression apparatus.

Today we are 24 years after the devastating Oakland Hills Fire and 50 years after concern was first expressed for the safety of residents given the condition of streets in the Berkeley hills. We are long overdue for responsible solutions that will save lives and property.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Environmental sustainability will vary depending on program design recommended by staff.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION From 1965 forward, over 15 reports have been prepared for the benefit of city council and relevant commissions about the danger to life and property caused by vehicle parking congestion in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area. Nearly every report requests action to limit housing density and endorse and enforce strict parking regulations throughout

75 Restrict Parking in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 the fire zone, including red zoning all curves and most narrow streets, either on one side or both sides depending on street width.

In the seventy years between 1923 and 1993, eleven Diablo wind driven fires burned in the East Bay Hills, on average once every 6.36 years. Twenty-four years have passed since the last Diablo wind driven fire burned 750 houses in the first hour and over 3,300 houses before the wind direction changed and the fire was contained. We are not only long overdue for a Diablo wind-driven fire in the hills fire zone, but the density and resulting challenges to safe evacuation in the Berkeley Hill Fire District has steadily increased over the years.

During this historic drought, and noting that Laguna Beach, California (see attachment for additional details) was able to implement a similar program in four weeks, the commission recommends staff design a Red Flag Day No Parking pilot program which would enhance public safety while allowing the city to refine, expand or replace the pilot with a permanent program throughout the entire Hill Hazardous Fire Area.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED The Commission considered and provided staff with information on numerous alternatives, some of which, are enumerated below:

1. Follow the LA basin, Pasadena, Santa Barbara model requiring all vehicles be completely off narrow streets on red flag days. Notification could come via Nixle or BFD equivalent, by Twitter and posted on the city website. It is the responsibility of residents to comply. The Fire Marshall has the authority to tow vehicles left parked on narrow streets. See #5 and #6 for definitions of narrow streets and parking restrictions.

2. Similar to prohibiting wood burning on high smog days, prohibit outdoor open flames from any source in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area, including BBQs during red flag days. Prohibit any activities that use equipment that could spark and start a fire: this would include chain saws, mowers or similar type equipment. Burn permits are automatically cancelled.

3. Follow the Mill Valley/Corte Madera model wherein the Fire Marshall has the authority to determine which streets represent a dangerous condition for both first responders and residents, should the need for evacuation arise. The department responsible for roads would meet with the Fire Marshall and determine where parking turnouts can be carved off the existing paved roadway. A street by street resident meeting is held and the street is then marked, prohibiting street parking except at turnouts. Residents may appeal to the city council but Mill Valley reports this is almost never done.

4. The current Berkeley model for one-sided parking and no parking is that 100% of residents on the affected street must sign a petition in favor of restricted parking. However, the political reality is that there is almost never 100% agreement, over anything, much less parking. In some cases the resident unwilling to sign is a landlord

76 Restrict Parking in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 or the dwelling may be vacant or used as a secondary home. In these cases, the property owners are far less likely to experience the public safety hazards associated with narrow, curvy streets. Democratically the model should be 51% in agreement, not 100%.

5. Follow the California/International Fire Code for emergency equipment apparatus access as follows: No parking either side if street width is 28 feet or less, one sided parking on streets wider than 28 feet and less than 36 feet. Two sided parking allowed only on streets as wide or wider than 36 feet. Narrow street turnouts can be provided every 500 feet. No parking within 15 feet of any fire hydrant.

6. Designate No Parking on streets 20 feet wide or less, One Sided parking on streets wider than 20 feet and less than 28 feet and Two Sided parking on streets wider than 28 feet unless the Fire Marshall deems these restrictions for a particular street are still insufficient to meet the needs of emergency apparatus access and public safety in an evacuation scenario.

7. Prohibit parking any time on all Hills Hazardous Fire Area designated evacuation routes.

8. Prohibit overnight street parking in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area. If residents require more off street parking than their garage/driveway allows, land owners may apply for a permit to create a code compliant vehicular turn out in an approved designated spot on their property.

9. Designate the Hills Hazardous Fire Area as a ”No Parking Without A Resident Permit Zone” thus limiting the number of vehicles that would otherwise park on these streets.

10. Institute an online request for residents in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area for “Voluntary Defensible Space Inspections” as is done in Santa Barbara.

11. Institute mandatory inspections and fine any property owners not in compliance with specified acceptable vegetation management. Adopt LA Basin vegetation management enforcement practices including charging property owners the cost of clearing vegetation if not in compliance.

12. Expand the “prohibited to plant list of trees” and prohibit plantings that create “fire ladders” in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area.

13. Enforce parking restrictions near hydrants, along red painted areas and in already established No Parking areas.

14. Prohibit street side-storage of trash bins and street parking of ancillary vehicles such as trailers. Owners will be fined and ancillary vehicles removed if tickets are issued more than two times in any three month period.

77 Restrict Parking in the Hills Hazardous Fire Area ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016

15. Step up Berkeleyʼs fire safety education campaign beyond the chipper program and dedicate a whole section of BFDʼs website to fire prevention and safety. Host a series of community education meetings and have council members send out newsletters. Use social media to raise awareness. Topics might include vegetation management, personal and home preparedness for evacuation, neighborhood safety with a special emphasis on responsibility to keep streets clear during fire season (now 10 months long), how to safely advise neighbors of evacuation orders, how to protect your property before you leave, and how to park in driveways to minimize impact on first responders and evacuees.

16. As far as coming up with a more permanent solution, have BFD and BPD jointly apply for a grant to study alternative parking strategies for the Hills Hazardous Fire Area. We could approach the UC Institute of Transportation, whose professors and graduate students have already participated in other regional and local studies. Their report would serve to boost the legitimacy of any long term solution we propose.

CITY MANAGER The City Manager recommends that Council accept the Commission’s report and refer to staff for additional analysis and inclusion in the City’s strategic planning process and community input in the design of such a program.

CONTACT PERSON David Brannigan, Assistant Fire Chief, Berkeley Fire Department, 510-981-5508

Attachments: 1: Memorandum to Disaster and Fire Safety Commission, March 10, 2015 2: Photographs of Narrow Streets 3: Memorandum to Disaster and Fire Safety Commission, August 26, 2015 4: Red Flag Fire Safe Pilot Parking Restriction Program

78 Attachment 1 Hills Fire District Parking Hazards

Date: March 10, 2015

To: D&FS Commission From: Victoria Q. Legg

On Monday, June 2, 2014 Susan Wengraf hosted a meeting for her district residents at the Northbrae Church. The topic was the increased ﬁre hazard due to drought conditions in California. Chief Dong and head of Berkeley Fire Departmentʼs OES, CAL Fire, EBMUD and East Bay Regional Park District were there to speak to a packed room of concerned residents.

It was a very informative meeting and I am proud to mention that Chief Dong asked how many in the audience were CERT trained. As I recall, nearly one third raised their hands.

During the Q&A someone asked what the city could do to alleviate the problems associated with narrow winding streets in the hills. The stated concerns were ready access by emergency apparatus and evacuation safety. The suggestion was made that street parking be restricted to one side of the street during high ﬁre danger days. This was deemed impractical since there is not a way to inform everyone which days are designated high ﬁre danger days.

After the meeting I approached Susan Wengraf and suggested, given the severity of the drought, the city impose a temporary parking restriction during the 2014 ﬁre season. She insisted voters would not support any parking restrictions even though the residents themselves could be in danger if an evacuation is called for.

Based upon my reading of the, possibly incomplete, history of “streets in hazardous Fire Area of the city” there have been a number of attempts to get the city council to recognize and proactively address this problem. Below is a list of what I have reviewed:

1. In 1983 a report from the Assistant Fire Chief to the Planning and Community Development outlined the ﬁre departmentʼs recommendations for limiting the number of living units on speciﬁcally named streets deemed to have an ʻadverse impact to safety”.

In the 1983 report and later reports, reference was made to 1965, 1973 and 1978 reports expressing concern were written. These dates roughly correlate to the residential development taking place in the Berkeley Hills around that time.

2. In response to the 1991 hills ﬁre, the City Manger wrote a hills community letter outlining recommendations for a designated assessment district to include parking restrictions on streets deemed to be “bottlenecks”.

3. The FEMA grant application of 2004(?) made no mention, other than identifying the particularly hazardous risks for residents of Panorama Way, of the need to develop a comprehensive vehicular traffic plan for the hills. The grant proposal did specifically state that “Berkeley intends to do everything in its power not to let that (meaning huge property loss) happen, or to be able to contain such a blaze with significantly increased speed and efficiency, saving lives and property.”

4. D&FS Commission Priorities Report for 2007 and 2008 addresses critical trafﬁc choke points, speciﬁcally Panorama Way.

1 79 Hills Fire District Parking Hazards

5. In 2008 and 2009 a discussion memo was prepared to urge the city to complete its underground utility project based on “established criteria of widespread and signiﬁcant public use, including evacuation routes”.

6. A memo from 2009 encouraged city personnel to participate in “city walkabouts” so they could experience ﬁrst hand “neighborhoods having problems that adversely affect public safety”, including conditions that impede emergency response. A walkabout did take place- on Panorama Way.

After the 1991 fire, some 68 streets were deemed too narrow for fire apparatus to safely get by and one sided parking was instituted on select blocks or sections of blocks. These are listed on the City of Berkeley website. However in the October 4, 1983 memo from the then Assistant Fire Chief to the Planning and Community Development Department, 144 street and pathway areas were identified as being in the “Hazardous Fire Area” or considered ”narrow or otherwise restricted” with respect to fire suppression apparatus.

Which brings us to today, 24 years after the devastating Oakland Hills Fire and 50 years after concern was ﬁrst expressed for the safety of residents given the condition of streets in the Berkeley hills.

Using the City of Berkeleyʼs estimated population for 2013, 14,025 additional persons have moved to Berkeley since 2000. Council districts 5 and 6, comprising the majority of the hills residents, together have 28,195 residents per city clerk ﬁles related to the city council redistricting plan.

The US Department of Agriculture has reported that their fire suppression expenses have risen 260% from 1995 to 2014, severely handicapping their ability to devote resources to fire mitigation. In 2014 California had 12 major wildfires, 11 of them in Northern California. There were 1000 more wildfires in California in 2014 than the historical average. It is expected that not only the number of fires will increase but their intensity will as well.

This hazard is further complicated by the drought which we all know is continuing unabated. Some experts estimate this drought will last decades. Some say this is the worst in the last 500 years, even 1200 years. A recent poll indicates 73% of Bay Area residents view the drought as serious.

Complicating the lack of rain is Californiaʼs 2014-15 winter of record breaking warm weather. Both are major contributors to the additional fuel load in the hills as is Sudden Oak Death, affecting nearly every Coastal Oak in parts of Tilden Park and the Hills ﬁre district.

It is my understanding that Berkeley accepts streets 22 feet or wider will safely accommodate ﬁre apparatus. Robert Flasher and myself did a 2 mile walkabout on March 6, 2015 to look at the parking situation on select streets in the hills just West of Grizzly Peak between Marin and Centennial Drive. Our sampling discovered: •An unrestricted parking section of Bret Hart measuring 17 feet wide; •Several streets met the 22 feet wide criteria but we could imagine parking situations that would make the street difﬁcult to navigate or impassible;

2 80 Hills Fire District Parking Hazards

•On S. Fairlawn, measuring 25 feet wide, the street width, fender to fender between parked cars on opposite sides of the street, was only 8 feet, 10 inches; •Unenforced no parking area; •Red zone divided to allow two cars to park on a narrow street curve; •No parking sign and red zone for only half of a narrow street curve.

Todayʼs vehicles may be wider than the typical vehicles on the road when the 22 foot road width standard was adopted. A 2015 Honda Civic is 5 feet 6 inches wide. A 2015 Ford f150 is 8 feet 8 inches wide including standard mirrors. The two together take up 13 feet 9.6 inches, leaving a mere 8 feet 2.4 inches for vehicles to pass between them. These ﬁgures do not include vegetation and trash cans taking up road space or vehicles parked with space for front seat passengers to enter and exit the vehicle.

I can personally vouch for the efforts of our fire fighters to navigate the hill streets, having watched them attempting to navigate curvy streets. The going is slow, sometimes very slow and occasionally impassable. Parking on both sides of the street, overgrown vegetation, unenforced parking restrictions, poor signage and the proliferation of households with multiple roommates and cars all contribute to BFDʼs difficulty and will ultimately contribute to our difficulty in navigating the hills.

There is no question in my mind that hill residents unwittingly contribute to slower response times by ﬁrst responders in a medical or other emergency and may very well endanger themselves and their families if faced with wildﬁre steadily advancing. We want BFD to respond timely to our calls and the condition of street parking in the hills seriously hampers their ability to serve the community, and doing so without damaging its very expensive and much needed emergency equipment.

In addition, I think it is important to consider that we tend to assume a ﬁre will require an evacuation from the hills toward the Bay. However there may well be a ﬁre or some other hazard or emergency that requires citizens to evacuate East into the hills. The danger to everyone increases by drivers having a lack of familiarity with the territory. Making wrong turns and getting lost is a common occurrence in the hills. Fear only will exasperate this problem and turning around may not be an option with many others sharing these roads.

3 81 Attachment 2

Hills Fire District Parking Hazards

Car and vegetation sharing the road Fairlawn Drive

A 25 foot roadway section of Fairlawn reduced to 8ʼ 9” fender to fender

Car in unenforced no parking zone- Keeler

4 82 Hills Fire District Parking Hazards

Cars parked in red zone break on narrowest, least visible section of curve- Stevenson

Street measures 22 feet but trash cans and vegetation prevent cars from parking partially off the road

5 83 HillsHHills FireFFirree DDistrictiiss Parking Hazards

Red zone indicated for only a portion of road curve-Sterling

6 84 Incident 3.12.15 South Fairlawn Dr. (measures 25 feet wide)

Bus stuck for approx 1.5 hrs. No cars could be moved because their owners were not residents of the street and could not be found.

Street parking on this day- typical on weekdays

85 Grizzly Peak reduced to one lane due to emergency vehicles simulating a fire during Wildland Urban Interface fire exercise, August 17, 2015.

Maneuvering emergency vehicles is a slow process with tight access on narrow streets, August 17, 2015.

86 Illustration of the narrow passing lane available to emergency vehicles due to parking on narrow streets.

Home in Berkeley Hills where off street parking has been converted for other use.

87 Attachment 3 Hills Update 8.26.15

To: DFSC From: Bob Flasher, Victoria Legg

Previous to our last meeting, Bob and I were asked to talk to communities using the Red Flag Day No Parking option and find out the extent of public compliance. I spent a few hours on the phone with Laguna Beach OES and watched video of their city council meetings in July and early August, 2015 to find the presentation of their one year end to their pilot project. The upshot was that there was no indication that residents wanted the pilot project terminated.

The Laguna Beach Model

Summarizing briefly, Laguna Beach is made up of wealthy, older long time residents who strongly favor parking in front of their homes. It also has very congested streets. Their chosen pilot neighborhood best fits the Panorama Hill topography with similar access and egress issues. The pilot is the outgrowth of a newly formed Disaster Safety Committee designated by the mayor and quite similar to our commission. It was the work of FD and PD to assist the committee getting off the ground that led to the Red Flag Day No Parking program. They emulated much of the LA County and Pasadena programs including adopting their signage almost word for word. The signs were described to me as large blank sheets of silver which hinge flip open to become RED FLAG DAY NO PARKING TOW AWAY ZONE signs. These signs neatly address real estate agent concerns of labeling a neighborhood as a “hazardous area”while remind- ing residents and visitors of the inherent wildfire danger.

The OES Coordinator credits public safety education through a series of outreach steps as key to getting the community to accept restricted parking; aided by the fact that many residents remem- ber Laguna Beach’s own 1993 disastrous fire. (Note that Oakland’s WPAD suggests that 70% of current hill residents did not live in the hills in 1991).

Two community meetings, one a weeknight and another on a Saturday morning were held to test support before the program was officially adopted by city council; Once the program was approved and ready to roll out, PD and FP walked the designated area knocking on doors, explaining the program and emphasizing resident responsibility to get their cars off the street. They also left flyers with program details; An ongoing media blitz to raise awareness, explaining the details of the program and en- couraging residents to sign up for the Red Flag Day No Parking alert system; Additional flyers were provided to Senior Citizens and the disabled.

The Laguna Beach Red Flag Day No Parking Program

Red Flag Day determined by NOOA; Residents informed at least 12 hours before and up to 48 hours before the Red Flag Day event; FD charged with unhinging signs when the Red Flag Day event is called and covering signs when period has passed; PD, charged with traffic control, sends parking ticket folk into the designated area 12 hours after a Red Flag event is announced or the next morning after 9 am. Their current instruc- tions are to issue tickets, return in an hour and have vehicles towed if they weren’t already moved. They return once again in the afternoon and repeat the same procedure.

88 Hills Update 8.26.15

Laguna Coast Fire Safe Council and Red Flag Patrol members volunteer to help protect the local region from future disaster. The council receives grants to cover costs of informing residents about fire danger and promoting fire mitigation efforts (I assume these grants are from the Fire Safety Council). On Red Flag days, members will display red “Fire Alert” flags.

There are no exceptions made for Senior citizens or the disabled and turnouts are not considered an option based on topography. The city encourages neighbors to work together by sharing un- used off street parking spaces and to park downhill and use Uber or taxis to return home if alternatives cannot be found. Residents are reminded it is unlawful to leave any car parked on the street for more than 72 hours.

Estimated tow and ticket costs range from $218 to $290 plus $50/day storage fee.

During the initial four month grace period warnings were issued to move cars rather than ticket and tow. In the pilot project area of 200 homes, 31 warning tickets were issued on the first Red Flag Day and on the last Red Flag Day in the grace period only three tickets were issued. PD determined that residents were readily complying with the program but service and contracting businesses were not sufficiently aware to comply. FD/PD then created new English/Spanish warning flyers and specifically invited contractors to attend an informational meeting held at the Chamber of Commerce.

Since December and likely because of a NOOA reclassification for the Laguna Coast area, there have been no Red Flag days. The decision made, post report to city council, is that Laguna Beach will not expand this program until a car is towed and ticketed in the belief that a ticket and tow event is a necessary test of community acceptance.

Other Southern California Red Flag Day Programs

Sherman Oaks falls under the LA County Red Flag Day No Parking Ordinance. A blog post dated 2005 specifically stated that Red Flag Day NO PARKING applies to streets narrower than 28 feet and one sided parking on streets is allowed on street less than 36 feet and wider than 27.9 feet. LA County noted they do have good resident registration compliance, jurisdictions are advised of a Red Flag day event the day before, their DOTs patrol the designated area on the day of the event and ticket and tow as necessary. There are signs in the hills to alert non-residents that they are parking in a “red flag corridor” and to call 311 for information and registration to receive alerts. Sierra Madre uses the Red Flag Day parking system for debris removal and mudslides. City of Pasadena adopted its program in August, 2009. They created a map color coded for street widths in their designated fire region. They use gateway signs at strategic major inter- sections and place Red Flag Day Parking restriction signs every 500 feet in the designated area. Their grace period was in two stages, first 3 Red Flag day warnings or first 10 days warning only, then repeated for ticketing after which they repeated the time frame again before ticket and tow. became the norm. Santa Barbara County raises symbolic red flags at fire stations and in severely impacted neighborhoods on Red Flag event days and use the Red Flag No Parking ticket and tow program along with flip down signs in designated areas.

89 Hills Update 8.26.15

Off Street Parking, Berkeley Hills

Bob and I did a very unscientific visual survey of select streets of the N side hills area. Between us we surveyed 879 properties. Extrapolating from the 2014 Berkeley Hazard Mitigation Report which identified 8300 structures (not housing) in the Hill Fire Zone, we came up with the following estimate for off street parking capacity. Unless a garage has obviously been repurposed, our count included garages, any existing, legal or otherwise, turnouts and tandem parking.

4.9% or 43 structures with no off street parking 11.9% or 105 structures with one off street parking spot 22.8% or 200 structures with two off street parking spots 60.4% or 531 structures with more than 2 off street parking spots

The city has two downtown garages with extended hours; UCB’s upper campus has underutilized parking spaces and their lots are open between 5 am and 2 am. Orinda BART, for one, has long term parking space available.

Proposed Action

Our goal is to strengthen the partnership between city and its residents by having an informed, educated public that takes responsibility to mitigate the potentially disastrous effects of widespread fire. A multi-pronged approach would include the following: • An effective wildfire suppression program; • An aggressive hazardous fuels management program, on both private and on municipal property; • Reliable and responsible enforcement of Cal Fire/Cal Vehicle and City Municipal codes that enhance the ability of emergency response and thus positively impacting overall public safety; • Continually review and adopt best practices land use policies and standards that protect life, property, and natural resources; • Enforce building and fire codes that reduce structural ignitions from windblown embers and flame contact fromWUI fires, and impede or halt fire spread within the structure once ignit- ed; • Educate and promote construction and property standards that provide defensible space.

The following recommendations relate to the above goal: Publicly congratulate the work of Berkeley’s Fire Department for the WUI summer drills and raising awareness of good fire safe and evacuation practices; Fund ongoing education with an emphasis on personal responsibility to manage the risk of fire - especially targeting the Hill Fire Zone. The danger is not only increased fuel load from climate factors but also from earthquake. An ill-timed firestorm event or earthquake combined with fire could potentially destroy Berkeley because of extraordinary loss of life and massive de- struction of property. Use every opportunity at the city’s disposal to raise awareness (Ex. City Manager’s Annual Report (September), Chipper Program brochure (June), city council constitu- ent status reports, community education flyers and workshops, and local media); Recommend Real Estate disclosure requirements to include wording on the inherent risks associated with living in the designated Hill Fire Zone;

90 Hills Update 8.26.15

DSFC, BFD and BPD host two community workshops, one on a Saturday and one on a weeknight, to promote a restricted parking pilot program. These workshops serve as the primary impetus for the city to enact this program. See attached proposed agenda for Susan Wengraf’s community meeting planned for late September; Recommend the adoption of a Red Flag Day No Parking pilot program which would enhance public safety during this historic drought while allowing the city to refine, expand or replace the pilot with a permanent program throughout the entire Hill Fire Zone. Note-Laguna Beach was able to implement their program in four weeks; Recommend the city have one designated 24 hour parking garage to accommodate hill dwellers who are unable to find alternative sites to park their cars; The recommendation includes a comment on the relative minor cost of possible revenue loss from ticketing downtown for a few hours twice a day for (5-10?) days a year vs the enormous cost of cleanup after an event like the 1991 Tunnel fire. Long term additional costs might include loss of sales tax revenues, longterm insurance premium hikes and reduced insurance coverage. The city may also find itself incurring expensive legal fees for defending litigation against the city because of possibly avoidable loss of life and private property.

91 Attachment 4

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 Red Flag Parking

PARKING IS PROHIBITED ON THIS SIDE OF DIAMOND STREET BETWEEN CRESTVIEW AND CATALINA DURING RED FLAG ALERTS. ONLY WARNING NOTICES WILL BE ISSUED UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2014. STARTING ON JANUARY 1, 2015, VEHICLES PARKED ON THIS SIDE OF DIAMOND STREET DURING A RED FLAG ALERT WILL BE CITED AND TOWED AWAY AT THE VEHICLE OWNER’S EXPENSE.

YOU MAY SIGN UP TO RECEIVE RED FLAG TEXT ALERTS ON THE CITY WEBSITE AT: WWW.LAGUNABEACHCITY.NET/PORTAL/DEFAULT.ASP

Laguna Beach Police Department: (949) 497-0701

105 106

Peace and Justice Commission ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 12, 2016) To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Peace and Justice Commission Submitted by: George Lippman, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission Subject: In Support of Ending Drone Warfare

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution urging the U.S. government to:

1. Halt the use of all drones for extrajudicial killing, since extrajudicial killing is illegal under international law, 2. Halt all drone surveillance that assaults basic freedoms and inalienable rights and terrorizes domestic life in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia, 3. Prohibit the sale, and distribution of drones and drone technology to foreign countries in order to prevent the proliferation of this menacing threat to world peace, freedom and security, and 4. Work with the international community to ban the use of drones for military purposes.

Urge Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Representative Barbara Lee to help to end the use of drones in warfare by promoting legislation that will achieve these ends; and

Direct the City Clerk to send copies of this resolution to President Barack Obama, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, and Representative Barbara Lee.i

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION Unknown

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS The United States has carried out 20,000 drone strikes in the last four years, including hundreds of strikes in Pakistan killing some three thousand people (hundreds of them civilians including many children)ii, as well as in Yemen and Somalia.iii

At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Peace and Justice Commission (PJC) on July 06, 2015, the Commission took the following action:

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 107 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager In Support of Ending Drone Warfare ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016

1. M/S/C (Meola/Kenin) that the Peace and Justice Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution in support of ending drone warfare:

Ayes: Bohn/Blake temp, Kenin, Lippman, Maran, Meola, Nicely, Reyes Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: Herrerra, Nuruddin Excused: Mabanta, Bohn

BACKGROUND The United States government began using drones to attack Al-Queda targets in Yemen in 2002. An investigative panel of the United Nations Human Rights Council has begun a study of the “exponential rise” in drone strikes to determine if unlawful killings have occurred in the interim 13 years, focusing specifically on “double tap” attacks involving a second missile strike on the same target, which could constitute war crimes as they often affect rescue workers and mourners.iv

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Unknown.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION According to the New York Times, the U.S. administration “counts all military-age males in a strike-zone as combatants.”v Even under this assumption, one in five drone deaths are civilians.

The antiseptic nature of modern drone warfare and the remote targeting of human beings from the other side of the world cause great concern to the people of Berkeley, along with many others around the country and the world.vi

In 2013, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a report calling for fundamental reforms in US drone policies. The CFR recommends:

 That the Obama administration’s targeted-killings policy be limited to individuals with a “direct operational” role in terrorist plots against the US;  Ending the so-called “signature strikes” against individuals or groups who the White House says, “bear the characteristics of Qaeda or Taliban leaders on the run,” and which define "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants;”  Far greater transparency and accountability in the definitions of civilian casualties, including aggressive congressional oversight.

Page 2 108 In Support of Ending Drone Warfare ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016

The report concludes that of 3,000 killed in drone attacks so far, “the vast majority were neither al Qaeda nor Taliban leaders,” a major difference from the low-to-zero civilian casualty estimates by the Obama administration, including newly-recommended CIA chief John Brennan.vii

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED No alternative action considered.

CITY MANAGER The City Manager takes no position on the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report

CONTACT PERSON George Lippman, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission 510-517-8379 Eric Brenman, Secretary, Peace and Justice Commission 510-981-5114

Attachments: 1: Resolution 2: Background Information

Page 3 109

RESOLUTION NO. -N.S.

ENDING OF DRONE WARFARE

WHEREAS, the Peace and Justice Commission advises the City Council on all matters relating to the City of Berkeley's role in issues of peace and social justice (Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 3.68.070; and

WHEREAS, the United States has carried out 20,000 drone strikes in the last four years, including hundreds of strikes in Pakistan killing some three thousand people (hundreds of them civilians including many children),viii as well as in Yemen and Somalia;ix and

WHEREAS, according to the New York Times, the U.S. administration “counts all military- age males in a strike-zone as combatants”, and even under this assumption, one in five drone deaths are civilians;x and

WHEREAS, the antiseptic nature of modern drone warfare and the remote targeting of human beings from the other side of the world causes great concern to the people of Berkeley, along with many others around the country and the world;xi and

WHEREAS, the United Nations has stated its concern about summary, arbitrary or extrajudicial executions (killing of persons by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process), including individuals intentionally killed as part of the ‘war on terror;’xii and

WHEREAS, an investigative panel of the United Nations Human Rights Council has begun a study of the “exponential rise” in drone strikes to determine if unlawful killings have occurred, focusing specifically on “double tap” attacks involving a second missile strike on the same target, which could constitute war crimes as they often affect rescue workers and mourners;xiii and

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, President Obama disclosed that an American aid worker and an Italian, both held hostage by Al Qaeda, were accidentally killed by a January U.S. drone strike in Pakistan; yet despite these recent deaths, it appears clear that the Administration doesn’t plan to modify the drone program in a significant way.xiv

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley urges the U.S. government to

1. Halt the use of all drones for extrajudicial killing, in light of the fact that the legality of drones is under investigation by legal scholars and practitioners including two successive UN Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings;xv 2. Halt all drone surveillance that assaults basic freedoms and inalienable rights and terrorizes domestic life in many countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia;

110

3. Halt the production of drones and prohibit the production, sale, and distribution of drones and drone technology to foreign countries in order to prevent the proliferation of this menacing threat to world peace, freedom and security; and 4. Work with others in the international community who seek to ban the use of drones for military purposes.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley urges Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Representative Barbara Lee to help to end the use of drones in warfare by promoting legislation that will achieve these ends.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley directs the City Clerk to send copies of this resolution to President Barack Obama, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, and Representative Barbara Lee.xvi

viii A September 2012 report entitled “Living Under Drones”, by researchers from Stanford University and New York University criticized the drone campaign, stating that it was killing a high number of civilians and turning the Pakistani public against the United States. and Civilian Deaths: Recent Columbia University Report: http://web.law.columbia.edu/human-rights-institute/counterterrorism/drone-strikes/counting-drone-strike-deaths http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights- institute/CountingDroneDeathsPresserFINAL.pdf See also: New America Foundation: “Year of the Drones” file:///Users/user/Desktop/drones%20reso/2012:%20The%20Year%20of%20the%20Drone%20%7C%20NewAmerica .net.webarchive ix http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/02/us-d US drone strikes listed and detailed in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen: “35-45 recorded strikes in Yemen and up to nine in Somalia.”

x http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all “President wages perpetual war,” and: livingunderdrones.org/report/: “... drone attacks were violations of international law, because the US government had not shown that the targets were direct threats to the US..... The report also noted the US policy of considering all military-age males in a strike zone as militants unless exonerating evidence proves otherwise. xi [ Editorial ] The Washington Post, Wednesday, November 7, 2012 xii http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Executions/Pages/SRExecutionsIndex.aspx The mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on summary or arbitrary executions was established by resolution 1982/35 of the UN Economic and Social Council. The UN Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution 1992/72, renewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and widened the title of the mandate to include "extrajudicial" as well as "summary or arbitrary" executions. This change indicates that the members of the Commission have adopted a broader approach to the mandate on executions to include all violations of the right to life as guaranteed by a large number of international human rights instruments. And

111

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22046&Cr=rights&Cr1=council#.VY78xRNViko

Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, stated on 28 March 2007:

“In recent years the United States has consistently argued that the UN Human Rights Council, and all other international human rights accountability mechanisms, have no legitimate role to play when individuals are intentionally killed, so long as it is claimed that the actions were part of the ‘war on terror,’”said Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. “While this argument is convenient because it enables the US to effectively exempt itself from scrutiny, if accepted it would constitute a huge step backwards in the struggle to promote human rights.” xiii “U.N. Panel to Investigate Rise in Drone Strikes,” New York Times, http://nyti.ms/XAbEMZ BY JOHN F. BURNS A prominent British human rights lawyer said the Human Rights Council panel would investigate the exponential rise in drone strikes, focusing on whether there is a plausible allegation of unlawful killing. And “U.N. enlists expert to examine drone warfare use,” SF Chronicle, January 25 “….One of the three countries requesting the investigation was Pakistan, which officially opposes the use of U.S. drones on its territory as an infringement on its sovereignty…” xiv http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/2-qaeda-hostages-were-accidentally-killed-in-us-raid-white-house- says.html?_r=1 In two New York Times articles dated April 24, 2015, “Obama Apologizes After Drone Kills American and Italian Held by Al Qaeda”,

The Times states, “For all of Mr. Obama’s achingly public struggle over the right approach to terrorism and war, he does not seem likely to overhaul his drone-oriented strategy. Reviews of the strike that killed the hostages may yield better ways to conduct the war — officials were already talking about forming a “fusion center” that would link agencies to deal with hostage situations — but aides gave no sense that Mr. Obama would embrace a wholesale shift.” And : www.nytimes.com/.../drone-strikes-reveal-uncomfortable-truth-us-is-often- unsure-about-who-will-die.html: “Drone Strikes Reveal Uncomfortable Truth: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die,” And: San Francisco Chronicle editorial on April 26, 2015, entitled ”Obama’s Drone disaster”, stated, “Prior mistakes and political outcry over the clandestine attacks have led to a drop off in drone attacks in the last five years. But drones are now in use in more countries than ever. A remarkable technological tool is becoming a military liability. Far from being precise weapons, drones are turning out to have an unpredictable and indiscriminate side. The air attacks, designed to single out extremist leaders, have become recruiting campaigns for U.S. enemies who note the injuries and deaths to nearby civilians. The death of the American aid worker should lead the president in a new direction and away from drones.” xv http://www.cfr.org’counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/17/un-rapporteur-heyns-drone-strikes-yemen-pakistan UN Document: 28 May, 2010

112

Resolution in Support of Ending Drone Warfare Attachment 2

Background information:

Drone strikes: Estimated total civilians killed since the strikes began – in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan: 5253 (Details below)

Articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/hostage-deaths-show-risk-of-drone- strikes.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column- region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/2-qaeda-hostages-were-accidentally-killed-in- us-raid-white-house-says.html?_r=0 Obama Apologizes After Drone Kills American and Italian Held by Al Qaeda www.SFChronicle.com http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-war-drones/ Pakistan 2004–2015 CIA Drone Strikes, Most recent strike: April 12 2015 Total strikes: 415 Obama strikes: 364 Total killed: 2,449-3,949 Civilians killed: 423-962 Children killed: 172-207 Injured: 1,144-1,722 Yemen 2002–2015 US Covert Action, Most recent strike: April 21 2015 Confirmed drone strikes: 91-111 Total killed: 436-646 Civilians killed: 65-96 Children killed: 8 Injured: 86-215 Possible extra drone strikes: 76-92 Total killed: 319-460 Civilians killed: 26-61 Children killed: 6-9 Injured: 78-105 Other covert operations: 15-72 Total killed: 156-365 Civilians killed: 68-99 Children killed: 26-28 Injured: 15-102 Somalia 2007–2015 US Covert Action Most recent strike: March 12 2015 Drone strikes: 9-13 Total killed: 23-105 Civilians killed: 0-5 Children killed: 0 Injured: 2-7 Other covert operations: 7-11 Total killed: 40-141 Civilians killed: 7-47 Children killed: 0-2 Injured: 11-21 Afghanistan Most recent strike: April 12 2015 Confirmed strikes: 6 Total killed: 44-57 Civilians killed: 0 Children killed: 0 Injured: 0 Possible extra strikes: 6 Total killed: 36 Civilians killed: 0-1 Children killed: 0-1 Injured: 9 Most recent strike: April 12 2015, http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/

113 Resolution in Support of Ending Drone Warfare Attachment 2

CIA strikes Pakistan – Obama 2014 Total CIA drone strikes 25 Total reported killed: 115-186 Civilians reported killed: 0-2 Children reported killed: 0-2 Total reported injured: 53-76

CIA strikes Pakistan – Obama 2015 Total CIA drone strikes 7 Total reported killed: 33-45 Civilians reported killed: 2 Children reported killed: 0 Total reported injured: 11-16

Page 2 114

Public Works Commission ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 12, 2016) To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Public Works Commission Submitted by: Margo Scheuler, Chair, Public Works Commission Subject: Recommendation for the Five-Year Paving Plan

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution approving the first two years (2016-2017) of the Five Year Paving Plan as proposed by staff.

The Public Works Commission recommends further consideration of the last three years (2018-2020) of the plan to:  Better incorporate potential changes due to on-going drought,  Assure the City of Berkeley takes full advantage of lessons learned from prior test sites,  Best optimize green infrastructure to provide multiple benefits, and  Better evaluate full life-cycle costs, especially of alternative treatments.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION Unknown.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS For the past two years, Council has concurred with the Public Works Commission (PWC) recommendation to view a limited two years of detailed plan with three years referenced, referred to as “2 + 3” Five Year Plan. The plan for FY 2016 was approved by Council in November 2014 as part of the previous plan review. The PWC committed to return a recommendation on a full Five Year Plan this year. Staff provided their draft Five Year Paving Plan (2016-2020) to the PWC for review and consideration in April 2015. The PWC Paving Subcommittee held several public meetings with staff in an effort to evaluate the Plan and determined additional time is needed to develop the 2018-2020 portion of the plan to ensure the best possible expenditure of all funds.

On October 1, 2015, the PWC passed the following motion approving the report’s recommendations: “Approve that the PWC’s report and recommendations contained therein, be submitted to the City Council for consideration” (M/S/C Yep/Neal: Ayes: Elgstrand, Schueler, Kelley, Roland, Yep, Neal, Swift, Freiberg, Kelley; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: None).

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager 115 Recommendation for the Five-Year Paving Plan ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016

PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION’S REVIEW In keeping with the Auditor, City Manager and Council direction, the Public Works Commission applauds the significant progress staff has made improving the surface condition of our streets and raising the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) citywide since the infusion of Measure M funds in 2013. During public discussions regarding how the $30 million in funds from Measure M should be spent, there was general consensus that street repair and restoration was a high priority for the community as well as development of new street and storm water systems, and investment in appropriate green infrastructure.

In the three years following the passage of Measure M, California and the West have been hit by a devastating drought. Growing awareness of the impacts of climate change on regional and local ecosystems has reinforced the importance of storm water management and retention associated with our largest public asset – our streets.

The Paving Plan as proposed strongly reflects the original 1990 Five Year Policy criteria. The proposed Plan will continue rapid restoration of the Pavement Condition Index citywide. The Plan consistently prioritizes bike and transit routes and distributes funds across streets according to city priorities regarding carrying capacity. This appropriately distributes street work across arterial, collector, and residential streets. With the infusion of monies from Measures M in 2012 and BB in 2014 into street management, our street network condition has greatly improved. Staff has increasingly focused on entire street sections and there has been growing collaboration with other utilities to coordinate their underground work prior to street surface treatment. We have made real progress on street issues that matter. Staff has addressed questions and provided supplemental information for consideration in making recommendations.

In addition to maintaining a smooth and safe riding surface, the 2009 update of the City’s Paving Policy codified the need to identify and implement integrated solutions to address multiple demands on street infrastructure designed for safety, environmental sustainability and economic efficiency over the long run. We have installed and tested permeable pavers on Allston Way. Staff has also applied Measure M funds to develop watershed improvements associated with other street improvement projects.

Looking toward 2018 and beyond

When we step back and look at the whole City landscape, the infusion of Measure M funds has significantly improved the condition of our streets (as measured by an increase in streets paved and in the overall Pavement Condition Index) as well as introducing green infrastructure to our street paving practices.

As currently proposed, $22.4 million of the $30 million in Measure M funds will have been spent on conventional asphalt pavement, while the remaining $7.6 million is planned for elements included in the Watershed Master Plan.

Page 2 116 Recommendation for the Five-Year Paving Plan ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016

Alternative Street Treatments:

We need to continue to evaluate and implement different possible types of materials and construction methods, and to conduct comprehensive long run cost-benefit analyses for alternative types of pavement that are inter-generational in scope. In particular, estimated durability, useful life, costs of maintenance and lifecycle as well as environmental and watershed benefits should all be more explicitly incorporated in analysis.

The repairing of Bancroft Way, as proposed in the 2017 plan will provide very useful information in this regard, as that three block stretch from Telegraph to Fulton will comprise of one block of traditional asphalt and two blocks of concrete. This will thereby provide an excellent test site of durability and other attributes where conditions and traffic are essentially equal.

In addition to substantive changes and consideration of concrete/Portland cement, interlocking concrete pavers, or other more durable materials than asphalt, changes should be made to existing pavement projects to address environmental impacts. The Commission recommends removal of lamp black from future asphalt pavements to reduce heat island effects.

Watershed Elements and Green Infrastructure:

A significant portion of the current Measure M watershed expenditures planned will be expended on cisterns to temporarily slow storm water and reduce downstream flooding. The water is [then?] released slowly into storm drains. In consideration of the on-going drought conditions, the PWC recommends reconsideration of these projects. Our experience with permeable pavers on Allston Way shows large volumes of rainwater can be efficiently captured by permeable pavers. The water then returns to the aquifer where it can nurture plants, rather than simply draining directly to the Bay via storm drains. Further permeable pavers may be cheaper than very costly cistern projects.

Green infrastructure (GI) projects funded by Measure M to date have taken the form of rain gardens or bio-swales at opportunity sites adjacent to planned paving projects. These projects have been an important first step in meeting our GI needs throughout the city. However, only four planned GI projects in 2016-2020 (Rose-Hopkins, Shattuck between Center and University, and the Shattuck and Dwight Way bus pad permeable pavers will take place within the roadway itself. The Public Works Commission recommends additional and substantive GI projects be developed that involve the roadway or parking strip.

Other cities that have made significant advances (particularly Portland, Oregon), can help us better understand best practices for overall incorporation of Green Infrastructure and associated cost savings. A more thorough planned approach to GI is needed.

Page 3 117 Recommendation for the Five-Year Paving Plan ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016

Finally, given the changes in our rainfall patterns, any remaining projects must ensure multiple benefits, not only including flooding reduction, but also comprehensive environmental aspects such as water retention, sustaining urban forests and other aspects that reflect Berkeley’s commitment to its Climate Action Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The Paving Plan incorporates Green Infrastructure that will reduce the volume of storm water entering City storm drains, provide opportunities for stormwater catchment, improve the quality of urban runoff from the roadways, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by using newer technologies for street rehabilitation

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION This Paving Plan is consistent with Berkeley’s Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED None.

CITY MANAGER The City Manager takes no position on the content.

CONTACT PERSON Margo Schueler, Chair, Public Works Commission Phil Harrington, Acting Director, Public Works Department, 981-6300 Sean Rose, Secretary, Public Works Commission, 981-6435 Tracy Clay, Supervising Civil Engineer, 981-6406

Attachments: 1: Resolution Exhibit A: FY 2016-2020 Paving and Green Infrastructure Plan

Page 4 118

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

APPROVAL OF THE PAVING PLAN FOR FYs 2016-2017

WHEREAS, the Street Rehabilitation Policy, Resolution No. 55,384-N.S. approved on May 22, 1990, requires there be a 5-Year Street Paving Plan for the entire City to be adopted by the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the Street Rehabilitation Policy shall be reviewed and updated annually by the City Council, with the advice of the Public Works Commission; and

WHEREAS, the Public Works Commission has required additional time to review the paving plan prepared by staff; and

WHEREAS, the Public Works Commission recommends Council adopt the FY 2016-2017 paving plan and the Green Infrastructure improvements, attached as Exhibit A.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the FY 2016-2017 Street Paving Plan and Green Infrastructure improvements, attached as Exhibit A hereof, is hereby adopted.

Exhibit A: Street Paving Plan for FY 2016-2020

119 Exhibit A 5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 1

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LAST YEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE (updated) 2016 DERBY ST WARRING ST BELROSE & TANGLEWOOD A RECONSTRUCT 382226 8 B 0.23 6 12 1996 O 2016 OXFORD ST CEDAR ST 161' N/O HEARST AVE A OVERLAY 108950 4 C 0.25 74 - - 2016 OXFORD ST 161' N/O HEARST AVE HEARST AVE A OVERLAY 15031 4 C 0.03 49 - - 2016 THE ALAMEDA SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE A OVERLAY 129217 5 B 0.18 59 1996 R 2016 THE ALAMEDA MARIN AVE HOPKINS ST A RECONSTRUCT 828763 5 B 0.26 44 1995 O 2016 THE ALAMEDA HOPKINS ST YOLO AVE A OVERLAY 31678 5 C 0.04 53 1995 O 2016 4TH ST CHANNING WAY DWIGHT WAY C SURFACE SEAL 10976 2 D 0.15 25 1999 R 2016 BANCROFT WAY FULTON ST DANA ST C RECONSTRUCT 781797 47 B 0.25 33 1988 S 2016 BELROSE AVE DERBY ST CLAREMONT BLVD C RECONSTRUCT 253645 8 C 0.12 5 22 1996 O 2016 CEDAR ST SPRUCE ST EUCLID AVE C SURFACE SEAL 16340 46 D 0.26 70 1988 O 2016 CEDAR ST EUCLID AVE LA LOMA AVE C SURFACE SEAL 60606 6 D 0.17 48 1986 O 2016 CLAREMONT BLVD BELROSE AVE CLAREMONT AVE C RECONSTRUCT 325312 8 C 0.17 11 35 1996 O 2016 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD SHASTA RD (EXTENSION OF EUNICE) C SURFACE SEAL 70158 6 B 0.20 47 1986 O 2016 KEITH AVE SPRUCE ST EUCLID AVE C SURFACE SEAL 11983 6 B 0.28 65 1988 O 2016 KEITH AVE EUCLID AVE SHASTA RD C SURFACE SEAL 169301 6 D 0.49 49 1988 O 2016 LA LOMA AVE GLENDALE AVE EL PORTAL CT C SURFACE SEAL 2960 6 D 0.05 66 1993 O 2016 LA LOMA AVE EL PORTAL CT QUARRY RD C SURFACE SEAL 9223 6 D 0.03 64 1993 O 2016 LOS ANGELES AVE THE CIRCLE SPRUCE ST C SURFACE SEAL 19481 5 B 0.33 70 2003 O 2016 MILVIA ST HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE C SURFACE SEAL 40514 4 A 0.12 75 1990 O 2016 PIEDMONT CRESCENT DWIGHT WAY WARRING ST C RECONSTRUCT 160370 8 B 0.05 6 32 1996 O 2016 ROSE ST SHATTUCK PL SHATTUCK AVE C SURFACE SEAL 3737 5 B 0.06 63 1994 O 2016 SHASTA RD CRAGMONT AVE KEELER AVE C SURFACE SEAL 6290 6 B 0.13 65 1994 O 2016 SPRUCE ST EUNICE ST ROSE ST C SURFACE SEAL 107707 56 B 0.31 52 1994 O 2016 THOUSAND OAKS BLVD COLUSA AVE VINCENTE AVE C SURFACE SEAL 2812 5 D 0.07 67 1988 S 2016 THOUSAND OAKS BLVD VINCENTE AVE THE ALAMEDA C SURFACE SEAL 7548 5 D 0.16 55 1988 S 2016 THOUSAND OAKS BLVD THE ALAMEDA ARLINGTON AVE C SURFACE SEAL 15441 5 D 0.30 87 2002 O 2016 WARRING ST DWIGHT WAY DERBY ST C RECONSTRUCT 648111 8 B 0.29 6 18 1996 O 2016 5TH ST CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST R SURFACE SEAL 6586 1 B 0.13 73 - - 2016 5TH ST VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE R SURFACE SEAL 16099 1 B 0.31 68 - - 2016 9TH ST CEDAR ST DELAWARE ST R SURFACE SEAL 22274 1 A 0.25 55 1991 O 2016 9TH ST DELAWARE ST HEARST AVE R SURFACE SEAL 8280 1 A 0.09 68 1991 O 2016 9TH ST HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE R SURFACE SEAL 8039 1 A 0.09 31 1991 O 2016 9TH ST UNIVERSITY AVE BANCROFT WAY R SURFACE SEAL 27381 2 A 0.31 71 1990 O 2016 9TH ST JOG JUST NORTH OF ANTHONY POTTER ST R RECONSTRUCT 102170 2 B 0.06 36 - - 2016 9TH ST POTTER ST ASHBY AVE R OVERLAY 16474 2 B 0.07 43 - - 2016 ACTON ST RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE R SURFACE SEAL 6159 2 D 0.09 82 - - 2016 ARCADE AVE GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD FAIRLAWN DR R RECONSTRUCT 54466 6 D 0.06 15 1995 O 2016 BERKELEY WAY MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WY MILVIA WAY R SURFACE SEAL 8568 4 D 0.13 74 1986 O 2016 BERKELEY WAY MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE R SURFACE SEAL 9288 4 D 0.12 53 - - 2016 BONAR ST UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST R RECONSTRUCT 86350 2 B 0.06 23 1992 O 2016 BONAR ST ALLSTON WAY DWIGHT WAY R RECONSTRUCT 184250 2 B 0.38 37 1991 O 2016 CALIFORNIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE DWIGHT WAY R SURFACE SEAL 50492 4 A 0.57 60 1992 O

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: October 2015 120 5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 2

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LAST YEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE (updated) 2016 CAMPUS DR AVENIDA DR PARNASSUS RD R RECONSTRUCT 90750 6 D 0.10 13 12 - - 2016 CAMPUS DR PARNASSUS RD DEAD END, UC PLOT R RECONSTRUCT 110306 6 D 0.14 0 - - 2016 CODORNICES EUCLID AVE DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 68750 6 D 0.11 3 - - 2016 CONTRA COSTA AVE SOLANO AVE LOS ANGELES AVE R RECONSTRUCT 32837 5 D 0.03 40 - - 2016 CORNELL AVE HOPKINS ST CEDAR ST R OVERLAY 86020 1 B 0.07 39 1992 O 2016 CORNELL AVE CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST R RECONSTRUCT 151250 1 B 0.13 25 1992 O 2016 EAST PARNASSUS CT PARNASSUS RD DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 35292 6 D 0.04 1 - - 2016 EL DORADO AVE THE ALAMEDA SUTTER ST R RECONSTRUCT 344574 5 D 0.24 39 1996 O 2016 ELMWOOD CT ASHBY AVE DEAD END R SURFACE SEAL 3015 8 D 0.05 55 - - 2016 HAWTHORNE TERR EUCLID AVE CEDAR ST R RECONSTRUCT 268584 6 D 0.28 11 - - 2016 HEINZ AVE 3RD ST 7TH ST R RECONSTRUCT 342375 2 D 0.24 9 1992 O 2016 HENRY ST ROSE ST VINE ST R RECONSTRUCT 181500 5 C 0.13 19 1995 O 2016 HENRY ST VINE ST CEDAR ST R RECONSTRUCT 180125 4 D 0.12 23 1992 O 2016 HILGARD AVE LA VEREDA RD DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 72262 6 D 0.06 39 1999 R 2016 JONES ST EASTSHORE HWY 2ND ST R OVERLAY 20892 1 D 0.05 54 - - 2016 JONES ST 4TH ST 6TH ST R RECONSTRUCT 188375 1 D 0.13 12 - - 2016 JOSEPHINE ST THE ALAMEDA HOPKINS ST R RECONSTRUCT 167755 5 D 0.11 33 1997 O 2016 LA VEREDA RD LA LOMA AVE CEDAR ST R RECONSTRUCT 63021 6 D 0.10 9 17 - - 2016 LA VEREDA RD CEDAR ST DEAD END ABOVE VIRGINIA ST R RECONSTRUCT 93959 6 D 0.16 9 0 - - 2016 LE CONTE AVE SCENIC AVE HIGHLAND PL R SURFACE SEAL 141435 6 B 0.41 60 1995 R 2016 MICHIGAN AVE MARYLAND AVE SPRUCE ST R RECONSTRUCT 314550 5 D 0.28 49 1988 O 2016 MODOC ST SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE R OVERLAY 39469 5 D 0.11 54 1995 R 2016 PAGE ST EAST FRONTAGE RD 2ND ST R RECONSTRUCT 83570 1 D 0.05 39 - - 2016 PAGE ST 3RD ST 4TH ST R OVERLAY 33000 1 D 0.06 69 1989 O 2016 PARKER ST 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE R SURFACE SEAL 18529 * 2 D 0.26 63 2008 R 2016 PARKER ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WY MILVIA WAY R SURFACE SEAL 10055 3 B 0.13 29 1993 O 2016 PARKER ST MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R SURFACE SEAL 10856 3 B 0.14 50 1993 O 2016 PARKER ST COLLEGE AVE ETNA ST R RECONSTRUCT 106719 8 B 0.06 43 1996 O 2016 PARKER ST ETNA ST WARRING ST R RECONSTRUCT 199833 8 B 0.13 36 1996 O 2016 PARNASSUS RD DEL MAR AVE CAMPUS RD R RECONSTRUCT 209917 6 D 0.22 19 - - 2016 PIEDMONT AVE DWIGHT WAY DERBY ST R RECONSTRUCT 399665 8 B 0.25 37 2006 O 2016 POE ST BONAR ST DEAD END (BONAR ST) R RECONSTRUCT 40105 2 D 0.03 22 1995 O 2016 PRINCE ST TREMONT ST TELEGRAPH AVE R OVERLAY 178332 37 B 0.45 58 2002 O 2016 ROSE ST HOPKINS ST CHESTNUT ST R OVERLAY 52444 * 1 B 0.13 52 1992 O 2016 ROSE ST CHESTNUT ST SACRAMENTO ST R OVERLAY 145028 1 B 0.34 62 1992 R 2016 RUGBY AVE NORTH CITY LIMIT VERMONT AVE R RECONSTRUCT 40105 5 D 0.04 15 1994 O 2016 RUSSELL ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST R SURFACE SEAL 47101 3 A 0.14 52 1993 O 2016 RUSSELL ST MILVIA ST ADELINE ST R SURFACE SEAL 7576 3 A 0.02 63 1993 O 2016 RUSSELL ST TELEGRAPH AVE HILLEGASS AVE R SURFACE SEAL 74110 7 A 0.21 59 1998 O 2016 RUSSELL ST BENVENUE AVE COLLEGE AVE R SURFACE SEAL 11858 78 A 0.07 63 1998 O 2016 SPINNAKER WAY BREAKWATER DR MARINA BLVD R OVERLAY 124334 1 B 0.28 46 1991 O 2016 SPRUCE ST VINE ST CEDAR ST R SURFACE SEAL 43478 46 B 0.13 40 1995 O

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: October 2015 121 5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 3

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LAST YEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE (updated) 2016 SPRUCE ST CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST R SURFACE SEAL 44137 4 B 0.13 37 1995 O 2016 SPRUCE ST VIRGINIA ST HEARST AVE R SURFACE SEAL 68511 46 D 0.20 36 1995 O 2016 STANTON ST RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE R SURFACE SEAL 38261 2 D 0.11 24 - - 2016 THE ALAMEDA TACOMA AVE SOLANO AVE R OVERLAY 93250 5 B 0.24 48 1996 O 2016 TULARE AVE SOLANO AVE SONOMA AVE R OVERLAY 120874 5 D 0.32 48 1994 O 2016 VERMONT AVE DEAD END MARYLAND AVE R RECONSTRUCT 135285 5 D 0.15 4 1994 O 2016 WEST PARNASSUS CT PARNASSUS RD DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 38653 6 D 0.04 13 - -

FISCAL YEAR 2016 TOTALS

Total Estimated Cost and Miles $10,199,733 15.10 miles

MILEAGE ESTIMATED COST % COST % MILEAGE District 12.11 ARTERIALS 0.99 $1,495,865 15% 7% 1 21.75 COLLECTORS 3.99 $2,724,310 27% 26% 2 30.64 RESIDENTIALS 10.12 $5,979,558 59% 67% 3 41.89 4 53.21 SURFACE SEALS 7.19 $1,237,163 5 63.51 OVERLAYS 2.62 $1,194,993 6 70.60 RECONSTRUCTS 5.29 $7,767,577 7 81.38 8 15.10 PCC STREETS* 0.53 $905,778 Total 35.00 0.00 35.00 BIKE ROUTES 8.44 $5,646,229 55%

*OXFORD ST AND BANCROFT WAY

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: October 2015 122 5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 1

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LAST YEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE

2017 ADELINE ST DERBY ST STUART ST A OVERLAY 145705 3 B 0.14 45 1994 O 2017 ADELINE ST STUART ST ASHBY AVE A RECONSTRUCT 1196971 3 B 0.28 5 36 1988 O 2017 CEDAR ST EAST FRONTAGE RD (STATE P/L4TH ST A RECONSTRUCT 293410 1 D 0.18 10 16 1993 O 2017 CEDAR ST 4TH ST 6TH ST A OVERLAY 39815 1 D 0.13 46 1993 O 2017 HEARST AVE MILVIA ST HENRY ST A OVERLAY 35221 4 B 0.06 46 1995 O 2017 HEARST AVE LA LOMA AVE HIGHLAND PL A SURFACE SEAL 3042 6 D 0.06 81 - - 2017 SHATTUCK AVE ROSE ST VINE ST A RECONSTRUCT 325659 5 C 0.13 10 14 1996 R 2017 SHATTUCK AVE VINE ST CEDAR ST A RECONSTRUCT 389628 4 C 0.13 8 12 1996 O 2017 SHATTUCK PL HENRY ST & ROSE ST SHATTUCK AVE A RECONSTRUCT 282176 5 C 0.10 10 18 1996 R 2017 SHATTUCK AVE CEDAR ST HEARST AVE A RECONSTRUCT 824016 4 C 0.32 8 21 1996 O 2017 SHATTUCK AVE HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE A RECONSTRUCT 334289 * 4 C 0.12 1 33 1996 R 2017 SHATTUCK AVE (SB) CENTER ST UNIVERSITY AVE A OVERLAY 50864 4 C 0.13 60 1994 O 2017 SHATTUCK SQUARE UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST/BERKELEY SQ A OVERLAY 35377 4 C 0.07 41 1994 O 2017 BERKELEY SQUARE ADDISON ST CENTER ST A OVERLAY 32426 4 C 0.06 52 1994 O 2017 SHATTUCK AVE CENTER ST ALLSTON WAY A OVERLAY 35669 4 C 0.06 51 1994 O 2017 THE CIRCLE INTERSECTION MARIN AVE, ETCINTERSECTION ARLINGTON AVE A SURFACE SEAL 932 5 C 0.01 77 1992 R 2017 BANCROFT WAY MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE C OVERLAY 62651 4 D 0.13 58 1989 O 2017 CEDAR ST 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE C RECONSTRUCT 595577 1 D 0.31 8 10 1994 O 2017 DELAWARE ST 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE C SURFACE SEAL 21472 1 B 0.31 71 1992 R 2017 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD NORTH CITY LIMIT (SPRUCE) EUCLID AVE C RECONSTRUCT 305837 6 B 0.18 3 1 1990 O 2017 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD EUCLID AVE KEELER AVE C RECONSTRUCT 289214 6 B 0.21 3 2 1990 O 2017 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD KEELER AVE MARIN AVE C RECONSTRUCT 396076 6 B 0.27 3 0 1992 O 2017 HOPKINS ST MONTEREY AVE MC GEE AVE C OVERLAY 20807 5 B 0.05 55 1989 R 2017 HOPKINS ST MC GEE AVE CARLOTTA AVE C OVERLAY 27747 5 B 0.06 41 1989 R 2017 HOPKINS ST CARLOTTA AVE JOSEPHINE ST C OVERLAY 192511 * 5 B 0.35 58 1989 O 2017 HOPKINS ST JOSEPHINE ST THE ALAMEDA C OVERLAY 34683 * 5 B 0.05 47 1991 R 2017 SOLANO AVE THE ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA AVE C SURFACE SEAL 5116 5 C 0.10 89 2005 O 2017 NORTHBRAE TUNNEL CONTRA COSTA AVE DEL NORTE ST C SURFACE SEAL 9175 5 C 0.27 80 1988 O 2017 2ND ST DELAWARE ST HEARST AVE R RECONSTRUCT 152396 1 D 0.09 11 0 - - 2017 2ND ST HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE R RECONSTRUCT 163606 1 D 0.09 11 33 - - 2017 2ND ST UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST R OVERLAY 29840 2 D 0.09 42 1997 O 2017 8TH ST NORTH CITY LIMIT GILMAN ST R SURFACE SEAL 10924 1 B 0.22 78 2001 R 2017 9TH ST ASHBY AVE MURRAY ST R SURFACE SEAL 8890 2 B 0.03 43 - - 2017 ALLSTON WAY STRAWBERRY CK PARK ACTON ST R SURFACE SEAL 5173 2 B 0.10 77 1997 O 2017 ALLSTON WAY ACTON ST SACRAMENTO ST R SURFACE SEAL 43275 23 B 0.12 65 1997 O 2017 ALLSTON WAY MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R OVERLAY 56588 4 B 0.14 52 1990 O 2017 ALLSTON WAY SHATTUCK AVE OXFORD ST R RECONSTRUCT 144223 4 D 0.11 11 16 1992 O 2017 AVENIDA DR CAMPUS DR OLYMPUS AVE R SURFACE SEAL 52709 6 C 0.06 13 19 1993 O 2017 AVENIDA DR OLYMPUS AVE QUEENS RD R SURFACE SEAL 787 6 C 0.03 72 1993 O 2017 BERRYMAN ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR HI SCHMARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY R SURFACE SEAL 1562 5 B 0.03 69 1989 O 2017 BERRYMAN ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST R SURFACE SEAL 9760 5 B 0.19 71 1989 O 2017 BRET HARTE RD KEITH AVE CRAGMONT AVE R SURFACE SEAL 55791 6 D 0.06 44 1996 R 2017 BRET HARTE RD CRAGMONT AVE KEELER RD R SURFACE SEAL 3457 6 D 0.14 65 1996 R

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: October 2015 123 5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 2

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LAST YEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE

2017 CAMPUS DR GLENDALE AVE DELMAR AVE R SURFACE SEAL 54300 6 C 0.21 49 1991 O 2017 CAMPUS DR DELMAR AVE AVENIDA DRIVE R SURFACE SEAL 23586 6 C 0.10 59 1994 R 2017 CENTER ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST R OVERLAY 69521 * 4 C 0.13 45 1991 O 2017 CENTER ST MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R RECONSTRUCT 304434 4 B 0.14 4 32 1991 O 2017 CHANNING WAY SACRAMENTO ST ROOSEVELT AVE R RECONSTRUCT 472631 4 A 0.31 7 29 1995 O 2017 CHANNING WAY ROOSEVELT AVE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY R RECONSTRUCT 275000 4 A 0.19 7 16 1991 O 2017 CHANNING WAY MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST R RECONSTRUCT 189778 4 A 0.13 7 26 1991 O 2017 CHANNING WAY MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R RECONSTRUCT 207141 4 A 0.13 7 29 1991 O 2017 CORNELL AVE GILMAN ST PAGE ST R SURFACE SEAL 56934 1 B 0.19 68 1988 O 2017 CORNELL AVE PAGE ST HOPKINS ST R SURFACE SEAL 47213 1 B 0.13 58 1995 O 2017 CRAGMONT AVE MARIN AVE SANTA BARBARA RD R SURFACE SEAL 213105 6 D 0.21 40 1992 R 2017 CRAGMONT AVE SANTA BARBARA RD EUCLID AVE R SURFACE SEAL 5100 6 D 0.16 74 1996 R 2017 CRAGMONT AVE EUCLID AVE BRET HARTE RD R SURFACE SEAL 7700 6 B 0.27 64 1996 R 2017 CRAGMONT AVE BRET HARTE RD SHASTA RD R SURFACE SEAL 9252 6 B 0.31 71 1996 R 2017 EUCLID AVE CRAGMONT AVE BEG OF DIVIDED ROAD R SURFACE SEAL 7226 6 B 0.12 80 2001 R 2017 EUCLID AVE (NB) BEG OF DIVIDED ROAD END OF DIVIDED ROAD R SURFACE SEAL 4148 6 B 0.16 73 2001 O 2017 EUCLID AVE (SB) BEG OF DIVIDED ROAD END OF DIVIDED ROAD R SURFACE SEAL 7102 6 B 0.16 80 2001 O 2017 EUCLID AVE END OF DIVIDED ROAD EUNICE ST R SURFACE SEAL 10980 6 B 0.17 85 2001 R 2017 FLORIDA AVE SANTA BARBARA RD BOYNTON AVE R SURFACE SEAL 12726 5 D 0.05 79 1993 R 2017 FLORIDA AVE BOYNTON AVE DEAD END (FLORIDA WALK) R SURFACE SEAL 33531 5 D 0.03 13 40 1993 O 2017 FOLGER 3RD ST HOLLIS R RECONSTRUCT 205334 2 D 0.12 11 13 - - 2017 HEARST AVE HIGHLAND PL DEAD END R SURFACE SEAL 873 6 D 0.03 54 - - 2017 HOPKINS ST GILMAN ST SACRAMENTO ST R RECONSTRUCT 137653 5 B 0.10 7 19 2002 O 2017 JONES ST 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE R SURFACE SEAL 123090 1 D 0.31 48 1995 O 2017 JONES ST SAN PABLO AVE STANNAGE AVE R SURFACE SEAL 37673 1 D 0.10 50 1986 O 2017 JOSEPHINE ST HOPKINS ST ROSE ST R SURFACE SEAL 88133 5 B 0.24 64 1997 O 2017 MURRAY 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE R RECONSTRUCT 262564 2 D 0.25 6 4 - - 2017 PAGE ST 6TH ST 10TH ST R SURFACE SEAL 11184 1 D 0.25 73 1989 O 2017 PAGE ST 4TH ST 6TH ST R SURFACE SEAL 5181 1 D 0.12 69 1989 O 2017 PARKER ST SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY R SURFACE SEAL 24986 3 B 0.48 78 1989 O 2017 SAN PEDRO AVE COLUSA AVE THE ALAMEDA R SURFACE SEAL 208542 5 D 0.20 17 1993 O 2017 SOMERSET PL SOUTHAMPTON AVE DEAD END (JOHN HINKEL PARK) R SURFACE SEAL 71424 5 D 0.08 23 2000 O 2017 SONOMA AVE WEST CITY LIMIT (TULARE AVE) JOSEPHINE ST R SURFACE SEAL 165827 5 B 0.37 60 1990 O 2017 SOUTHAMPTON AVE ARLINGTON AVE SAN LUIS RD R SURFACE SEAL 78237 5 D 0.39 75 2000 O 2017 SPRUCE ST ROSE ST VINE ST R SURFACE SEAL 199833 56 B 0.13 10 36 1995 O 2017 THE ALAMEDA CAPISTRANO AVE TACOMA AVE R SURFACE SEAL 16739 5 B 0.05 65 2002 O 2017 VASSAR AVE NORTH CITY LIMIT (KENTUCKY) KENTUCKY AVE R SURFACE SEAL 71995 5 D 0.07 13 38 1999 R 2017 VASSAR AVE KENTUCKY AVE SPRUCE ST R SURFACE SEAL 54505 5 D 0.22 53 1999 R 2017 VINCENTE AVE NORTH END (VINCENTE WALK) THOUSAND OAKS BLVD R SURFACE SEAL 69788 5 D 0.27 59 1999 R 2017 VINCENTE AVE THOUSAND OAKS BLVD COLUSA AVE R SURFACE SEAL 56382 5 D 0.22 57 1999 R 2017 VINCENTE AVE COLUSA AVE PERALTA AVE R SURFACE SEAL 52884 5 D 0.19 63 1999 R

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: October 2015 124 5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 3

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LAST YEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE

2017 WHITNEY ST WOOLSEY ST SOUTH CITY LIMIT R SURFACE SEAL 10622 3 D 0.02 62 - - 2017 WOOLSEY ST ADELINE ST TREMONT ST R SURFACE SEAL 6832 * 3 B 0.11 64 1995 O 2017 WOOLSEY ST TREMONT ST TELEGRAPH AVE R SURFACE SEAL 198476 * 37 B 0.43 62 1995 O

FISCAL YEAR 2017 TOTALS

Total Estimated Cost and Miles $10,895,212 13.80 miles

MILEAGE ESTIMATED COST % COST % MILEAGE ARTERIALS 1.97 $4,025,200 37% 14% 1 2.44 COLLECTORS 2.29 $1,960,866 18% 17% 2 0.65 RESIDENTIALS 9.54 $4,909,146 45% 69% 3 1.32 42.35 SURFACE SEALS 8.28 $2,278,174 5 3.87 OVERLAYS 1.65 $869,425 6 2.95 RECONSTRUCTS 3.87 $7,747,613 7 0.22 80.00 PCC STREETS 0.00 $0 13.80 BIKEWAYS 3.63 $4,336,511 40%

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: October 2015 125 5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 4

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LAST YEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE

2018 COLLEGE AVE DWIGHT WAY DERBY ST A SURFACE SEAL 27036 78 C 0.52 67 2000 R 2018 COLLEGE AVE DERBY ST ASHBY AVE A SURFACE SEAL 18056 8 C 0.35 65 2000 R 2018 COLLEGE AVE ASHBY AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT (ALCATRAZ) A SURFACE SEAL 21033 78 C 0.41 67 2000 R 2018 DWIGHT WAY SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY A RECONSTRUCT 704973 * 34 C 0.50 10 33 1998 O 2018 DWIGHT WAY MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST A SURFACE SEAL 6491 34 C 0.13 76 1998 O 2018 DWIGHT WAY MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE A SURFACE SEAL 7315 34 C 0.13 64 1998 O 2018 HEARST AVE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST A SURFACE SEAL 6176 4 B 0.13 66 1997 R 2018 HOPKINS ST SACRAMENTO ST HOPKINS CT A SURFACE SEAL 1790 5 B 0.04 76 2002 O 2018 OXFORD ST UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST A SURFACE SEAL 5694 47 B 0.07 82 2002 R 2018 SACRAMENTO ST HOPKINS ST ROSE ST A SURFACE SEAL 7701 15 D 0.15 77 1989 R 2018 TELEGRAPH AVE DWIGHT WAY WARD ST A RECONSTRUCT 1163263 7 B 0.33 2 39 2002 O 2018 TELEGRAPH AVE WARD ST ASHBY AVE A RECONSTRUCT 1034448 7 B 0.30 2 33 2002 O 2018 COLUSA AVE SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE C SURFACE SEAL 8865 5 B 0.13 72 1989 R 2018 COLUSA AVE MARIN AVE MONTEREY AVE C SURFACE SEAL 10850 5 B 0.16 61 1986 O 2018 HOPKINS ST HOPKINS CT MONTEREY AVE C SURFACE SEAL 2237 5 B 0.05 74 2002 O 2018 UNIVERSITY AVE MARINA BLVD WEST FRONTAGE RD C RECONSTRUCT 1300000 12 B 0.30 1 1989 O 2018 ARDEN RD MOSSWOOD RD PANORAMIC WAY R RECONSTRUCT 69896 8 D 0.12 8 17 - - 2018 CANYON RD PANORAMIC WAY RIM RD (UC CAMPUS) R OVERLAY 18725 8 B 0.05 48 1993 R 2018 CANYON RD RIM RD (UC CAMPUS) DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 66803 8 D 0.11 12 0 - - 2018 CARLETON ST MILVIA ST FULTON ST R SURFACE SEAL 14006 3 D 0.27 74 1989 O 2018 DERBY ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST R SURFACE SEAL 7800 3 D 0.13 90 1992 O 2018 DERBY ST MILVIA ST FULTON ST R RECONSTRUCT 466813 3 D 0.28 11 9 1992 O 2018 DERBY ST FULTON ST TELEGRAPH AVE R RECONSTRUCT 448250 37 B 0.31 7 10 1992 O 2018 DERBY ST TELEGRAPH AVE HILLEGASS AVE R RECONSTRUCT 236500 * 7 D 0.16 4 12 1997 O 2018 DWIGHT WAY PANORAMIC WAY EAST CITY LIMIT R SURFACE SEAL 760 8 D 0.02 78 - - 2018 FULTON ST PARKER ST STUART ST R SURFACE SEAL 12864 3 B 0.25 62 1992 O 2018 HILLEGASS AVE DWIGHT WAY ASHBY AVE R SURFACE SEAL 31232 78 A 0.61 82 2000 R 2018 HOPKINS ST SAN PABLO AVE STANNAGE AVE R SURFACE SEAL 5423 1 D 0.09 76 2002 O 2018 HOPKINS ST STANNAGE AVE NORTHSIDE AVE R SURFACE SEAL 9923 1 D 0.17 79 2002 O 2018 HOPKINS ST NORTHSIDE AVE PERALTA AVE R SURFACE SEAL 4876 1 D 0.10 83 2002 O 2018 HOPKINS ST PERALTA AVE GILMAN ST R SURFACE SEAL 12902 15 B 0.27 79 2002 O 2018 MAGNOLIA ST ASHBY AVE WEBSTER ST R SURFACE SEAL 4295 8 D 0.13 60 1993 O 2018 MILVIA ST BLAKE ST RUSSELL ST R RECONSTRUCT 643500 3 A 0.44 7 22 1993 O 2018 MOSSWOOD RD PANORAMIC WAY DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 91667 8 D 0.15 8 15 - - 2018 PANORAMIC WAY CANYON RD 1ST TURN R RECONSTRUCT 87007 8 D 0.13 8 13 1998 O 2018 PANORAMIC WAY 1ST TURN ARDEN RD R RECONSTRUCT 152129 8 D 0.23 8 32 - - 2018 PANORAMIC WAY ARDEN RD EAST CITY LIMIT R RECONSTRUCT 194219 8 D 0.32 8 10 - - 2018 PROSPECT ST UC CAMPUS HILLSIDE AVE R RECONSTRUCT 195250 8 B 0.13 9 16 1993 O 2018 WALKER ST DERBY ST WARD ST R OVERLAY 13089 3 D 0.06 56 - -

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: October 2015 126 5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 5

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LAST YEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE

2018 WARD ST SAN PABLO AVE ACTON ST R RECONSTRUCT 455950 * 2 B 0.31 21 1991 O 2018 WARD ST FULTON ST ELLSWORTH ST R RECONSTRUCT 181500 3 D 0.13 11 10 1992 O 2018 WARD ST ELLSWORTH ST TELEGRAPH AVE R RECONSTRUCT 242000 7 D 0.17 11 10 1992 O

FISCAL YEAR 2018 TOTALS

Total Estimated Cost and Miles $7,993,307 8.83 miles

MILEAGE ESTIMATED COST % COST % MILEAGE ARTERIALS 3.05 $3,003,976 38% 35% 1 0.73 COLLECTORS 0.64 $1,321,952 17% 7% 2 0.47 RESIDENTIALS 5.14 $3,667,379 46% 58% 3 2.08 40.54 SURFACE SEALS 4.30 $227,325.00 5 0.59 OVERLAYS 0.11 $31,814.00 6 0.00 RECONSTRUCTS 4.41 $7,734,168.00 7 1.91 82.51 PCC STREETS 0.00 $0 8.83 BIKEWAYS 3.88 $5,351,996.00 67%

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: October 2015 127 5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 6

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LAST YEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE

2019 COLUSA AVE NORTH CITY LIMIT (VISALIA) SOLANO AVE C RECONSTRUCT 1217946 * 5 B 0.68 24 1986 O 2019 DELAWARE ST SAN PABLO AVE ACTON ST C RECONSTRUCT 1174437 1 B 0.46 23 1992 O 2019 DELAWARE ST ACTON ST SACRAMENTO ST C SURFACE SEAL 8294 1 B 0.13 68 1992 O 2019 VIRGINIA ST SACRAMENTO ST MC GEE AVE C OVERLAY 102556 1 A 0.24 48 1997 O 2019 VIRGINIA ST MC GEE AVE GRANT ST C SURFACE SEAL 6491 * 1 A 0.13 65 1995 O 2019 CALIFORNIA ST HOPKINS ST ADA ST R SURFACE SEAL 3555 * 5 A 0.07 75 2003 O 2019 CALIFORNIA ST ADA ST CEDAR ST R SURFACE SEAL 17141 * 15 A 0.27 81 2003 O 2019 CALIFORNIA ST CEDAR ST OHLONE PARK R SURFACE SEAL 16568 1 A 0.28 81 1997 O 2019 CALIFORNIA ST HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE R OVERLAY 58775 1 A 0.11 49 1997 O 2019 CATALINA AVE COLUSA AVE THE ALAMEDA R RECONSTRUCT 202125 5 D 0.19 14 1993 O 2019 CHESTNUT ST CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST R OVERLAY 52987 1 D 0.12 54 1994 O 2019 CHESTNUT ST VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE R OVERLAY 120852 1 B 0.31 46 1998 O 2019 CURTIS ST CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST R RECONSTRUCT 151250 1 D 0.13 15 1992 O 2019 CURTIS ST VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE R OVERLAY 113647 1 B 0.31 69 2004 O 2019 FRESNO ST SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE R OVERLAY 69314 5 D 0.17 47 1995 R 2019 FRESNO ST MARIN AVE SONOMA AVE R OVERLAY 97726 5 D 0.25 48 1998 O 2019 MILVIA ST ROSE ST CEDAR ST R RECONSTRUCT 298708 45 A 0.25 37 1992 O 2019 RIDGE RD LA LOMA AVE HIGHLAND PL R RECONSTRUCT 93500 6 D 0.06 9 - - 2019 STATION PL CATALINA AVE DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 54542 5 D 0.04 5 - - 2019 VIRGINIA ST SHATTUCK AVE SPRUCE ST R OVERLAY 68320 * 4 A 0.19 63 2002 O 2019 VIRGINIA ST ARCH ST EUCLID AVE R SURFACE SEAL 10346 6 A 0.20 83 2002 O 2019 VIRGINIA ST EUCLID AVE LA LOMA AVE R SURFACE SEAL 7158 6 A 0.15 75 2002 O 2019 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE 250000

FISCAL YEAR 2019 TOTALS

Total Estimated Cost and Miles $4,196,238 4.72 miles

MILEAGE ESTIMATED COST % COST % MILEAGE ARTERIALS 0.00 $0 0% 0% 1 2.35 COLLECTORS 1.63 $2,509,724 60% 35% 2 0.00 RESIDENTIALS 3.09 $1,436,514 34% 65% 3 0.00 40.32 SURFACE SEALS 1.21 $69,553.00 5 1.65 OVERLAYS 1.70 $684,177.00 6 0.41 RECONSTRUCTS 1.81 $3,192,508.00 7 0.00 80.00 PCC STREETS 0.00 $0 4.72 BIKEWAYS 3.76 $3,224,794.00 77%

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: October 2015 128 5-YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN Page 7

FISCAL STREET NAME FROM TO CLASS TREATMENT ESTIMATED GREEN DISTRICT P MILEAGE SCORECARD PCI LAST LAST YEAR COST INFRA RANK PAVED TYPE

2020 HASTE ST SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST A OVERLAY 201036 * 4 D 0.11 22 1993 O 2020 HASTE ST FULTON ST BOWDITCH ST A OVERLAY 245012 * 47 D 0.51 42 1993 O 2020 HASTE ST BOWDITCH ST COLLEGE AVE A RECONSTRUCT 239198 * 7 D 0.13 22 1993 O 2020 HASTE ST COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE A OVERLAY 55087 8 D 0.12 49 1993 O 2020 CLAREMONT AVE ASHBY AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT (ALCATRAZ) C OVERLAY 422020 8 C 0.57 59 1994 O 2020 TELEGRAPH AVE BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY C OVERLAY 97739 7 B 0.25 45 1988 O 2020 BOWDITCH ST BANCROFT WAY DURANT AVE R RECONSTRUCT 90750 7 B 0.06 1 1990 O 2020 BOWDITCH ST DURANT AVE HASTE ST R RECONSTRUCT 171417 7 B 0.13 10 1990 O 2020 BOWDITCH ST HASTE ST DWIGHT WAY R OVERLAY 21294 7 B 0.06 68 1988 O 2020 CALIFORNIA ST OREGON ST ASHBY AVE R OVERLAY 82682 3 A 0.18 45 1994 O 2020 DANA ST BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY R OVERLAY 98472 7 B 0.25 43 1989 O 2020 DERBY ST SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY R RECONSTRUCT 754255 3 D 0.48 24 1992 O 2020 ETON CT CLAREMONT AVE DEAD END R RECONSTRUCT 28646 8 D 0.03 11 24 2020 PARKER ST SAN PABLO AVE MATHEWS ST R OVERLAY 41776 2 B 0.11 40 1993 O 2020 PARKER ST MATHEWS ST MABEL ST R RECONSTRUCT 168280 2 B 0.11 23 1993 O 2020 PARKER ST MABEL ST SACRAMENTO ST R RECONSTRUCT 396660 2 B 0.25 23 1991 O 2020 ROANOKE RD THE UPLANDS SOUTH CITY LIMIT R RECONSTRUCT 63761 8 D 0.06 22 - - 2020 THE UPLANDS CLAREMONT AVE HILLCREST RD R SURFACE SEAL 16056 8 B 0.40 74 1993 R 2020 THE UPLANDS HILLCREST RD EL CAMINO REAL R OVERLAY 43871 8 B 0.12 56 1994 O 2020 THE UPLANDS EL CAMINO REAL TUNNEL RD R SURFACE SEAL 7104 8 B 0.20 76 1994 R 2020 WARD ST ACTON ST SACRAMENTO ST R RECONSTRUCT 199925 2 D 0.14 24 1993 O 2020 WOOLSEY ST HILLEGASS AVE COLLEGE AVE R RECONSTRUCT 169554 7 B 0.11 19 - - 2020 WOOLSEY ST COLLEGE AVE CLAREMONT AVE R RECONSTRUCT 343750 * 8 B 0.24 10 - - 2020 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE 250000

FISCAL YEAR 2020 TOTALS

Total Estimated Cost and Miles $4,208,345 4.60 miles

MILEAGE ESTIMATED COST % COST % MILEAGE ARTERIALS 0.87 $740,333 18% 19% 1 0.00 COLLECTORS 0.82 $519,759 12% 18% 2 0.61 RESIDENTIALS 2.92 $2,698,253 64% 63% 3 0.66 40.36 SURFACE SEALS 0.60 $23,160.00 5 0.00 OVERLAYS 2.28 $1,308,989.00 6 0.00 RECONSTRUCTS 1.72 $2,626,196.00 7 1.24 81.73 PCC STREETS 0.00 $0 4.60 BIKEWAYS 2.47 $1,749,405.00 42%

NOTE: COLUMN P DENOTES PRESENCE OF (A) BICYCLE BOULEVARD, (B) BIKEWAY, (C) BUS ROUTE, OR (D) NONE Revision Date: October 2015 129

130 ACTION CALENDAR CITY COUNCIL February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 19, 2016)

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Councilmembers Linda Maio and Lori Droste

SUBJECT: Final Status Report on West Berkeley Industry

INTRODUCTION: On January 20, 2015, the Berkeley City Council passed the following actions:

1. Councilmembers Linda Maio and Lori Droste to work with residents, businesses, and City Staff to review complaints and make good faith efforts to mitigate impacts in the areas where the City has authority such as noise and odors and to bring their findings back to City Council. 2. Direct the City Manager to enforce the terms of the Use Permit and the 1999 Settlement Agreement with the Oceanview Neighborhood Association. 3. If the City Manager and delegated staff or department finds the West Berkeley Lehigh Asphalt Company plant is not compliant with the Use Permit or the 1999 Settlement Agreement with the Oceanview Neighborhood Association, the City and its jurisdictional bodies or the appropriate authority implements corrective action and enforces the 1999 Settlement Agreement Use Permit immediately.

BACKGROUND ● On January 20, 2015, the City Council tasked Councilmembers Maio and Droste to review complaints made regarding air quality in West Berkeley. Subsequently, Councilmembers Maio and Droste discussed concerns with residents. ● On March 3, 2015, Councilmembers Maio and Droste, with City staff, conducted a tour of Pacific Steel Casting (PSC), and on March 27, 2015, Councilmembers Maio and Droste, with City staff, conducted a tour of Hanson. ● On May 7, 2015, Councilmembers Maio and Droste held a meeting with concerned neighbors. ● On May 26, 2015, City Council was provided a status update on residents’ concerns, site visits and potential questions for a meeting with BAAQMD. ● On July 1, 2015, Councilmembers Maio and Droste, along with City staff, met with BAAQMD staff, including the Director of Compliance and Enforcement and Air Quality Manager.

[email protected] · 510.981.7110 · cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio [email protected] · 510.981.7180 · loridroste.com 131

● On July 14, 2015, City Council was provided a second status report on a meeting with BAAQMD as well as continuing discussion with industry and concerned residents. ● On October 30, 2015, City staff conducted an inspection of Hanson Aggregates Berkeley Asphalt & Ready Mix (Hanson) to check compliance with 1999 Settlement Agreement. ● On November 5, 2015, Councilmembers Maio and Droste, along with City staff, met with representatives of Hanson to get an update on the status of operations and review the City staff inspections. ● Councilmembers Maio and Droste received a memorandum, dated November 30, 2015, reporting the findings and determination of City staff regarding Hanson. [ATT. 1]

THIRD AND FINAL REPORT AND OUTCOMES City staff has revisited the 1999 Settlement Agreement and found Hanson is in compliance: “Based on staff inspections conducted on March 27, 2015 and on October 30, 2015, the Code Enforcement Unit finds that Hanson has complied with the 1999 Settlement Agreement and has sufficient measures in place to adequately mitigate potential noise and odor.”

Follow-ups from Status Report #2 ● Hanson requiring customer trucks to tarp their loads (odor emissions). ○ Councilmembers Maio and Droste revisited the suggestion that trucks be tarped as they exit Hanson. Hanson encourages customers to do so, with approximately 25% compliance and will continue to do so. Hanson also shared concerns of additional emissions escaping as trucks sit idle while they are being tarped.

● Hanson installing new shrouds to mitigate emissions caused when the hot asphalt hits cold truck beds (odor emissions). ○ Upon inspection, Hanson noted that implementing bigger shrouds is a safety hazard concern as they could block driver view. The Air District staff noted that they were looking into requiring a shroud over the entire loading area. However, with the transition to increasingly higher use of warm mix, with much lower volatile organic compounds, this may not be necessary. Odor complaints have decreased dramatically (zero confirmed complaints were reported from October 15, 2015 to December 13, 2015). We are hopeful that this trend continues.

● Hanson and PSC meet with concerned citizens to begin a constructive dialogue and share information regarding evolving technologies and their operations as they relate to public health.

132

○ Councilmembers Maio and Droste requested both businesses meet with concerned citizens. Some meetings have occurred. We continue to encourage community discussion.

● Hanson and PSC post and provide information alerts to the City of Berkeley regarding production schedules, particularly when plants are most active. This information should be on their website and communicated, via link, to concerned residents. ○ Businesses have provided detailed information regarding their operations and Council offices have shared that information to concerned citizens. Councilmembers have requested a link be established. Follow up will occur.

● Regarding BAAQMD's response to 1) the Tetra Tech (2008) finding regarding the PSC Health Risk Assessment (HRA) and 2) how the Community Environmental Advisory Commission’s (2007) air quality recommendations were acted upon. ○ The City and TetraTech met with the EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Air District when the HRA was in process (2008). The parties agreed that manganese, at least, should be the subject of additional health reviews. These must be undertaken by the District. The District reported in their meeting with Councilmembers Maio and Droste that all PSC air monitoring filters are regularly tested, some in real time, to ensure compliance with air quality standards.

ATTACHMENTS 1. November 30, 2015 City Manager memo on Hanson Aggregates

CONTACT Councilmember Linda Maio, District 1, 510-981-7110 Councilmember Lori Droste, District 8, 510-981-7180

133 Attachment 1

134 135 136 137

138

CiTy COuncil Darryl Moore Councilmember District 2 ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 12, 2016)

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Darryl Moore

Subject: Develop a Provision for the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance to Allow for the De-designation of a Landmark Designation for a Building that has been Legally Demolished

RECOMMENDATION: Refer to the City Manager to develop a provision for the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) that would allow a landmark designation to be de-designated for a building that has been previously landmarked but subsequently has been legally demolished.

BACKGROUND: The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) has jurisdiction over any alterations and design review authority for landmarked buildings and/or properties. In circumstances when a building has been landmarked based on the building's characteristics and not based on any characteristics related to the land on which the building was located, the option of de-designation should be afforded to the property owner when the building has been demolished legally. In these cases: 1. the LPO no longer confers any authority on the City, since the designated resource no longer exists; and 2. the LPC no longer has design review authority over the building or site, as set forth in City Attorney opinions concerning 2501 Haste Street.

As such, a provision should be develop that would provide an avenue to vacate a previously designated building once it has been demolished legally.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None

CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Darryl Moore District 2 510-981-7120

2180 Milvia Street ▪ Fifth Floor ▪ Berkeley ▪ CA ▪ 94704 ▪ TEL: (510) 981-7120 ▪ FAX: (510) 981-7122 WEB: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us 139

140

Jesse Arreguín City Councilmember, District 4 ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 12, 2016)

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Jesse Arreguín

Subject: Supporting Worker Cooperatives and Referral to City Manager to Develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance

RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt a Resolution supporting worker cooperatives, and referring to the City Manager to develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance, which includes:

1) Revising the existing Buy Local contracting preference and adding a worker cooperative preference;

2) Revising the business permit application;

3) Incentivizing existing businesses to convert to cooperatives;

4) Creating business tax and land use incentives, and

5) Developing educational materials.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time.

BACKGROUND Worker cooperatives have become important components of local economies and communities. Owned and run by employees, these businesses provide higher wages, benefits, professional development, job security, and upward mobility for low to moderate income people. Just as importantly, these small businesses provide a diversity of relied up, locally owned services that become valuable community assets, such as The Cheeseboard Collective and Missing Link Bicycle Collective. Workers own their jobs, reinvest more in the local economy, and operate their businesses in ways that truly benefit our city.

Due to a lack of familiarity with the cooperative business model, these businesses face a unique set of challenges. Those wishing to start a cooperative or convert to a

cooperative receive little to no information from development offices and are not financed by equity capital, making every additional expense count. It is time to recognize the contributions of worker cooperatives and remove as many barriers as possible by developing a Worker Cooperative Ordinance.

This item requests that the City Manager revise the Buy Local preference to include a contracting preference for worker cooperatives and businesses in the process of converting to worker cooperatives. Since many cooperatives are also small businesses, the contracting preference should exceed the percentage preference already provided to small businesses.

Incentivizing Existing Businesses to Convert to Cooperatives Incentivizing existing businesses to convert to cooperatives can have a powerful impact, offering business ownership opportunities to potentially large numbers of workers would could not otherwise afford to quit their jobs to become entrepreneurs. Coops that result from conversions are often more successful as well, since the workers usually take over a healthy business rather than starting one from the ground up. Business Tax and Land Use Incentives Exempting worker cooperatives from payment of business tax and business registration fees in their first year, and reducing business taxes in subsequent years, are effective ways to ease start-up costs. Making the land use review process less burdensome would create additional incentives.

Page 2 142

provides technical assistance and support through the process. The City could also provide succession planning resources that include worker cooperative conversions. Organizations such as the Sustainable Economies Law Center (SELC) are developing educational materials for cooperatives. The City can work with such organizations to develop comprehensive educational materials.

CONTACT PERSON Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4 510-981-7140

Attachments: 1: Resolution Exhibit A: Map of Berkeley Worker Cooperatives 2: Worker Cooperative Ordinance developed by Sustainable Economies Law Center

Page 3 143

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

SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF WORKER COOPERATIVES

WHEREAS, Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay Area have the highest concentration of worker-owned businesses in the United States; and

WHEREAS, worker cooperatives create and maintain quality, stable jobs in key industries throughout Berkeley, including food service, health care, manufacturing, and communications; and

WHEREAS, Berkeley ranked #10 among cities with the highest income inequality, with nearly 20% of its population living in poverty; and

WHEREAS, the worker cooperative sector is growing in other East Bay Cities, such as Oakland, Emeryville, and Richmond; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley recognizes the tremendous benefits of worker cooperatives and supports the development and growth of cooperatives.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council refers to the City Manager to develop a Worker Cooperative Ordinance for Council consideration to include the following proposals:

144

1) Revising the existing Buy Local contracting preference and adding a worker cooperative preference; 2) Revising the business permit application; 3) Creating business tax and land use incentives, and 4) Developing educational materials.

Exhibits A: Map of Berkeley Worker Cooperatives

Page 5 145 Exhibit A

Total # worker cooperatives: 10

Draft Worker Cooperative Ordinance – October, 2015 By Sara Stephens, Staff Attorney Sustainable Economies Law Center

Executive Summary

 Lack of public awareness and education about the worker cooperative business model and its benefits,

 Limited sources of technical support for forming, operating, or converting a business to a worker cooperative,

 Difficulty obtaining financing for cooperative formation or conversion, and

 Start-up costs and regulatory obstacles.

A city strategy that creates an environment conducive to worker cooperative success should prioritize the following three strategies:

 Develop expertise in worker cooperatives at the city level and promote cooperatives as an economic development strategy,

6 148

 Use the city’s convening power to forge strategic connections within the cooperative ecosystem, and

 Allocate grant funding for incubation and technical assistance with a focus on worker cooperatives or networks with 50-100+ jobs.

The model ordinance below provides specific language tailored to Oakland’s current Municipal Code that will enable the following suggested policies:

 Cultivate expertise in worker cooperatives at city-supported business development centers,

 Promote worker cooperatives as a business model through outreach and education,

 Create markets for worker cooperatives by giving preference to cooperatives in city contracting and purchasing,

 Facilitate access to funding by providing loan guarantees to financial institutions that lend to OWCs,

 Invest in worker cooperatives through grants to cooperative incubators and low- interest loans to finance cooperative start-ups and conversions, and

 Streamline regulatory processes and reduce land use fees and business taxes for newly formed worker cooperatives (start-ups or conversions).

7 149

Introduction and Policy Priorities

1 Jessica Gordon Nembhard, Benefits and Impacts of Cooperatives 8-9 (Feb. 2014) (“Many of the worker-owned cooperatives, in particular, increase industry standards in wages and benefits, as well as provide self-management or team work between management and “labor”, job ladder opportunities, skill development and capacity building, job security, and general control over income and work rules”), available at http://community- wealth.org/content/benefits-and-impacts-cooperatives; Hilary Abell, Worker Cooperatives: Pathways to Scale 11 (June 2014) (Noting that workers at Cooperative Home Care Associates and Women’s Action to Gain Economic Security earn above-market pay and benefits and have fuller work schedules than the industry average.), available at http://www.project-equity.org/worker-cooperatives-pathways-to-scale. 2 “Food cooperatives, for example, spend more revenues locally (38% compared with 24% spent by conventional grocers), buy more products locally (20% versus 6%) . . . for every $1,000 spent at a food co-op, $1,606 goes to the local economy—translating to 17% more money recirculating in the immediate community.” Nembhard, supra note 1, at 10. 3 Studies show that worker ownership correlates with greater business productivity and longevity. Worker cooperatives also have reduced employee turnover. Abell, supra note 1, at 12-13. 4 Ajowa Nzinga Ifateyo, $5 Million for Co-op Development in Madison, Grassroots Economic Organizing (Jan. 26, 2015), http://www.geo.coop/story/5-million-co-op-development-madison.

8 150

City passed a budget initiative that committed $1.2 million to organizations developing worker cooperatives in the city.5 In March 2015, New York City also passed a resolution that will “require the city to report on the number of city contracts awarded to worker cooperatives and the number of worker cooperatives that received assistance from the Department of Small Business Services (SBS).”6 The United Nations even declared 2012 the International Year of Cooperatives,7 an objective of which was to “[e]ncourage governments and regulatory bodies to establish policies, laws and regulation conducive to cooperative formation and growth.”8

5 New York City Invests in Worker Cooperatives, US Federation of Worker Cooperatives (June 25, 2014), http://www.usworker.coop/news/new-york-city-invests-worker-cooperatives-0 6 “Progressives Pass Bill to Support Worker Co-operatives” by the Progressive Caucus of the New York City Council. http://nycprogressives.com/2015/02/26/progressives-pass-bill-to-support-worker-co-operatives/. Find the bill language at “A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to worker cooperatives” http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1853950&GUID=917F9D68-6081-4BE0- BABA-B9910461817F&Options=&Search= 7 International Year of Cooperatives 2012, http://social.un.org/coopsyear/objectives-of-the-year.html. 8 Id. 9 http://www.project-equity.org/business-conversions/ 10 Project Equity, Case Studies: Business Conversions to Worker Cooperatives, 6 (April 2015), available at http://www.project-equity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Case-Studies_Business-Conversions-to- Worker-Cooperatives_ProjectEquity.pdf. The selling owner can avoid capital gains tax through the 1042 Rollover. Id.

9 151

The following sample ordinance encompasses many different ways a city can encourage cooperative development. However, to be most effective, cities should prioritize these three strategies: 1. Allocate grant funding for incubation and technical assistance with a focus on worker cooperatives or networks with 50-100+ jobs. Worker cooperatives typically need training and technical assistance as a first step before accessing capital. It is not uncommon for loan funds earmarked for cooperatives to be underutilized, because the cooperatives were not “loan ready.” And even if there is a place in an anchor’s supply chain for cooperatives (see #3 below), those cooperatives still need to be viable and competitive. A first priority for city funds, therefore, should be strategic investment in incubators and technical assistance providers that support growth-oriented new cooperatives or outreach for, then support of cooperative conversions. Cities should evaluate grant proposals based on whether the program requires its cooperative participants to have the intent to grow and/or replicate, and whether the program will provide multi-year support for newly-formed cooperatives. Cities should support a mix of grant proposals—some supporting start-up or existing coops, and some supporting coop conversions. Coop conversion proposals should include aggressive outreach and education to business owners and employees about the opportunity to convert to cooperatives. The funding should also require that incubators or technical assistance providers facilitate well-rounded business skills training, either in-house or through partnerships with existing cooperatives and other organizations. Applicants should additionally have a plan for reaching historically marginalized populations like people of color, immigrants, and low-income workers. 2. Develop expertise in cooperatives at the city level and promote cooperatives as an economic development strategy. Economic development strategies as usual are not sufficient to create family-sustaining employment opportunities for low and moderate-income communities, let alone facilitate worker cooperative development. Rather than creating low-wage jobs and race-to-the-bottom corporate expansion, cities should focus on strategies for local wealth creation and job ownership. Cities must gain some fluency in cooperatives before they can facilitate a shift in the vision for economic development in their city and raise awareness of the benefits of cooperatives. City-funded technical assistance should employ staff with expertise in worker cooperatives, include tailored support for worker cooperatives, and encourage conversion to a cooperative as a succession plan. Cities should also actively incorporate cooperatives (both creation of new ones and conversions of conventional businesses) into their job

10 152

retention strategies and sector initiatives. Finally, cities can make proclamations and initiate public relations campaigns to bring cooperatives into the mainstream. 3. Use the city’s convening power to forge strategic connections within the cooperative ecosystem. The city government can play a strategic role in both connecting worker cooperatives to supply chains, and connecting existing businesses ready for conversion to technical assistance providers. For worker cooperatives to succeed, they must meet a need in the market. Connecting cooperatives to the supply chain of place-based institutions and businesses can facilitate this. This is known as an “anchor institution strategy.” “Anchors” could include universities, hospitals, cultural institutions, health care facilities, public utilities, existing cooperative businesses, or the city government itself. Cities must convene cooperative practitioners and others to identify where cooperatives can fit into the supply chain of local businesses or institutions, identify sectors ready for cooperatives, and help connect businesses nearing retirement to competent technical assistance providers who can facilitate cooperative conversion. To achieve this, the city might consider forming a cooperative ecosystem council. The city of Quebec, which has passed innovative policies to support cooperatives, took this approach. The council would administer city grants and negotiate with the city about programs and policies on behalf of its members.11

11 153

 Creation of a Worker Cooperative Support Program that requires city-level cooperative expertise and establishes a Worker Cooperative Development Fund to advance technical support and incubation for cooperatives, and a Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund to provide low interest loans to new cooperatives and businesses converting to cooperatives,

 Addition of a section exempting OWCs from payment of business tax and business registration fees in their first year, and reducing business taxes in subsequent years, and

 Creation of a set of land use incentives for OWCs to make the review process less burdensome.

Model Ordinance for the City of Oakland

SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. Unemployment, poverty, and income inequality are serious concerns in Oakland.

2. In 2010, half of all income earned went to the top 20% of households while the remaining 80% of households shared the other half.13

12 154

B. Local, cooperative businesses have the potential to benefit local economies far more than absentee-owned businesses or even traditional local businesses.

2. Wealth generated by worker cooperatives tends to stay in the local economy, by virtue of the fact that profits are generally distributed to workers or reinvested in the cooperative.

4. One recent study showed that, per square foot, local businesses have four times the economic impact of chain stores.16

C. Worker cooperatives can provide higher wages and greater job security for their workers.

13 155

stable, as there is less employee turnover, as well as increased profitability and longevity.18

2. Worker cooperatives can allow marginalized workers in industries such as day labor and domestic work to consolidate their bargaining power and combat worker exploitation.19

4. The average pay ratio between the lowest- and highest-paid employee in a Fortune 500 company is 341:1; in a worker cooperative it is rarely more than 4:1.23

D. Local, cooperative businesses provide wide-reaching benefits to communities.

14 156

Conversely, as big-box retailers enter a community, civic engagement declines.24

2. Worker cooperatives are uniquely suited to promote both community-based job creation and political involvement, as they are built on democratic principles and can encourage collective action.25

E. Converting existing businesses to worker cooperatives can transform low-wage jobs into empowering careers, and preserve local jobs as business owners retire.

1. Low-wage workers typically cannot afford to quit their jobs and become small business entrepreneurs, but could become co-owners of their workplaces through cooperative conversion.

F. City contracts and procurement can create stable markets for worker cooperatives and contribute to the economic development of the city.

24 Stacy Mitchell, Locally owned businesses can help communities thrive—and survive climate change, Institute for Local Self-Reliance (April 26, 2013), http://www.ilsr.org/locally-owned-businesses-communities-thrive-survive- climate-change. 25 Cummings, supra note 9, at 473-75. 26 http://www.project-equity.org/business-conversions/ 27 See http://community-wealth.org/content/cleveland-model-how-evergreen-cooperatives-are-building- community-wealth.

15 157

minority-owned worker cooperatives were able to acquire financing for their capital-intensive industries, such as a commercial dry cleaning services for the area hospital. The City of Oakland can likewise act as an “anchor,” and partner with other local institutions, to develop markets for worker-owned businesses by channeling expenditures to these enterprises or working with cooperative developers to incubate businesses that will meet the needs of the city.

G. Worker cooperatives are a unique and less familiar form of business, in need of targeted technical assistance and funding to level the playing field.

1. Conventional small business development resources do not meet the needs of entrepreneurs seeking to start new worker cooperatives, or workplaces seeking to convert to worker-ownership.

2. Worker cooperatives have a harder time accessing funding due to lack of familiarity, difficult providing personal guarantees for loans, and legal restraints on outside equity investments.

H. Inflexible, fixed land use costs and business taxes can create barriers to start-up cooperatives, leaving them at a disadvantage compared to their better-funded competitors.28

1. Waiving land use fees and providing tax incentives allow cooperatives to more effectively invest in their communities.

16 158

SECTION 2. Worker Cooperative Preference in Contracting and Procurement

Oakland Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 2.44 is created to read as follows:

Chapter 2.44 WORKER COOPERATIVE PREFERENCE ORDINANCE

2.44.010 Title.

This chapter shall be known as the Worker Cooperative Preference Ordinance.

2.44.020 Purpose and Intent.

2.44.040 Oakland Worker Cooperative Certification.29

17 159

1. Worker cooperative corporations.

i. Local business. The business has its principal place of business within the geographical boundaries of Oakland.

ii. Worker Cooperative Corporation. The business was incorporated under the California Cooperative Corporation Law and elected to form as a worker cooperative under that law.32

2. Worker cooperatives formed as other legal entities.

i. Local business. The business has its principal place of business within the geographical boundaries of Oakland.

ii. Control by worker-members. A majority of voting power must be held by members who work in the business.

iv. Democratic member control. Members shall elect the majority of the board of directors. Members shall vote in board elections and on major decisions on a one-member, one-vote basis.

v. Cooperative distribution. A majority of allocated earnings are allocated based on the quantity or value of work done by each member, as opposed to on the basis of capital investment.

18 160

cooperatives with more modern variations that have helped cooperatives compete in today’s economy.

The two key characteristics of worker cooperatives are: (1) workers own the business, and surplus income is allocated or distributed to members on the basis of the quantity or value of work done by (or “patronage” of) each member, and (2) workers govern the business on a “one-member, one-vote” basis. Generally, when crafting a definition of worker cooperative, it is important to do so in a way that prevents dilution of those two key characteristics. Such a definition should generally not encompass a business where (1) a substantial number or majority of employees are not able to become members, (2) certain members or outside investors are given substantial control or profits, (3) the method for distributing earnings mimics conventional businesses, by rewarding investment of capital rather than contribution of time and energy by workers.

19 161

1. The company’s Articles of Incorporation, if any

2. The company’s Bylaws or Operating Agreement

3. Any other documents or information the Administrator finds necessary to determine whether the business meets the standards required by Section (A).

An existing business applying for OWC status shall submit the above documentation as well as financial statements from the previous fiscal year.

The City may rely on outside organizations such as the United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives to make certification decisions.

2.44.050 Bid discounts and preference points in city contracts.

A. An Oakland Worker Cooperative (“OWC”) category shall be added to Oakland’s existing Local and Small Local Business Enterprise Program (L/SLBE).37 Only city-certified OWCs, pursuant to Section 2.44.040, shall be entitled to the benefits of the program.

C. The Request for Proposal evaluation process shall allow businesses to earn a maximum of an additional 5 preference points for certified OWCs.

20 162

2.44.060 Good faith efforts to obtain OWC bids.

A. Contract awarding authorities will use good faith efforts to solicit and obtain bids from OWCs directly, and from developers that subcontract with OWCs. Good faith efforts shall include the following:

1. Where feasible, dividing a contract into smaller contracts to maximize the opportunity for OWCs to participate.

2. Targeting advertisement of pre-bid meetings and contract opportunities to OWCs.

4. Requiring lead contractors to solicit subcontracting bids from OWCs when possible.

2.44.070 Bonding and financial assistance program38

B. Eligible businesses. Businesses must meet the following criteria to qualify for assistance under this section:

1. The business is either a prime or subcontractor applying for an Oakland public works or construction contract.

2. The business must be certified as an OWC according to Section 2.44.040

38 Modeled after San Francisco’s bonding and financial assistance program for local businesses, SF Administrative Code, Section 14B.16.

21 163

1. With respect to a surety bond, the agreement to guaranty up to 40 percent of the face amount of the bond or $750,000, whichever is less;

2.44.080 Enforcement.39

These sanctions shall be in addition to any penalties imposed elsewhere in the Oakland Municipal or Planning Code, where OWC status is a condition of obtaining benefits or incentives.

22 164

Oakland Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 2.04, Purchasing System, is amended to read as follows:

2.04.010 Definitions.

. . . “Oakland Worker Cooperative” (OWC) is defined as that term is defined in Oakland Municipal Code Section 2.44.040. . . .

2.04.020 Authority of the City Administrator.

2.04.045 Pre-qualification and bid processes for general construction services and the Preferred Small Local Business (“PSLB”) and Preferred Oakland Worker Cooperative (“POWC”) program.

41 This number represents an additional two and one half percent preference over small local businesses, reflecting the benefits unique to worker cooperatives.

23 165

2. When a pre-qualified list is established for large projects, the City may limit solicitations for bids for such work to three or more business on the pre-qualified list.

1. The City will solicit qualifications solely from Oakland certified small, local, and OWC business enterprises in order to establish a MPSLB/MPOWC pre-qualified list of small local businesses and Oakland Worker Cooperatives to perform small project construction contracts.

2. When a pre-qualified list is established the City will limit solicitations for bids for such work to three or more business on the MPSLB/MPOWC pre-qualified list.

3. Reserved.

4. MPSLB/MPOWC contracts are exempt from the requirements of Oakland's Local and Small Local Business Enterprise (L/SLBE) program for construction contracts.

24 166

6. Circumstance for Open Market Solicitation. The City Administrator may solicit bids on the open market, without advertising, when all responsive bids exceed the engineer's estimate.

C. Award of Construction Contracts. Contracts awarded through a pre-qualification process shall be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder, except that the City shall apply a 10% discount for bids submitted by city-certified OWCs and a similar discount to bids submitted by bidders subcontracting with city-certified OWCs, except that the discount shall be reduced in proportion to the share of the total contract price to be paid to the OWC sub-contractor.42

D. Construction contracts awarded through a pre-qualification process exceeding $100,000.00 are subject to Council approval in accord with Section 2.04.030, above.

2.04.051 Competitive process and qualification-based awards for professional services contracts.

1. Mandatory Preferred Small Local Business /Mandatory Preferred Oakland Worker Cooperative (MPSLB/MPOWC) Program for Pre-Construction Services. The City shall establish a list of pre-qualified businesses to perform as-needed and specified pre- construction work, such as architectural and engineering work, less than $250,000.00 ("small projects"). The City shall solicit qualifications solely from Oakland certified small, local business enterprises and Oakland Worker Cooperatives to establish the pre-qualified business list for MPSLB professional pre-construction services.

25 167

qualified Oakland certified small local businesses and OWCs to perform as-needed or specified professional services (pre-construction excluded) under $250,000.00 ("small projects"). When authorized by the City Administrator, the City shall solicit qualifications solely from Oakland certified small, local business enterprises and OWCs to establish a pre-qualified business list for OPSLB/OPOWC professional (non- pre-construction) services.

3. When a pre-qualified list is established for small projects, the City will limit solicitations for proposals for such work to three or more business on the MPSLB/MPOWC or OPSLB/OPOWC pre-qualified lists.

4. The City shall apply a 10% discount for bids submitted by city-certified OWCs.

5. MPSLB/MPOWC and OPSLB/OPOWC contracts are exempt from the requirements of Oakland's Local and Small Local Business Enterprise (L/SLBE) program for professional services.

6. With the exception of the L/SLBE program, MPSLB/MPOWC and OPSLB/OPOWC contracts are subject to insurance and social equity policies such as, but not limited to, living wages and equal benefits.

8. MPSLB/MPOWC or OPSLB/OPOWC contracts exceeding $100,000.00 are subject to Council approval in accord with Section 2.04.030, above.

SECTION 3. Worker Cooperative Support Program

Oakland Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 2.45 is created to read as follows:

Chapter 2.45 WORKER COOPERATIVE SUPPORT PROGRAM

26 168

2.45.010 Establishment.

The Office of Economic and Workforce Development shall create and administer a Worker Cooperative Support Program.

2.45.020 Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter is to provide technical and financial support to entrepreneurs and employees seeking to start new worker cooperatives or convert existing businesses into worker cooperatives. Because cooperatives employ less common governance and financial structures, and because the City currently lacks expertise in cooperative formation and governance, this program will provide the City with crucial tools to help these beneficial enterprises thrive. It will also strengthen existing organizations that are incubating and training worker cooperatives in Oakland, and help to equip other organizations to provide such services. Finally, the program will establish a source of low-interest loans for worker cooperatives, since cooperatives typically rely on loans rather than outside equity investment. Worker cooperatives often struggle to secure loans from traditional sources due to their innovative structure and their commitment to member control and ownership of the business; this revolving loan fund will therefore fill a gap in the existing financial market.

2.45.030 Duties.

In administering the Program, the Office shall:

27 169

D. Identify obstacles deterring entrepreneurs from starting worker cooperatives, or employees and business owners from converting their business to worker cooperatives.

28 170

manufacturing, commercial printing, logistics and shipping, and health services.44 Partner with local organizations with expertise in conversions and with local trade unions that can develop workers’ abilities to manage their work and take responsibility for their company’s success.

I. Appoint a Worker Cooperative Ecosystem Council to inform city strategy and to administer the Worker Cooperative Development Fund and the Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund. The Council shall be tasked with community outreach, solicitation of grant and loan applications, and review of grant and loan applications. The Council shall include at least one worker-member of an OWC and one representative of a community-based worker cooperative technical assistance provider.

2.45.040 Worker Cooperative Development Fund.

B. The monies in the Fund shall be spent on the following programs:

44 These are sectors that Project Equity identified as being good targets for Oakland outreach. See Bay Area Blueprint, Project Equity, http://www.project-equity.org/bay-area-blueprint.

29 171

4. A track record of, or core commitment to reach underserved communities and make participation feasible for low-income workers; 5. The degree to which the program promotes development of cooperatives to scale and/or replication; 6. Agreement to standard reporting to enable the Fund to measure its impact.

2. Nonprofit Training Program. Awards will be given to support training of nonprofits to begin new cooperative incubation programs in Oakland targeted to low-income communities.45

2.45.050 Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund.46

A. The Office of Economic and Workforce Development shall establish and administer a Worker Cooperative Revolving Loan Fund to make low-interest loans to city-certified OWCs and to employees seeking to convert their businesses into OWCs. Applicants may request grant funds to finance startup, growth, or conversion costs, including reasonable expenses for technical assistance and business development support. The Office shall delegate administration of the Fund to the Worker Cooperative Ecosystem Council as described in 2.45.030(H).

30 172

providers or business development organizations.

D. An annual report will be completed in January and presented to the City Council as public record of the performance and management of the fund. The report will include (1) specifics about every outstanding loan during that period, (2) number of member- owner jobs created during the term, (3) efforts made to obtain state and federal funding to expand the fund, (4) recommendations for how the fund can more effectively create worker-owned jobs, and (5) any other information requested by the City Council.

2.45.060 Loan Guarantees for Worker Cooperative Financing

[details to be determined]

SECTION 4. Revision to Business Permit Application

Oakland Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.02, Business Permits Generally, is amended to read as follows:

5.02.020 Application.

A. A full identification of the applicant and all persons to be directly or indirectly interested in the permit if granted;

31 173

B. The residence and business address of the applicant, including all members of any firm or partnership, or all officers and directors of any corporation applying;

C. The location of the proposed business, establishment, place, thing, etc., for which the permit is requested, and the name of the owner and the present use of such premises;

D. The exact nature of the proposed business, establishment, place, thing, etc., for which the permit is requested, and the name under which it is to be operated;

E. Whether the proposed business is applying for city-certified Oakland Worker Cooperative status;

G. Whether or not any permit has been revoked, and if so, the circumstances of such revocation;

H. Such further information as the City Manager, or such official of the city to whom the application may be referred, may require.

SECTION 5. Business Tax Incentives

Oakland Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.04.621 is created to read as follows:

5.04.621 Oakland Worker Cooperative exemption.

B. Exemption from business tax and registration fee payment is contingent on submission of an annual statement pursuant to Section 5.04.090, accompanied by evidence of current OWC certification.

32 174

SECTION 6. Worker Cooperative Land Use Incentives

Oakland Planning Code Title 17, Chapter 17.159 is created to read as follows:

Chapter 17.159 WORKER COOPERATIVE LAND USE INCENTIVES

17.159.010 Purpose and applicability.

The purpose of these provisions is to encourage the formation of worker cooperatives and the associated local wealth creation by reducing the permitting and review burdens faced by such enterprises. The incentives described in Section 17.159.030 are only available to Oakland Worker Cooperatives certified pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.44.040.

17.159.020 Application

An application for worker cooperative incentives shall be filed with the Oakland Planning and Zoning Division as part of the land use review process. The application shall include:

A. Evidence of current, city-certified Oakland Worker Cooperative status pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.44.040;

B. A written statement specifying the incentives requested; and

C. Any other documents or information the Director of City Planning finds necessary for the review of the proposal

17.159.030 Incentives

Whenever action is taken on an application for planning or zoning permits for an Oakland Worker Cooperative, the City shall grant the following incentives:

A. Priority permit processing. The City shall prioritize and expedite the review and permitting of such projects.

33 175

Cooperative to operate the business.

17.159.040 Enforcement

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY

SECTION 8.

To the extent this Ordinance is inconsistent with any other provisions of the Oakland Municipal Code or the Oakland Planning Code, this Ordinance shall apply.

Addendum Bay Area Worker Cooperative Ecosystem Members * = contributed significantly to the development of this model ordinance

 Arizmendi Association of Coops (Bay Area)  *Democracy At Work Institute (Oakland)

47 The city may want to consider reducing the fees instead of waiving them entirely, with a greater reduction awarded to cooperatives located in economically distressed areas of the city.

34 176

 *Green Collar Communities Clinic, East Bay Community Law Center (Berkeley)  Network of Bay Area Worker Cooperatives (NoBAWC) (Bay Area)  *People Organizing to Demand Environmental & Economic Rights (PODER) (San Francisco)  *Project Equity (Oakland)  Prospera (formerly WAGES) (Oakland)  *Sustainable Economies Law Center (Oakland)  US Federation of Worker Cooperatives (national organization, based in Oakland)

35 177

178

Jesse Arreguín City Councilmember, District 4 ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 12, 2016)

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Jesse Arreguín

Subject: Zoning Amendments to B.M.C. Chapter 23C.08 – Demolition and Dwelling Unit Controls

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt first reading of an ordinance (as developed by staff) repealing and re-enacting Berkeley Municipal Code Sections 23C.08.020 and 23C.08.030, and adding Section 23C.08.035 to modify and clarify the conditions under which dwelling units may be demolished.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendments will allow for clearer rules for demolition and clarify what conditions are required to mitigate the loss of affordability when controlled rental units are demolished, including payment of a fee or provision of below market rate units.

The new requirements may result in either additional revenue to the Housing Trust Fund to support affordable housing or below market rate units. The new requirements may cause a slight increase in staff time needed to manage below market rate (BMR) units.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS: The issue of when a unit is “available for rent” has been a source of differing opinion between the city staff and Rent Board staff for many years. Several previous attempts were made to reconcile the differences.

The most recent attempt resulted in a City Council referral at the December 6, 2011 City Council meeting. The items in that referral included:

Demolition section: a. The units are replaced with an equal or greater number of new units inclusive of the current number of existing affordable units; or b. The current units will be relocated to a new location at the same affordability level; or

Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Building ● 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 Fax: (510) 981-7144 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● E-Mail: [email protected] ● Web: www.jessearreguin.com 179 c. The demolition is necessary to permit construction of special needs facilities such as, but not limited to, childcare centers and affordable housing developments that serve the greater good of the entire community and if special findings can be made.

Demolition will not be allowed if the building has been removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act in the last five (5) years.

In addition, if the units in the building to be demolished are currently occupied, the following measures would apply: d. Appropriate notice to sitting tenants including being provided with their rights under the Rent Control Ordinance; e. Assistance with moving expenses consistent with local ordinance; f. Subsidization of the rent differential for a replacement unit until new units are ready for occupancy or for up to 4 years whichever comes sooner; and g. First right of refusal to move into the new building and, if qualified, into the low income units.

Demolition will not be allowed if there have been verified cases of harassment or illegal evictions in the prior twelve (12) months.

Elimination Section: 1. A new combined unit will be owner occupied for no less than one year prior to and no less than two years after conversion, before another conversion could occur.

2. The currently existing number of units exceeds the density standard for the neighborhood.

3. The change is not detrimental to the existing neighborhood.

4. If the building is five units or less no more than one unit can be combined per building and the owner must agree to maintain Measure Y protections that apply in five unit buildings for tenants in the other units.

On April 3, 2013, the Planning Commission forwarded a Demolition Ordinance proposal to the City Council. The Council considered that proposal on June 4, 2013. The Council requested two options be added to the original proposal, with those options considered by Council on July 2, 2013; neither the June 4 nor the July 2 versions were adopted.

The Council referred the two Demolition Ordinance versions to both the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) and the Planning Commission for consideration. In August 2013 staff proposed a third alternative with language to address some of the legal concerns raised about the first two proposals and to add special exemptions for 100% affordable housing projects.

180 The HAC considered the three proposals on September 12, 2013. A summary, prepared by Housing staff for the HAC, of the three proposals is included in Attachment 2. During the time since the HAC meeting, the California Supreme Court published its decision in Sterling Park, LLC v. City of Palo Alto. Under the Sterling Park decision any ordinance that requires new residential developments (rental or for sale) to provide a specified percentage of units at below-market-rate (BMR) prices will be treated as if it were a monetary “exaction” or impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act. This decision affects the demolition ordinance proposals which require provision of BMR units.

BACKGROUND: On October 17, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Sterling Park LLC v. City of Palo Alto holding that an inclusionary housing requirement applicable to new for-sale units was an “exaction” subject to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code sections 66000 et seq.) The Supreme Court explicitly disagreed with a number of published cases that had held that inclusionary housing requirements were not “exactions”, but rather were akin to zoning requirements like setbacks. Under the Sterling Park decision any ordinance that requires new residential developments (rental or for sale) to provide a specified percentage of units at below market-rate (BMR) prices will be treated as if it were a monetary “exaction” or impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act.

In order to impose an “exaction” under the Mitigation Fee Act, local agencies must:

 Identify the purpose of the exaction;  Identify the use to which the exaction is to be put;  Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the exaction and the type of development project on which it is imposed; and  Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for BMR housing units and the type of development project on which the exaction is imposed.

In addition, local agencies are required to demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the exaction and the burden imposed by the development. (See Gov. Code § 66001(a) & (b).) This is the “nexus study” process the City used when it adopted the current affordable housing mitigation fee applicable to newly constructed rental units. (That fee is unaffected by the Sterling Park decision.)

Whether we treat the provision of BMR units in relation to demolition as an exaction on the new development or as mitigation for the loss of older affordable units, a nexus study is required.

The 2015 Affordable Housing Nexus Study includes a new section analyzing the impact of demolishing and replacing existing units and the demand for additional affordable housing. The analysis takes into consideration the impacts associated with the loss of rent-stabilized units or other units that are less expensive due to their age, and the units that replace them which are not subject to rent stabilization due to the new date of

181 construction. The methodology is similar to that previously discussed for new rental and condominium units, except that it analyzes the net difference between new households resulting from employment generated by the new replacement units and the households that are supported by an average rent-stabilized project. The study found the net increase is 26.02 households of which 12.64 have incomes at or less than 100% AMI. The resulting maximum impact fee that can then be supported for replacement units is $41,768, with the equivalent percentage of affordable units being 12.64%. Staff is also developing a formula to mitigate the loss of affordability when an older, controlled unit is demolished and replaced with a new market-rate unit.

The proposed Demolition Ordinance proposal is compliant with Sterling Park because it only sets a procedure and defers actual setting of the value of the exaction to a later City Council resolution. Such a fee resolution would have to be supported by a nexus study specific to the issue of loss of affordability because of demolition of older units.

Adopting the proposed Demolition Ordinance revision will clarify the rules around demolishing existing rental units and the mitigation required. It will enable newer, denser housing and protect existing tenants and mitigate the loss of affordability.

The details on the amount of the replacement fee can be addressed by separate Council action.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: The proposed language would reconcile an area of difference between the City staff and Rent Board staff allowing for a clearer process for demolition or elimination of rental units built prior to June 1980. The proposed changes would include protection for existing tenants of any unit proposed for demolition.

CONTACT PERSON: Jesse Arreguín, Councilmember, District 4 (510) 981-7140

Attachments: 1. Ordinance 2. November 6, 2013 Planning Commission staff report, “Demolition Ordinance Council Referral

182 ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

REPEALING AND REENACTING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 23C.08.020 AND 23C.08.030, AND ADDING SECTION 23C.08.035 REGULATING DEMOLITION AND ELIMINATION OF DWELLING UNITS

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

Section 1. That Section 23C.08.020 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

23C.08.020 Elimination of Dwelling Units through Demolition

A. The Board may approve a Use Permit to demolish a building constructed prior to June 1980 on a property containing two or more dwelling units if it makes the findings required by the foregoing section, and either:

1. The building containing the units is hazardous or unusable and is infeasible to repair; or

2. The building containing the units will be moved to a different location within the City of Berkeley with no net loss of units and no change in the affordability levels of the units; or

3. The demolition is necessary to permit construction of special housing needs facilities such as, but not limited to, childcare centers and affordable housing developments that serve the greater good of the entire community; or

4. The demolition is necessary to permit construction approved pursuant to this Chapter of at least the same number of dwelling units.

When a project is approved under this paragraph, the project applicant shall be required to a pay a fee for each unit demolished to mitigate the impact of the loss of affordable housing in the City of Berkeley. The amount of the fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council.

In the case of a unit with a tenant at the time of demolition, the provisions of Section 23C.08.020.C apply and the impact fee is due when that tenant vacates the unit.

In lieu of paying the impact fee, the project applicant may provide a designated unit in the new project at a below market rate in perpetuity. The affordability level of the below market rent shall be set by resolution of the City Council. The project applicant shall enter a regulatory agreement with the City of Berkeley to provide for the provision of any such in lieu units.

183 B. Notwithstanding Subdivision (A), demolition will not be allowed if the building was removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five (5) years or there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding three years.

Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Adjustments Board, which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

C. If the units in a building to be demolished under subdivision (A) are occupied, the following requirements shall apply.

1. Except as set forth in paragraph (2) below:

a. The applicant shall provide all sitting tenants notice of the application to demolish the building no later than the date it is submitted to the City, including notice of their rights under Chapter 13.76.

b. The applicant shall provide assistance with moving expenses equivalent to those set forth in Chapter 13.84.

c. The applicant shall subsidize the rent differential for a comparable replacement unit, in the same neighborhood if feasible, until new units are ready for occupancy. Funding for the rent differential shall be guaranteed in a manner approved by the City.

2. An applicant under this Chapter who proposes to construct a 100% affordable housing project shall provide relocation benefits that conform to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended and the California Relocation Act (Government Code sections 7260 et seq.).

3. Except as set forth in paragraph (4) below, sitting tenants who are displaced as a result of demolition shall be provided the right of refusal to move into the new building; and tenants of units that are demolished shall have the right of first refusal to rent new below- market rate units designated to replace the units that were demolished, at the rent that would have applied if they had remained in place, as long as their tenancy continues. Income restrictions shall not apply to displaced tenants.

4. In cases where an applicant under this Chapter has constructed a 100% affordable housing project, sitting tenants who are displaced as a result of demolition and who desire to return to the newly constructed building will be granted a right of first refusal subject to their ability to meet income qualifications and other applicable eligibility requirements when the new units are ready for occupancy.

184 5. The provisions of this section shall not apply to tenants who move in after the application for demolition is submitted to the City provided that the owner informs each prospective tenant about the proposed demolition and that demolition constitutes good cause for eviction.

D. Notwithstanding anything in Title 23 to the contrary, but subject to any applicable requirements of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (BMC Chapter 3.24), accessory buildings of any size, including, but not limited to, garages, carports and sheds, but not including any structure containing a lawfully established dwelling unit, which serves and is located on the same lot as a lawful residential use, may be demolished by right.

Section 2. That Section 23C.08.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

23C.08.030 Elimination of Dwelling Units and Accessory Dwelling Units through Conversion and Change of Use

A. The Board may approve a Use Permit for the elimination of a dwelling unit through combination with another dwelling unit for purposes of occupancy by a single household if it finds that:

1. The existing number of dwelling units exceeds the number permitted by the maximum residential density applicable to the District where the subject building is located; and

2. One of the affected dwelling units has been occupied by the applicant’s household as its principle place of residence for no less than two years prior to the date of the application and none of the affected units is currently occupied by a tenant.

B. Notwithstanding Subdivision (A), demolition will not be allowed if the building was removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five (5) years or there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding three years. Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board, which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

185 owner must pay a fee of $75,000 in 2013 dollars, adjusted in May of each year according to the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, which shall be deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund. The City may exempt an applicant from the two year residency requirement in the event of an unforeseeable life change that requires relocation.

D. In cases where elimination of a dwelling unit reduces the number of units in a building to four (4), the applicant shall record a notice of limitation against the subject property that the limitation on eviction of tenants under Section 13.76.130.A.9.i(iii) shall continue to apply until such time as the building is demolished or sufficient units are added or restored such that the building contains at least five (5) units.

E. Alternatively, the Zoning Officer may issue an AUP for a conversion which eliminates a dwelling unit if he/she finds that the conversion of the building will restore or brings the building closer to the original number of dwelling units that was present at the time it was first constructed, provided the conversion meets the requirements of A.2., B. C. and D. of this section.

F. The Board may approve a Use Permit for a change of use to a community care or a child care facility which eliminates a dwelling unit if it finds that such use is in conformance with the regulations of the District in which it is located.

G. The Board may approve a Use Permit for the elimination of a dwelling unit through combination with another dwelling unit for the purpose of providing private bathrooms, kitchenettes, accessibility upgrades, and/or seismic safety upgrades to Single-Residential Occupancy (SRO) Rooms in residential developments undergoing a publicly-funded rehabilitation. H. Notwithstanding the general Use Permit requirement under 23C.08.010, a lawfully established accessory dwelling unit that is not a controlled rental unit may be eliminated subject to the issuance of a Zoning Certificate when the re-conversion restores the original single family use of the main building or lot, provided that no tenant is evicted.

Section 3. That Section 23C.08.035 is added to the Berkeley Municipal Code to read as follows:

23C.08.035 Private Right of Action

Any affected tenant may bring a private action for injunctive and/or compensatory relief against any applicant and/or owner to prevent or remedy a violation of Sections 23C.08.020 or 23C.08.030. In any such action a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

186 and (2) if a use permit or administrative use permit condition implementing any of the mitigations required by this ordinance is determined to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the entire use permit or administrative use permit which it conditions shall be deemed to automatically invalid as a consequence, and shall be null and void and of no further force or effect.

Section 5. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of Old City Hall, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within fifteen days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

187 Attachment 2

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT

DATE: November 6, 2013

TO: Members of the Planning Commission

FROM: Eric Angstadt, Director, Planning & Development

SUBJECT: Demolition Ordinance Council Referral

Recommendation That Planning Commission direct staff to set a Public Hearing to consider revised Demolition Ordinance language consistent with the California Supreme Court decision in Sterling Park, LLC v. City of Palo Alto.

Summary Earlier this year the Planning Commission forwarded a demolition ordinance proposal to the City Council. The Council considered that proposal on June 4, 2013. The Council requested two options be added to the original proposal, with those options considered by Council on July 2, 2013; neither the June 4 nor the July 2 versions were adopted. The Council referred the two Demolition Ordinance versions to both the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) and the Planning Commission for consideration. In August staff proposed a third alternative with language to address some of the legal concerns raised about the first two proposals and to add special exemptions for 100% affordable housing projects.

The HAC considered the three proposals on September 12, 2013. A summary, prepared by Housing staff for the HAC, of the three proposals is included as Attachment 1. The three proposals are included, with the August 30 version in both redline and clean, as Attachments 2-5. The minutes from the HAC meeting are Attachment 6.

During the time since the HAC meeting, the California Supreme Court published its decision in Sterling Park, LLC v. City of Palo Alto. Under the Sterling Park decision any ordinance that requires new residential developments (rental or for sale) to provide a specified percentage of units at below-market-rate (BMR) prices will be treated as if it were a monetary “exaction” or impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act. This decision affects the demolition ordinance proposals which require provision of BMR units.

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected] 188 City Council Referral Item 10 23C.08 - Demolition Ordinance November 6, 2013

Background On October 17, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Sterling Park LLC v. City of Palo Alto holding that an inclusionary housing requirement applicable to new for-sale units was an “exaction” subject to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code sections 66000 et seq.) The Supreme Court explicitly disagreed with a number of published cases that had held that inclusionary housing requirements were not “exactions”, but rather were akin to zoning requirements like setbacks. Probably related to this, on September 11, 2013, the Supreme Court granted review in a case that had upheld San Jose’s inclusionary requirements for ownership housing against a similar challenge.

Under the Sterling Park decision any ordinance that requires new residential developments (rental or for sale) to provide a specified percentage of units at below- market-rate (BMR) prices will be treated as if it were a monetary “exaction” or impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act.

In order to impose an “exaction” under the Mitigation Fee Act, local agencies must:

Identify the purpose of the exaction; Identify the use to which the exaction is to be put; Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the exaction and the type of development project on which it is imposed; and Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for BMR housing units and the type of development project on which the exaction is imposed.

This is the “nexus study” process the City used when it adopted the current affordable housing mitigation fee applicable to newly constructed rental units. (That fee is unaffected by the Sterling Park decision.)

Discussion Whether we treat the provision of BMR units in relation to demolition as an exaction on the new development or as mitigation for the loss of older affordable units, a nexus study will be required. The nexus study will also have to look at the proportionality of the exaction. This is used to set the upper limit on the exaction that can be supported as reasonable under the requirements of the Government Code.

Unfortunately, the June 4 and July 2 Demolition Ordinance proposals do not follow the procedures for setting and justifying exactions. The August 30 proposal is compliant with Sterling Park because it only sets a procedure and defers actual setting of the value of the exaction to a later City Council resolution. Such a fee resolution would

Page 2 of 3 189 City Council Referral Item 10 23C.08 - Demolition Ordinance November 6, 2013 have to be supported by a nexus study specific to the issue of loss of affordability because of demolition of older units.

Conclusion and Next Steps Recent court decisions have altered the landscape for local jurisdictions requiring below market rate units as part of the development process. In order to continue providing affordable housing resources as part of a development, nexus studies will now be required to support any exaction whether by fee or by provision of BMR units.

Staff recommends that a Public Hearing be set to consider demolition ordinance text that will be compliant with the Court decision and recommend changes to the City Council.

Attachments: 1. Summary Memo 2. June 4 proposal 3. July 2 proposal 4. August 30 proposal redline against June 4 5. August 30 proposal clean 6. September 12 HAC minutes

Page 3 of 3 190 Item 10 - Attachment 1 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 1 of 3 To: City of Berkeley Housing Advisory Commission From: Kate Hartley, Senior Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS Date: August 30, 2013 Re: City Council’s Request for HAC Recommendations Regarding Proposed Amendments to the City of Berkeley Demolition Ordinance

A. June 11, 2013 Council Hearing: On June 11, the City Council considered repealing and reenacting BMC Chapters 23C.08.020 and 23C.08.030 and adding 23C.08.035 to modify and clarify the conditions under which dwellings can be demolished. This memo is provided for your convenience and to facilitate discussion on the issues. A table comparing competing amendment proposals is also provided at the conclusion of the narrative for ease of review.

The proposed changes to Section 23C.08.020 include (in summary form):

1) Construction of special needs housing, child care, or other community-benefitting uses as a demo-enabling condition.

2) Modifications to the existing demo-enabling condition that units must be replaced 1:1, as follows: a) Designated BMR units are equal in number and size to demolished units; b) BMR replacement units are in addition to other BMR units required; and c) BMR units’ construction must be guaranteed with a completion bond.

3) BMR rental replacement units must be permanently set at a 60% affordability level; for-sale units must be permanently set at 70% affordability.

4) Revised protections for sitting tenants: a) Notice; b) Relocation assistance (moving expenses and rent differential coverage); c) Right of first refusal (ROFR) to move into the new building; and d) ROFR to rent new BMR replacement units at the rents that would have applied had the tenants remained in place, without consideration of the tenants’ incomes.

The reenacted Section 23C.08.030 restricted conditions under which a dwelling unit can be eliminated through combination with another dwelling unit.

And newly added Section 23C.08.035 enables a private right of action for affected tenants.

Please see the attached 6/11/13 Council information for further details.

191 Item 10 - Attachment 1 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Following its discussion, Council directed staff to make further amendments with respect to:

1) Imposition of a fee to mitigate the cost of lost affordable units; 2) Provision of deed-restricted replacement units at certain established affordability levels; and 3) Protections for sitting tenants.

B. July 2, 2013 Council Hearing

Staff submitted proposed revisions to Council on July 2, which included, among other things, that for buildings replaced with the same number of units,

1) Developers should pay an impact fee; or 2) Each demolished unit should be replaced with a unit restricted to the last known rent (or, if the rent was unknown, a 50% AMI rent); and 3) Replacement units would be subject to vacancy de-control pursuant to Costa- Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

Please see the attached materials from the July 2 hearing for additional details.

Council discussed the proposed amendments and referred the original ordinance and the revised ordinance to the Housing Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission for consideration.

C. Further Considerations

1) 100% Affordable Developments. To protect the City’s goals regarding development of housing for low-income tenants, HHCS staff has proposed that if demo is required for a 100% affordable development, developers must provide federal and state relocation benefits to sitting tenants, who will then be given a ROFR to the new units only if they meet income and other qualifications attached to the new units when they are ready for leasing.

2) SRO Housing. To protect the City’s goal of preserving decent, safe SRO housing, HHCS staff has proposed allowing demolition of units by merger with other units in publicly-funded SRO rehabilitations that improve the habitability and safety of the units (e.g. new bathrooms in units, seismic safety, ADA upgrades).

3) Mitigation Fee. It appears that any fee levied to mitigate the cost of affordability loss must be clearly separate from the City’s existing Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee, and be based upon its own studied calculation.

192 Item 10 - Attachment 1 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 3 of 3 4) BMR Unit Affordability Levels. Discussions to date on the appropriate rent-setting for new BMR units include 50%, 60%, and 70% AMI.

4) Costa-Hawkins. Whether or not permanent deed restrictions for BMR units built in lieu of paying a mitigation fee violate Costa-Hawkins likely requires further analysis.

Please see attached an updated ordinance responsive to the above issues.

D. Comparison Chart: Please find a chart comparing competing provisions of the three Ordinance Amendment versions below.

Demolition Ordinance Amendment Proposals: Competing Provisions Provision Version 6/4/13 Version 7/2/2013 Version 8/30/2013 Applicant has choice: pay Demo approval per-unit impact fee at Aff. Applicant required to pay permitted if same Required 1:1 replacement of Hsg. Mitigation Fee level or impact fee to mitigate the number of units demo'd units with BMR replace demo'd units 1:1 loss of affordable housing; constructed AND units w/designated BMR units amount TBD Demo approval BMR Units in addition to permitted if same BMR Units in addition to any any BMR units otherwise In lieu of paying impact fee, number of units BMR units otherwise required, "to the extent applicant may designate constructed AND required legally permitted" BMR units Replacement Unit 60% AMI cap - rental; 70% Last known rent or, if Rents AMI cap - for-sale unknown, 50% AMI TBD by Council Replacement Unit Subject to vacancy Term Permanent decontrol (Costa-Hawkins) Permanent

ROFR to any new unit and ROFR to any new unit and ROFR to any new unit and BMR units, at rent that BMR units, at rent that BMR units, at rent that would have applied w/o would have applied w/o would have applied w/o Tenant Protections demo. No income tests. demo. No income tests. demo. No income tests. Sitting tenants receive perm relo benefits but only have ROFR to new units if they 100% Affordable are income-qualified at Housing No consideration No consideration lease-up Existing number of DUs Existing number of DUs Same, but, in addition, exceed density limit; and exceed density limit; and publicly-funded SRO rehabs Elimination of a DU applicant has occupied one applicant has occupied one may lose units if necessary through combination DU for >= 2yrs; and no DU for >= 2yrs; and no to improve habitability and w/another DU tenant displacement tenant displacement life safety

1) Note: All versions protect sitting tenants’ ROFR to return to the unit at the rent they would have been paying but for the demolition, with the exception that Version 8/30/13 requires income-eligibility in the case of demolition for the purpose of building 100% affordable housing developments only.

193 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 1A of 15

194 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 2 of 15

195 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 3 of 15

196 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 4 of 15

197 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 5 of 15

198 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 6 of 15

199 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 7 of 15

200 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 8 of 15

Office of the City Manager ACTION CALENDAR June 11, 2013 (Continued from June 4, 2013)

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Christine Daniel, City Manager Submitted by: Eric Angstadt, Director, Planning and Development Subject: Zoning Amendments to BMC Chapter 23C.08 – Demolition and Dwelling Unit Controls

RECOMMENDATION Adopt first reading of an Ordinance repealing and reenacting Berkeley Municipal Code Sections 23C.08.020 and 23C.08.030, and adding Section 23C.08.035 to modify and clarify the conditions under which dwelling units may be demolished.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION The proposed amendments will allow for clearer rules for demolition and clarify what number and type of replacement units are required for certain demolitions. The new requirements may cause a slight increase in staff time needed to manage below market rate (BMR) units.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS On April 3, 2013 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding proposed zoning amendments to modify and clarify the requirements for demolitions of dwelling units in the City of Berkeley. The Planning Commission had previously discussed the issue at a meeting on March 20, 2013. At the April 3, 2013 public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff proposal and comments from the City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board. The Planning Commission found the two approaches to be very similar and made a motion to request that staff from the city and the rent board collaborate to meet and resolve the differences. Motion also requested that the resultant single set of recommendations be forwarded to City Council with Planning Commission support but no formal vote. The motion and vote are below:

Motion/Second/Carried (JS/TD) to request that planning staff collaborate with members of the Rent Control Board outside the Planning Commission meeting to develop a single set of demolition ordinance language revisions to present to City Council with Planning Commission support, but no vote (an unusual procedure, but proposed for the purpose of expediting Council’s referral). Ayes: Samuels, Sheahan, Eisen, Davis, Poschman. Noes: None. Abstain: Clarke, Novosel, Lindheim. Absent: Dacey.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: (510) 981-7000 TDD: (510) 981-6903 Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/manager 201 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission Zoning Amendments to Chapter 23C.08 – ACTION NovemberCALENDAR 6, 2013 Demolition and Dwelling Unit Controls June 11,Page 2013 9 of 15

Planning staff and Rent Board Staff have met three times and collaborated on a version of the ordinance which only has one point of difference. The point of difference is over the number of years of history prior to a proposed demolition that is examined for evidence of threatening or harassing behavior on the part of the proposed demolisher, with city staff recommending two years and rent board staff recommending three years. The original council referral had suggested one year for this time period.

BACKGROUND The issue of when a unit is “available for rent” has been a source of differing opinion between the city staff and rent board staff for many years. Several previous attempts were made to reconcile the differences. The most recent attempt resulted in a City Council referral at the December 6, 2011 council meeting.

The items in that referral included: Demo section: a. The units are replaced with an equal or greater number of new units inclusive of the current number of existing affordable units; or b. The current units will be relocated to a new location at the same affordability level; or c. The demolition is necessary to permit construction of special needs facilities such as, but not limited to, childcare centers and affordable housing developments that serve the greater good of the entire community and if special findings can be made.

Demolition will not be allowed if the building has been removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act in the last five (5) years.

Demolition will not be allowed if there have been verified cases of harassment or illegal evictions in the prior twelve (12) months.

Elimination Section: 1. A new combined unit will be owner occupied for no less than one year prior to and no less than two years after conversion, before another conversion could occur. 2. The currently existing number of units exceeds the density standard for the neighborhood.

Page 2 202 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission Zoning Amendments to Chapter 23C.08 – ACTION NovemberCALENDAR 6, 2013 Demolition and Dwelling Unit Controls JunePage 11, 2013 10 of 15

3. The change is not detrimental to the existing neighborhood. 4. If the building is five units or less no more than one unit can be combined per building and the owner must agree to maintain Measure Y protections that apply in five unit buildings for tenants in the other units.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The proposed language would reconcile an area of difference between the City staff and Rent Board staff allowing for a clearer process for demolition or elimination of rental units built prior to June 1980. The proposed changes would include protection for existing tenants of any unit proposed for demolition.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED None

CONTACT PERSON Eric Angstadt, Director, Planning Department, 981-7410

Attachment: 1: Ordinance

Page 3 203 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 11 of 15 ORDINANCE NO. #,### - N.S.

REPEALING AND REENACTING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 23C.08.020 AND 23C.08.030, AND ADDING SECTION 23C.08.035 REGULATING DEMOLITION AND ELIMINATION OF DWELLING UNITS

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

Section 1. That Section 23C.08.020 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

23C.08.020 Elimination of Dwelling Units through Demolition

1. The building containing the units is hazardous or unusable and is infeasible to repair; or

2. The building containing the units will be moved to a different location within the City of Berkeley with no net loss of units and no change in the affordability levels of the units; or

4. The demolition is necessary to permit construction approved pursuant to this Chapter of at least the same number of dwelling units, and with designated below-market rate units equal in number and comparable in size to the demolished units. These units will be in addition to any below-market rate units provided to mitigate any other project impacts. The completion of the below- market rate units will be secured by a completion bond or lien against the land or other equivalent security in the amount of $250,000 per unit in 2013 dollars, with the amount adjusted in May of each year by the increase in the Consumer Price Index of the San Francisco Bay Area, to be paid into the Housing Trust Fund in the event that the project is not completed or the replacement below-market rate units are not provided.

5. a. The below-market rate replacement rental units shall be affordable to households with incomes no greater than 60% of area median income, based on the procedures specified in the Housing Trust Fund guidelines. These affordability levels shall remain in place for the life of the building. The below- market rate units shall be rented to people with incomes no greater than 60%

204 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 12 of 15 of area median or sold to people with incomes no greater than 70% of area median, with priority to people who currently live or work in Berkeley, except as provided in Section C.4.

b. If the replacement project is built as a condominium project, units must first be offered for rent to displaced tenants as provided in Section C.4. Any such units rented to a displaced tenant may count as a required inclusionary unit under Section 23C.12 depending on tenant qualifications. Should any inclusionary unit occupied by a displaced tenant become legally vacant such unit could be sold subject to the in-lieu fee payment requirements of the ordinance.

B. Notwithstanding Subdivision (A), demolition will not be allowed if the building was removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five (5) years or there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding (Staff proposal: two years; Rent Board proposal: three years). Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Adjustments Board, which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

C. If the units in a building to be demolished under subdivision (A) are occupied, the following requirements shall apply.

1. The applicant shall provide all sitting tenants notice of the application to demolish the building no later than the date it is submitted to the City, including notice of their rights under Chapter 13.76; and

2. The applicant shall provide assistance with moving expenses equivalent to those set forth in Chapter 13.84; and

3. The applicant shall subsidize the rent differential for a comparable replacement unit, in the same neighborhood if feasible, until new units are ready for occupancy. Funding for the rent differential shall be guaranteed in a manner approved by the City.

4. Sitting tenants who are displaced as a result of demolition shall be provided the right of refusal to move into the new building; and tenants of units that are demolished shall have the right of first refusal to rent new below-market rate units designated to replace the units that were demolished, at the rent that would have applied if they had remained in place, as long as their tenancy continues. Income restrictions shall not apply to displaced tenants.

5. The provisions of this section shall not apply to tenants who move in after the application for demolition is submitted to the City provided that the owner informs

205 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 13 of 15 each prospective tenant about the proposed demolition and that demolition constitutes good cause for eviction.

Section 2. That Section 23C.08.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

23C.08.030 Elimination of Dwelling Units and Accessory Dwelling Units through Conversion and Change of Use

A. The Board may approve a Use Permit for the elimination of a dwelling unit through combination with another dwelling unit for purposes of occupancy by a single household if it finds that:

1. The existing number of dwelling units exceeds the number permitted by the maximum residential density applicable to the District where the subject building is located; and

B. Notwithstanding Subdivision (A), demolition will not be allowed if the building was removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five (5) years or there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding (Staff proposal: two years; Rent Board proposal: three years). Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board, which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

206 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 14 of 15 within six months or the owner must pay a fee of $75,000 in 2013 dollars, adjusted in May of each year according to the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, which shall be deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund. The City may exempt an applicant from the two year residency requirement in the event of an unforeseeable life change that requires relocation.

G. Notwithstanding the general Use Permit requirement under 23C.08.010, a lawfully established accessory dwelling unit that is not a controlled rental unit may be eliminated subject to the issuance of a Zoning Certificate when the re-conversion restores the original single family use of the main building or lot, provided that no tenant is evicted.

Section 3. That Section 23C.08.035 is added to the Berkeley Municipal Code to read as follows:

23C.08.035 Private Right of Action

Section 4. In adopting these amendments, it is the City Council’s intention to permit demolition of existing dwelling units constructed prior to June 1980 only if the impacts of doing so are mitigated as set forth in this ordinance. Accordingly: (1) if any provision of this ordinance is determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction the entire ordinance shall be deemed automatically repealed, null and void and no force or effect; and (2) if a use permit or administrative use permit condition implementing any of the mitigations required by this ordinance is determined to be invalid or unenforceable by a

207 Item 10 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 15 of 15 court of competent jurisdiction, then the entire use permit or administrative use permit which it conditions shall be deemed to automatically invalid as a consequence, and shall be null and void and of no further force or effect.

Section 5. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the glass case located near the walkway in front of Old City Hall, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within fifteen days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

208 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November17 6, 2013 Page 1 of 12

Office of the City Manager ACTION CALENDAR July 2, 2013

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS At the June 11 meeting the City Council requested that staff present revised language for the ordinance amendments related to Chapter 23C.08. The revisions requested are attached. The revisions are to Section 23C.08.020 A4 and A5 to allow two options: 1) Pay a fee for demolished units equal to the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee; or

2) Replace demolished units with rent increase restricted units with an initial rent at 50% AMI or last known rent if vacant for less than 5 years.

Protections for sitting tenants are provided in Section 23C.08.020 C.

BACKGROUND Please see June 4, 2013 staff report for full background on this issue.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The proposed language would reconcile an area of difference between the city staff and rent board staff allowing for a clearer process for demolition or elimination of rental units built prior to June 1980. The proposed changes would include protection for existing tenants of any unit proposed for demolition.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: (510) 981-7000 TDD: (510) 981-6903 Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/manager 209 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 2 of 12

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED None

CONTACT PERSON Eric Angstadt, Director, Planning Department, 981-7410

Attachments: 1: Ordinance 2: Ordinance with track changes reflecting revisions requested by Council at the June 11, 2013 meeting

210 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 3 of 12 ORDINANCE NO. #,### - N.S.

REPEALING AND REENACTING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 23C.08.020 AND 23C.08.030, AND ADDING SECTION 23C.08.035 REGULATING DEMOLITION AND ELIMINATION OF DWELLING UNITS

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

Section 1. That Section 23C.08.020 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

23C.08.020 Elimination of Dwelling Units through Demolition A. The Board may approve a Use Permit to demolish a building constructed prior to June 1980 on a property containing two or more dwelling units if it makes the findings required by the foregoing section, and either:

1. The building containing the units is hazardous or unusable and is infeasible to repair; or

2. The building containing the units will be moved to a different location within the City of Berkeley with no net loss of units and no change in the affordability levels of the units; or

4. The demolition is necessary to permit construction approved pursuant to this Chapter of at least the same number of dwelling units and either;

a) the developer will pay a fee equal to the Affordable Housing Mitigation Impact Fee in effect at the time the certificate of occupancy is issued; or

b) each demolished unit will be replaced with a designated rent increase restricted unit comparable in size to the demolished unit. To the extent legally permitted, these units will be in addition to any below-market rate units otherwise included in the project, including, but not limited to: units proposed pursuant to Government Code section 65915; units provided as a

3 211 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 4 of 12

condition of any funding; or units provided in lieu of the City’s affordable housing mitigation. The initial rent of these replacement units shall be set at the last known rent prior to the date the demolished unit became vacant. If the last rent is not known or the unit was vacant for more than five years prior to demolition, the initial rent of the replacement unit shall be set at a level affordable to a tenant at 50% AMI. The replacement units will be designated, and their continuing affordability guaranteed, by deed restriction. Each such replacement unit will have its rent increase restricted to the same amount as the annual general adjustment published by the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board each year, but shall be subject to vacancy decontrol pursuant to the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

5. If the replacement project is built as a condominium project, the requirements of the inclusionary zoning ordinance apply. Units must first be offered for rent to displaced tenants as provided in Section C.4. Any such units rented to a displaced tenant may count as a required inclusionary unit depending on tenant qualifications. Should any inclusionary unit occupied by a displaced tenant become legally vacant such unit could be sold subject to the in-lieu fee payment requirements of the ordinance.

B. Notwithstanding Subdivision (A), demolition will not be allowed if the building was removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five (5) years or there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding three years. Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Adjustments Board, which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

C. If the units in a building to be demolished under subdivision (A) are occupied, the following requirements shall apply. 1. The applicant shall provide all sitting tenants notice of the application to demolish the building no later than the date it is submitted to the City, including notice of their rights under Chapter 13.76; and

4 212 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 5 of 12

2. The applicant shall provide assistance with moving expenses equivalent to those set forth in Chapter 13.84; and 3. The applicant shall subsidize the rent differential for a comparable replacement unit, in the same neighborhood if feasible, until new units are ready for occupancy. Funding for the rent differential shall be guaranteed in a manner approved by the City. 4. Sitting tenants who are displaced as a result of demolition shall be provided the right of refusal to move into the new building; and shall have the right of first refusal to rent new rent increase restricted units that replace the units that were demolished, at the rent that would have applied if those tenants had remained in place, as long as their tenancy continues, including limitations on rent increases. 5. The provisions of this section shall not apply to tenants who move in after the application for demolition is submitted to the City provided that the owner informs each prospective tenant about the proposed demolition and that demolition constitutes good cause for eviction.

D.. Notwithstanding anything in Title 23 to the contrary, but subject to any applicable requirements of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (BMC Chapter 3.24), accessory buildings of any size, including, but not limited to, garages, carports and sheds, but not including any structure containing a lawfully established dwelling unit, which serves and is located on the same lot as a lawful residential use, may be demolished by right. (Ord. 6908-NS §§ 1-2 (part), 2006: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)

Section 2. That Section 23C.08.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

23C.08.030 Elimination of Dwelling Units and Accessory Dwelling Units through Conversion and Change of Use) A. The Board may approve a Use Permit for the elimination of a dwelling unit through combination with another dwelling unit for purposes of occupancy by a single household if it finds that:

1. The existing number of dwelling units exceeds the number permitted by the maximum residential density applicable to the District where the subject building is located; and

5 213 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 6 of 12

C. In the event a unit eliminated pursuant to subdivision (A) is not occupied by the applicant’s household for at least two consecutive years from the date of elimination, the affected unit must be restored to separate status. This requirement shall be implemented by a condition of approval and a notice of limitation on the property, acceptable to the City, which provides that if the owner’s household does not occupy the unit for at least two years from the date of elimination the affected units must either be restored as separate dwelling units and the vacant unit(s) offered for rent within six months or the owner must pay a fee of $75,000 in 2013 dollars, adjusted in May of each year according to the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, which shall be deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund. The City may exempt an applicant from the two year residency requirement in the event of an unforeseeable life change that requires relocation.

6 214 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 7 of 12

Section 3. That Section 23C.08.035 is added to the Berkeley Municipal Code to read as follows:

23C.08.035 Private Right of Action

7 215 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 AttachmentPage 82 of 12

Chapter 23C.08 DEMOLITION AND DWELLING UNIT CONTROLS

23C.08.010 Demolition or Elimination of Dwelling Units--General Requirement

A. No Dwelling Unit or units may be eliminated by demolition or conversion except as authorized by this

Chapter.

B. The Board may approve a Use Permit for the elimination or demolition of dwelling units only if, in addition to any other findings required by this Title, it finds that the elimination of the dwelling units would not be materially detrimental to the housing needs and public interest of the affected neighborhood and the City. (Ord.

6848-NS § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)

23C.08.020 Elimination of Dwelling Units through Demolition

A. The Board may approve a Use Permit to demolish a building constructed prior to June 1980 on a property

containing two or more dwelling units if it makes the findings required by the foregoing section, and either:

1. The building containing the units is hazardous or unusable and is infeasible to repair; or

2. The building containing the units will be moved to a different location within the City of

Berkeley with no net loss of units and no change in the affordability levels of the units; or

3. The demolition is necessary to permit construction of special housing needs facilities such

as, but not limited to, childcare centers and affordable housing developments that serve the

greater good of the entire community; or.

4. The demolition is necessary to permit construction approved pursuant to this Chapter of at

least the same number of dwelling units, and either;

a) the developer will pay a fee equal to the Affordable Hosusing Mitigation Impact Fee in

effect at the time the certificate of occupancy is issued; or

b) each demolished unit will be replaced with a with designated rent increase restricted below-

market rate units equal in number and comparable in size to the demolished units. To the extent

legally permitted, Tthese units will be in addition to the extent legally permitted, to any below-

market rate units otherwise included in the project, including, but not limited to: units proposed

pursuant to Government Code section 65915; units provided as a condition of any funding; or

1 216 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 9 of 12

units provided in lieu of the City’s affordable housing mitigationprovided to mitigate any other

project impacts. . The initial rent of these replacement units shall be set at the last known rent

prior to the date the demolished unit became becoming vacant. If the last rent is not known or

the unit whas been vacant for more than five years prior to demolition, the initial rent of the

replacement unit shall be set at a level affordable to a tenant at 50% AMI. The replacement

units will be designated, and their continuing affordabilitytiy guaranteed, by deed restriction.

Each such designated replacement unit will have its rent increase restricted to the same amount

as the annual general adjustment increase published by the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board

each year, but shall be subject to vacancy decontrol as pursuant to the . Should any designated

unit become vacant, the rent will be set to market rate as required by Costa-Hawkins Rental

Housing Act.completion of the below-market rate units will be secured by a completion bond or

lien against the land or other equivalent security in the amount of $250,000 per unit in 2013

dollars, with the amount adjusted in May of each year by the increase in the Consumer Price

Index of the San Francisco Bay Area, to be paid into the Housing Trust Fund in the event that

the project is not completed or the replacement below-market rate units are not provided..

a. The below-market rate replacement rental units shall be affordable to households

with incomes no greater than 60% of area median income, based on the procedures specified in

the Housing Trust Fund guidelines. These affordability levels shall remain in place for the life of

the building. The below-market rate units shall be rented to people with incomes no greater than

60% of area median or sold to people with incomes no greater than 70% of area median, with

priority to people who currently live or work in Berkeley, except as provided in Section C.4.

b. If the replacement project is built as a condominium project, the requirements of the

inclusionary zoning ordinance apply. Units must first be offered for rent to displaced tenants as

provided in Section C.4. Any such units rented to a displaced tenant may count as a required

inclusionary unit depending on tenant qualifications. Should any inclusionary unit occupied by a

displaced tenant become legally vacant such unit could be sold subject to the in-lieu fee

payment requirements of the ordinance.

2 217 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 10 of 12

years; Rent Board proposal: three years). Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal

eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will

provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Adjustments Board,

which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

C. If the units in a building to be demolished under subdivision (A) are occupied, the following

requirements shall apply.

1. The applicant shall provide all sitting tenants notice of the application to demolish the building

no later than the date it is submitted to the City, including notice of their rights under Chapter 13.76; and

2. The applicant shall provide assistance with moving expenses equivalent to those set forth in

Chapter 13.84; and

3. The applicant shall subsidize the rent differential for a comparable replacement unit, in the

same neighborhood if feasible, until new units are ready for occupancy. Funding for the rent differential shall be

guaranteed in a manner approved by the City.

4. Sitting tenants who are displaced as a result of demolition shall be provided the right of refusal

to move into the new building; and tenants of units that are demolished and shall have the right of first refusal

to rent new rent increase restricted below-market rate units that designated to replace the units that were

demolished, at the rent that would have applied if thoseey tenants had remained in place, as long as their

tenancy continues, including limitations on rent increases. Income restrictions shall not apply to displaced

tenants.

5. The provisions of this section shall not apply to tenants who move in after the application for demolition is submitted to the City provided that the owner informs each prospective tenant about the proposed demolition and that demolition constitutes good cause for eviction.

D.. Notwithstanding anything in Title 23 to the contrary, but subject to any applicable requirements of the

Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (BMC Chapter 3.24), accessory buildings of any size, including, but not limited to, garages, carports and sheds, but not including any structure containing a lawfully established dwelling unit, which serves and is located on the same lot as a lawful residential use, may be demolished by right. (Ord. 6908-NS §§ 1-2 (part), 2006: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)

23C.08.030 Elimination of Dwelling Units and Accessory Dwelling Units through Conversion and Change of Use)

3 218 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 11 of 12

A. The Board may approve a Use Permit for the elimination of a dwelling unit through combination with another dwelling unit for purposes of occupancy by a single household if it finds that:

1. The existing number of dwelling units exceeds the number permitted by the maximum

residential density applicable to the District where the subject building is located; and

2. One of the affected dwelling units has been occupied by the applicant’s household as its

principle place of residence for no less than two years prior to the date of the application and

none of the affected units is currently occupied by a tenant.

B. Notwithstanding Subdivision (A), demolition will not be allowed if the building was removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five (5) years or there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding (Staff proposal: two years; Rent Board proposal: three years). Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Officer or Zoning

Adjustments Board, which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

4 219 Item 10 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 12 of 12 dwelling units that was present at the time it was first constructed, provided the conversion meets the requirements of A.2., B. C. and D. of this section.

23C.08.035 Private Right of Action

5 220 Item 10 - Attachment 4 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 1 of 5 23C.08.020 Elimination of Dwelling Units through Demolition

1. The building containing the units is hazardous or unusable and is infeasible to repair; or 2. The building containing the units will be moved to a different location within the City of Berkeley with no net loss of units and no change in the affordability levels of the units; or 3. The demolition is necessary to permit construction of special housing needs facilities such as, but not limited to, childcare centers and affordable housing developments that serve the greater good of the entire community; or 4. The demolition is necessary to permit construction approved pursuant to this Chapter of at least the same number of dwelling units. When a project is approved under this paragraph, Tthe project applicant shall be required to a pay a fee for each unit demolished to mitigate the impact of the loss of affordable housing in the City of Berkeley. The amount of the fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council. In the case of a unit with an tenant at the time of demolition, the provisions of Section 23C.08.020.C apply and the impact fee is due when that tenant vacates the unit. a. In lieu of paying ment of the impact fee, the project applicant may provide a designated unit in the new project at a below market rate in perpetuity. The affordability level of the below market rent shall be set by resolution of the City Council. The project applicant shall will enter a regulatory agreement with the City of Berkeley to provide for the provision of any such in lieu units.

, and with designated below-market rate units equal in number and comparable in size to the demolished units. These units will be in addition to any below-market rate units provided to mitigate any other project impacts. The completion of the below market rate units will be secured by a completion bond or lien against the land or other equivalent security in the amount of $250,000 per unit in 2013 dollars, with the amount adjusted in May of each year by the increase in the Consumer Price Index of the San Francisco Bay Area, to be paid into the Housing Trust Fund in the event that the project is not completed or the replacement below-market rate units are not provided. 5. a. The below-market rate replacement rental units shall be affordable to households with incomes no greater than 60% of area median income, based on the procedures specified in the Housing Trust Fund guidelines. These affordability levels shall remain in place for the life of the building. The below market rate units shall be rented to people with incomes no greater than 60% of area median or sold to people with incomes no greater than 70% of area median,

221 Item 10 - Attachment 4 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 2 of 5 with priority to people who currently live or work in Berkeley, except as provided in Section C.4. b. If the replacement project is built as a condominium project, units must first be offered for rent to displaced tenants as provided in Section C.4. Any such units rented to a displaced tenant may count as a required inclusionary unit under Section 23C.12 depending on tenant qualifications. Should any inclusionary unit occupied by a displaced tenant become legally vacant such unit could be sold subject to the in-lieu fee payment requirements of the ordinance.

B. Notwithstanding Subdivision (A), demolition will not be allowed if the building was removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five (5) years or there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding (Staff proposal: two years; Rent Board proposal: three years). Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Adjustments Board, which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

C. If the units in a building to be demolished under subdivision (A) are occupied, the following requirements shall apply. 1. Except as set forth in paragraph (2) below: a. The applicant shall provide all sitting tenants notice of the application to demolish the building no later than the date it is submitted to the City, including notice of their rights under Chapter 13.76. ; and 2. b. The applicant shall provide assistance with moving expenses equivalent to those set forth in Chapter 13.84. ; and 3. c. The applicant shall subsidize the rent differential for a comparable replacement unit, in the same neighborhood if feasible, until new units are ready for occupancy. Funding for the rent differential shall be guaranteed in a manner approved by the City. 42. An applicant under this Chapter who proposes to construct a 100% affordable housing project shall provide relocation benefits that conform to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended and the California Relocation Act (Government Code sections 7260 et seq.). 3. Except as set forth in paragraph (4) below, Ssitting tenants who are displaced as a result of demolition shall be provided the right of refusal to move into the new building; and tenants of units that are demolished shall have the right of first refusal to rent new below-market rate units designated to replace the units that were demolished, at the rent that would have applied if they had remained in place, as long as their tenancy continues. Income restrictions shall not apply to displaced tenants. 4. In cases where an applicant under this Chapter has constructed a 100% affordable housing project, sitting tenants who are displaced as a result of demolition and who desire to return to the newly constructed building will be

222 Item 10 - Attachment 4 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 3 of 5 granted a right of first refusal subject to their ability to meet income qualifications and other applicable eligibility requirements when the new units are ready for occupancy. 5. The provisions of this section shall not apply to tenants who move in after the application for demolition is submitted to the City provided that the owner informs each prospective tenant about the proposed demolition and that demolition constitutes good cause for eviction.

Section 2. That Section 23C.08.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

23C.08.030 Elimination of Dwelling Units and Accessory Dwelling Units through Conversion and Change of Use

A. The Board may approve a Use Permit for the elimination of a dwelling unit through combination with another dwelling unit for purposes of occupancy by a single household if it finds that: 1. The existing number of dwelling units exceeds the number permitted by the maximum residential density applicable to the District where the subject building is located; and 2. One of the affected dwelling units has been occupied by the applicant’s household as its principle place of residence for no less than two years prior to the date of the application and none of the affected units is currently occupied by a tenant.

B. Notwithstanding Subdivision (A), demolition will not be allowed if the building was removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five (5) years or there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding (Staff proposal: two years; Rent Board proposal: three years). Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board, which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

223 Item 10 - Attachment 4 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 4 of 5 acceptable to the City, which provides that if the owner’s household does not occupy the unit for at least two years from the date of elimination the affected units must either be restored as separate dwelling units and the vacant unit(s) offered for rent within six months or the owner must pay a fee of $75,000 in 2013 dollars, adjusted in May of each year according to the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, which shall be deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund. The City may exempt an applicant from the two year residency requirement in the event of an unforeseeable life change that requires relocation.

GH. Notwithstanding the general Use Permit requirement under 23C.08.010, a lawfully established accessory dwelling unit that is not a controlled rental unit may be eliminated subject to the issuance of a Zoning Certificate when the re-conversion restores the original single family use of the main building or lot, provided that no tenant is evicted.

Section 3. That Section 23C.08.035 is added to the Berkeley Municipal Code to read as follows:

23C.08.035 Private Right of Action

224 Item 10 - Attachment 4 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Any affected tenant may bring a private action for injunctive and/or compensatory relief against any applicant and/or owner to prevent or remedy a violation of Sections 23C.08.020 or 23C.08.030. In any such action a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

225 Item 10 - Attachment 5 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 1 of 5 23C.08.020 Elimination of Dwelling Units through Demolition

1. The building containing the units is hazardous or unusable and is infeasible to repair; or

2. The building containing the units will be moved to a different location within the City of Berkeley with no net loss of units and no change in the affordability levels of the units; or

4. The demolition is necessary to permit construction approved pursuant to this Chapter of at least the same number of dwelling units.

In the case of a unit with a tenant at the time of demolition, the provisions of Section 23C.08.020.C apply and the impact fee is due when that tenant vacates the unit.

B. Notwithstanding Subdivision (A), demolition will not be allowed if the building was removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five (5) years or there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding (Staff proposal: two years; Rent Board proposal: three years). Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Adjustments Board, which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

226 Item 10 - Attachment 5 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 2 of 5

C. If the units in a building to be demolished under subdivision (A) are occupied, the following requirements shall apply.

1. Except as set forth in paragraph (2) below:

b. The applicant shall provide assistance with moving expenses equivalent to those set forth in Chapter 13.84.

3. Except as set forth in paragraph (4) below, sitting tenants who are displaced as a result of demolition shall be provided the right of refusal to move into the new building; and tenants of units that are demolished shall have the right of first refusal to rent new below-market rate units designated to replace the units that were demolished, at the rent that would have applied if they had remained in place, as long as their tenancy continues. Income restrictions shall not apply to displaced tenants.

D. Notwithstanding anything in Title 23 to the contrary, but subject to any applicable requirements of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (BMC Chapter 3.24),

227 Item 10 - Attachment 5 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 3 of 5 accessory buildings of any size, including, but not limited to, garages, carports and sheds, but not including any structure containing a lawfully established dwelling unit, which serves and is located on the same lot as a lawful residential use, may be demolished by right.

Section 2. That Section 23C.08.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

23C.08.030 Elimination of Dwelling Units and Accessory Dwelling Units through Conversion and Change of Use

A. The Board may approve a Use Permit for the elimination of a dwelling unit through combination with another dwelling unit for purposes of occupancy by a single household if it finds that:

1. The existing number of dwelling units exceeds the number permitted by the maximum residential density applicable to the District where the subject building is located; and

B. Notwithstanding Subdivision (A), demolition will not be allowed if the building was removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the preceding five (5) years or there have been verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during the immediately preceding (Staff proposal: two years; Rent Board proposal: three years). Where allegations of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction are in dispute, either party may request a hearing before a Rent Board Hearing Examiner, who will provide an assessment of the evidence and all available documentation to the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board, which shall determine whether harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction occurred.

228 Item 10 - Attachment 5 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 4 of 5

H. Notwithstanding the general Use Permit requirement under 23C.08.010, a lawfully established accessory dwelling unit that is not a controlled rental unit may be eliminated subject to the issuance of a Zoning Certificate when the re-conversion restores the original single family use of the main building or lot, provided that no tenant is evicted.

Section 3. That Section 23C.08.035 is added to the Berkeley Municipal Code to read as follows:

23C.08.035 Private Right of Action

229 Item 10 - Attachment 5 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 5 of 5 court of competent jurisdiction, then the entire use permit or administrative use permit which it conditions shall be deemed to automatically invalid as a consequence, and shall be null and void and of no further force or effect.

230 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Planning Commission November 6, 2013 Page 1 of 4 HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION Regular Meeting Thursday, September 12, 2013

Housing Advisory Commission Time: 7:05 p.m. South Berkeley Senior Center 2939 Ellis Street – Berkeley Secretary – Kristen Lee, (510) 981-5427 APPROVED MINUTES All agenda items are for Discussion and Possible Action.

1. Roll Call Present: Casalaina, Darrow, Murphy, Sawicki, Skjerping, Soto-Vigil, Tregub, and Wolfe. Excused Absence: Feller. Staff Present: Hartley, Lee, Asterino. Staff from Other Departments: Eric Angstadt, Timothy Burroughs, Jenny McNulty and Alex Roshal. Public: Councilmember Arreguin, Jay Kelekian and approximately 15 others from the public.

2. Agenda Approval Commissioner Soto-Vigil made a motion to approve the agenda. (M/S/C: Soto- Vigil/Tregub. Ayes: Casalaina, Darrow, Murphy, Sawicki, Skjerping, Soto-Vigil, Tregub, and Wolfe. Absent: Feller. Noes: None. Abstentions: None).

3. Public Comment Five members of the public spoke regarding the Soft Story Ordinance.

4. Approval of July 11, 2013 – Meeting Minutes A date and a grammatical change were requested to be made to draft of the July meeting minutes. Commissioner Sawicki made a motion to approve minutes with the modifications. (M/S/C: Sawicki/Tregub. Ayes: Casalaina, Darrow, Murphy, Sawicki, Skjerping, Soto-Vigil, Tregub, and Wolfe. Absent: Feller. Noes: None. Abstentions: None).

5. City of Berkeley Soft Story Ordinance Implementation. Jenny McNulty, of the City Planning Department, presented a summary of the proposed Ordinance which would require the mandatory retrofit of soft, weak, or open front buildings. Alex Roshal, the City’s Building Official, was also present for the summary. In July 2012, City Council requested staff to develop amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code to require owners of multi-unit residential buildings with five or more units to comply with the requirements of the soft story ordinance. The questions from the Commissioners and the public referenced the following issues: requirements only for residential structures with 5 residential units or more; exclusion of other retail and office buildings and hotels; the pass-through of retrofit costs by landlords and owners to tenants through increased rents; retrofits resulting in reduced parking for tenants and displacement; and financial assistance for hardship cases. The staff report, which will include comments, will be submitted on September 26, 2013; however, comments and recommendations made at

2180 Milvia Street – 2nd Floor Berkeley CA 94704 Tel. 510.981.5400 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.5450 E-mail: housing @ci.berkeley.ca.us 231 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Housing Advisory Commission Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Planning Commission September 12, 2013 November 6, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Page 2 of 4

the HAC’s October meeting could be added to Planning’s staff report to Council. Comments were taken from the public and commission members. Motions for recommendations by the Commission will be acted on at the next meeting of the HAC. No action was taken by the HAC.

6. Energy Efficiency in Multi-Family Housing Program Update Timothy Burroughs, of the City Planning Department, summarized the report prepared by the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and Emeryville. The report was initiated by the three cities in order to develop strategies to motivate investment in energy upgrades in existing multifamily buildings. The HAC did not take action but agreed to write a letter to PG&E supporting staff’s request for release of building-specific energy consumption data.

7. Review Original and Revised Ordinances: BMC 23C.08 Demolition and Dwelling Unit Controls. Eric Angstadt, Director of the City Planning Department, summarized a report prepared with the staff of the Rent Board. On June 11, 2013 the City Council considered repealing and reenacting certain chapters of the Berkeley Municipal Code to modify and clarify the conditions under which dwellings could be demolished. A comparison chart or table was discussed which reflected three Ordinance amendment proposals dated June 4, July 2, and August 30, 2013. Public comment was taken from attendees requesting to speak.

A motion made by Commissioner Darrow: On July 2, 2013, Council considered two different versions of the demolition ordinance. Council asked HAC for input on the different versions. HAC sees a need to remove unreasonable impediments to development. The new demolition Ordinance is an opportunity to address this need. When relaxing restrictions on demolition, HAC sees a need to obtain a real, substantial community benefit in return for allowing demolition of buildings that would not otherwise be allowed to be demolished. HAC finds that the 1:1 replacement requirements in the June 4th draft is the most appropriate way to ensure that a real, measurable, and consistent community benefit accompanies these demolitions. Commissioner Tregub made a friendly amendment to revise to include the HAC urges Council to use the June 4th draft report as a starting point. “Starting point” was agreed to be changed to “model”. Discussion by commissioners followed. A friendly amendment was made by Commissioner Wolfe supporting 1:1 replacement of Below Market Rate (BMR) units at the rent level in place at the time of demolition; but if/when a sitting tenant vacates the unit, subsequent tenants must meet relevant income qualifications in order to occupy the BMR unit. Discussion followed regarding the motion with elements of such things as impact of a 100% affordable housing project and staff suggestions. Commissioner Casalaina made a friendly amendment regarding 1) Sitting tenants receive permanent relocation benefits but only have ROFR to new units if they are income-qualified at lease up and 2) regarding the provision of the elimination of dwelling units through combination with another dwelling unit , in addition, publicly-funded SRO rehabs may lose units if necessary to improve habitability and life safety.

With consideration of the acceptance of the friendly amendments, Commissioner Darrow moved the following motion be approved: The HAC sees a need to obtain a real, substantial community benefit in return for allowing the demolition of buildings that would not otherwise be allowed to be demolished. HAC finds that the 1:1 replacement in the

232 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Housing Advisory Commission Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Planning Commission September 12, 2013 November 6, 2013 Page 3 of 4 Page 3 of 4

June 4th Draft is the most appropriate way to ensure that a real, measurable, and consistent community benefit accompanies these demolitions. The HAC urges the City Council to use the June 4th Draft as a model. The HAC supports the 1:1 replacement with BMR units at previous rent levels and a requirement that subsequent tenants be means-tested when occupying those BMR units. HAC further supports implementation of two provisions produced by the staff subsequent to the July 2, 2013-Council Hearing and dated in the HAC meeting packet for reference only (dated August 30, 2013-Attachment #12). These provisions are Chapter 23C.08.020 Paragraph C2 – C4 concerning rights of sitting tenants with respect to the construction of a 100% affordable housing project; and Chapter 23C.08.020, Paragraph G regarding the right to demolish an SRO Dwelling Unit for the purpose of a publicly funded rehabilitation that improves life/safety and habitability. (M/S/C: Darrow/Tregub. Ayes: Casalaina, Darrow, Murphy, Sawicki, Skjerping, Soto-Vigil, Tregub, and Wolfe. Absent: Feller. Noes: None. Abstentions: None).

8. Mold Ordinance Commissioner Soto-Vigil distributed a memorandum, dated September 12, 2013 to the Commission members and made a motion that the HAC send a letter to the City Manager and forward four recommendations from the memorandum to the City Council. The motion was seconded by the Commissioner Darrow. Commissioner Casalaina made a friendly amendment that the recommendation #2 in the memorandum be included as background information for Council, and that recommendations 1, 3, and 4 in the Memorandum be recommended as action items for Council. Commissioner Murphy made a friendly amendment that the words “should find” in recommendation #3 be changed to read “should investigate.” The friendly motions were accepted. (M/S/C: Soto- Vigil/Darrow. Ayes: Casalaina, Darrow, Murphy, Sawicki, Skjerping, Soto-Vigil, Tregub, and Wolfe. Absent: Feller. Noes: None. Abstentions: None).

9. Update on Council Action Regarding the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee It was noted that there is no update on the Council item regarding the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee and it was moved to Council’s meeting on October 15. Commissioner Murphy requested that the presentation be drafted as Council item. If it is too late to submit the item for Council’s meeting on October 15, then the HAC could present its recommendation at the October 15-Council meeting.

10. Future Items (All) Commissioner Soto-Vigil suggested discussion of the proposed Berkeley Way development, the NAACP recommendations made at a community forum meeting , and the PG&E letter obtaining information suggested by City Planning staff. Commissioner Sawicki requested a staff report of an update of the HTF projects be added as a future item. The Update on Tenant disaster preparedness in multi-family buildings and update on the HAC Appeal made by Mr. Ghosh and appearing on the meeting agenda will be carried forward to a future meeting.

11. Announcements Announcements included the following: 1) Labor Commission and Minimum Wage, 2) HUD CAPER Update available for public review, 3) the sale of 2748 San Pablo Avenue to Satellite Affordable Housing Associations for the development of the Grayson Street

233 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Housing Advisory Commission Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Planning Commission September 12, 2013 November 6, 2013 Page 4 of 4 Page 4 of 4

Apartments, and 4) AB 1229 is currently on the Governor’s desk for signature and the public can comment at the Governor’s website. Commissioner members thanked and acknowledged the chairperson, Stephen Murphy, for his service to the HAC and congratulations on his appointment to the City Planning Commission. The meeting was followed by a reception for Commissioner Murphy.

12. Adjournment: 10:05 p.m. (M/S/C: Wolfe/Casalaina. Ayes: Casalaina, Darrow, Murphy, Sawicki, Skjerping, Soto- Vigil, Tregub, and Wolfe. Excused Absence: Feller. Noes: None. Abstentions: None).

Approved on ______

______, Kristen Lee, Interim Secretary

234 235 236 237 238 239 240

Jesse Arreguín City Councilmember, District 4 ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 12, 2016) To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Jesse Arreguín Subject: City Manager Referral: Implementation of Tier One Recommendations from the Homeless Task Force

RECOMMENDATION Refer to the City Manager to develop a plan to implement the Tier One Recommendations of the Homeless Task Force, which involve expanding the city’s Homeless Outreach Team and Mobile Crisis Team, increasing funding for the Crisis Intervention Training (CIT), increasing the number of public restrooms, and providing additional storage spaces and warming centers for the homeless population.

BACKGROUND At the June 23, 2015 worksession, the Homeless Task Force provided a presentation on its findings and recommendations. The Task Force, consisting of a diverse coalition of stakeholders, had deliberated and compiled its recommendations after regularly meeting for two years. The recommendations were split into two tiers based on the critical nature of the topic and ability of the City to take action in implementing it. The following were categorized as Tier One Recommendations:

Expand City Homeless Outreach Team The current HOT staffing level is at one FTE, which is too low to adequately handle the workload needed. Funds from the General Fund or others sources (federal, state, county, grants) will be needed to increase the FTE. Other recommendations include partnering with UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare or Psychology Department, and to consider specialized HOT for Downtown, Telegraph, and Transitional Age Youth (TAY).

Expand Mobile Crisis Team The current Mobile Crisis Team operates limited hours (11:30am-10pm), meaning that if someone suffers a mental crisis in the morning or late at night, their options for assistance are limited. 35% of police calls to BPD are for people having a mental health crisis. General funds or resources from the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) can be used to expand the FTE (currently at 0.5) and hours of operation for the Mobile Crisis Team.

Increase Crisis Intervention Training Funds There are currently only a limited number of classes for CIT, which prevents BPD from increasing the number of CIT trained officers on patrol. Allocating more resources to expand the number of classes can improve police interactions with those in crisis. Another proposal includes having CIT trained officers dress in plainclothes rather than in uniform.

Public Restrooms A major concern among both Berkeley residents and visitors alike is the lack of public restrooms along commercial corridors, and that those that already exist are open for limited hours. Several ideas include looking into self-cleaning restrooms such as the Portland Loo, create incentives for business owners to open their restrooms to the public, integrate public restrooms in new city government buildings, have developers of high-rises include public restrooms as a significant community benefit, and have Bart reopen its restrooms for public use.

Storage Space for Homeless There have been multiple incidents in recent years where a homeless person’s belongings have been confiscated by the City. Carrying all their belongings everywhere they go can be a detriment to finding services and assistance. Cities such as Vancouver and San Diego have successful storage programs which allow individuals to store their items without fear of losing them.

Warming Centers Several homeless people have died on the streets during the winter season. Establishing additional warming centers, especially in the Downtown and Telegraph areas, would enable those living on the streets to find refuge during stormy weather. These places could be located at non-profits or faith-based communities, or public buildings. Funding can be provided through resiliency initiatives such as the Rockefeller Foundation grant.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY No adverse effects to the environment.

CONTACT PERSON Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4 510-981-7140

Attachments: 1: Homeless Task Force Report

242 Attachment 1

Berkeley Homeless Task Force DRAFT Report to Berkeley Mayor and City Council

June 23, 2015

Page 1 of 20

243 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3

Demographics of Berkeley’s Homeless Population……………………………………...4

Current Homeless Programs and Funding………………………………………………6

Affects of Criminalization of the Homelessness………………………………………….10

Task Force Process…………………………………………………………………………11

Goals and Priorities………………………………………………………………………...12

Priority Recommendations Approved by Task Force…………………………………...13

Additional Recommendations for City Council …………………………………………16

Possible Funding Sources………………………………………………………………….18

FY 2016-2017 Budget Recommendations…………………………………………………18

Next Steps…………………………………………………………………………………...19

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………20

Page 2 of 20

244 Introduction

In November 2012, Berkeley voters considered an ordinance which would have banned sitting on sidewalks in commercial districts throughout the City. That proposal, Measure S, was put on the ballot by a majority of the City Council in response to long-standing concerns of the Telegraph and Downtown Business Improvement Districts about behavior and encampments on public sidewalks and spaces. There was a strong desire for the City to take immediate action to address problematic behavior in public spaces and to discourage individuals from sitting on sidewalks, which they believed obstructed pedestrian traffic and made commercial districts unwelcoming. The focus of the discussion around Measure S was not what the needs of the homeless street population are and whether additional resources are needed, but rather putting in place rules to address encampments and associated issues.

Measure S failed at the November 2012 ballot. However, the issues raised during the campaign could not be ignored, and the important citywide conversation started around Measure S needed to be continued. In that spirit, in December 2012, Councilmember Jesse Arreguín proposed the Compassionate Sidewalks Plan which would have directed the City Manager to convene a working group of representatives of City staff, the Homeless, Housing Advisory, Human Welfare & Community Action, and Police Review Commissions, the Police Department, and other stakeholders, including but not limited to business owners, homeless persons, service providers, students, and academic experts to develop a Compassionate Sidewalks Plan over a series of workshops.

Any proposal addressing homelessness requires an understanding of the demographics of the homeless population, the causes of homelessness, existing laws, a survey of existing resources and services, and an evaluation of best practices, among other things, if it is to be effective and successful.

The working group would have focused on, but not limited to, the following topics: 1) The demographics and causes of homelessness 2) A survey of existing homeless services 3) An assessment of potential funding needs and sources 4) Existing laws and enforcement 5) Best Practices

Ultimately, the City Council voted to schedule a workshop on April 2, 2013 on homeless programs and to defer the discussion of creating a Task Force to that time. On April 2, 2013, City of Berkeley Health, Housing and Community Services staff provided a comprehensive report on the existing homeless population, existing housing and social services, funding for homeless programs, existing quality of life laws, and best practices employed in other communities. A copy of the report can be found here: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2013/04Apr/Documents/2013-04- 02_Worksession_Item_01_Compassionate_Sidewalks.aspx. This report served as a foundation for the Task Force’s discussions. Ultimately, Councilmember Arreguín proposed that he independently convene a community task force on homelessness, to allow for an open and inclusive process.

As this report illustrates, Berkeley spends roughly $3 million dollars on homeless services, yet there are still large numbers of visible homeless on Telegraph Avenue, in the Downtown area and throughout our commercial districts. Our community has a good safety net of services that meet the basic needs of the homeless, but one critical area where we are lacking is providing short-term and permanent housing to get the homeless off our streets. The Obama administration and government agencies throughout the country

Page 3 of 20

245 are shifting their focus away from emergency services and towards Housing First. In addition, Berkeley’s diverse homeless population has a number of distinct needs which must be addressed through appropriate outreach and services. While our population is largely older, male and chronically homeless, there are growing numbers of Transition Age Youth and even families who are becoming homeless and finding their way into shelters and on our streets.

The purpose of the Berkeley Homeless Task Force is to facilitate a community conversation bringing together service providers, homeless persons, students, business owners, and the broader community to identify challenges towards addressing homelessness and to develop a plan for improved services, housing opportunities and other programs to serve Berkeley's homeless population. The goal of the task force is to bring stakeholders together to discuss common goals and to develop a community vision towards addressing homelessness.

Demographics of Berkeley’s Homeless Population

In January 2015, Everyone Home organized a homeless count in Alameda County, including a specific count in Berkeley. However, this information is not expected to be released until the fall. The most recent data currently available for the County is from 2013 and 2009 for Berkeley. The 2009 count identified 824 homeless in Berkeley.

680 of those were literally homeless, meaning they have no permanent housing. This includes living on the streets, shelters, and transitional housing programs. Of the 680, 526 were adults without dependents, and 125 people in families.

276 of the 680 literally homeless were defined as chronically homeless. This is defined as adults unaccompanied by children who have at least one disability and have been homeless for over a year or four times in the last year. While this is a significant decrease from the 529 people reported chronically homeless in Berkeley in 2003, it represents 27% of the County’s chronically homeless population.

144 people are hidden homeless. This applies to those who are living temporarily with a friend or relative, in a motel, or facing eviction in the next seven days. This is ten-fold increase compared to 2003. Hidden homeless make up 17% of Berkeley’s homeless population, compared to 41% of the County’s population.

Berkeley has a considerably higher proportion of homeless with disabilities compared to the County. 41% of Berkeley’s literally homeless classified themselves as having a mental illness, compared to 30% of the County. 40% of Berkeley’s literally homeless are chronic substance abusers, and the County is at 36%. Half of Berkeley’s chronically homeless have both a mental illness and an alcohol or drug dependence.

20% of Berkeley’s homeless population is veterans, which is similar to the County’s at 17%. 46% of Berkeley’s homeless veterans served in the Vietnam War.

Below is a chart that breaks down the race/ethnicity, gender, and age of Berkeley’s and the County’s homeless population in the 2009 survey compared to demographic info provided in the 2010 US Census.

Page 4 of 20

246 People using Homeless Services in 2009 in Berkeley and Alameda County Compared to Berkeley’s Population in the 2010 US Census

Alameda Berkeley County

Service Entire Service Users Population Users

Race

African American 59% 10% 53%

White 24% 60% 33%

Two or More Races 8% 6% 8%

Unknown 7% 2%

Asian 1% 19% 4%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1% <1% 2%

American Indian/Alaska Native <1% <1% 6%

Hispanic/Latino 4% 11% 15%

Gender

Male 56% 49% 55%

Female 44% 51% 45%

Age

13-17 <1% 3% <1%

18-25 5% 29% 4%

26-40 21% 21% 19%

41-60 63% 22% 62%

60+ 12% 16% 15%

Average Age 48 31 49

Page 5 of 20

247

Current Homeless Programs and Housing

The FY 2014 budget allocated $2,833,996 towards homeless agencies. This is a 2% reduction from the FY 2013 budget and a nearly 9% reduction from the FY 2011 budget. Below is a list of organizations that provide homeless services and the City’s financial contribution to those programs.

One of the first services a person seeks when becoming homeless is an emergency shelter. The City funds agencies which provide 118 year round beds and 121 seasonal beds. Some of these beds are reserved for those who are referred by the Alameda County Social Services Agency’s Community Housing and Shelter Services (CHASS) or the Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Agency (BHCS). The rest are open to the general homeless population in Berkeley.

Emergency Shelters Address Beds FY 2014 Funds

Berkeley Food and Housing Project 10 CHASS beds and (BFHP) Men's Overnight Shelter 1931 Center St 26 public beds $180,986

2140 Dwight 24 single beds and 8 BFHP Women's Shelter Way family beds $116,469

Building Opportunities for Self 17 CHASS beds, 10 Sufficiency (BOSS) Harrison House BHCS beds, and 23 Singles/Recovery Center 711 Harrison St public beds $110,277

Dorothy Day Berkeley Emergency 2345 Channing 50 beds during Storm Center Way severe weather $16,206

City of Oakland Winter Shelter Oakland Army Program Base 50 seasonal beds $61,000

Youth Engagement, Advocacy, Housing (YEAH!) Youth 1744 Emergency Assistance Hostel University Ave 21 seasonal beds $109,115

BFHP PCEI Centralized Shelter Reservation Hotline (not a shelter, program supports shelter access) N/A N/A $34,103

Page 6 of 20

248 Transitional housing if often the next step from an emergency shelter. There are currently 157 beds available in transitional housing, with some programs getting City funding and others receiving no City funding.

FY 2014 City Transitional Housing Address Beds Funds

Berkeley Food and Housing Project (BFHP) Independent House 2140 Dwight Way 11 $0

Funding included in BFHP Men's Overnight Shelter Emergency Shelter (Veterans Program) 1931 Center St 12 Funds

BFHP Women's Transitional House 2140 Dwight Way 14 $0

Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (BOSS) Harrison House Family Shelter 711 Harrison St 26 $27,706

BOSS McKinley Family Transitional House 2111 McKinley St 24 $0

BOSS Sankofa Transitional Housing 711 Harrison St 30 $26,253

Fred Finch Youth Center Turning Point (18-25 year olds) 3404 King St 18 $86,655

Resources for Community Development (RCD) Ashby House 1621 Ashby Ave 10 $0

Women's Daytime Drop In Center Bridget Transitional House 2218 Acton St 12 $23,838

There are six programs that provide support services for permanent housing. Four of these are specific sites; the other two programs provide rental subsidies to tenants who are renting in private apartments. Once a person is in permanent housing, they are no longer considered homeless.

Services in Permanent Supportive People Served in FY 2014 City Housing Address FY 2012 Funds

Berkeley Food and Housing Project Russell Street Residence Board and Care Facility 1741-43 Russell St 20 $13,045

2931 MLK Jr. 9 $18,151 Bonita House Supported Way, 1910-12

Page 7 of 20

249 Independent Living Hearst Ave

Lifelong Medical Care (LMC) COACH Shelter Plus Care Social Worker Tenant based 12 $58,322

LMC Supportive Housing Program 1040 and 1330 at UA Homes University Ave 81 $52,250

LMC PCEI Square One Supportive Housing Tenant based 16 $95,330

1040 and 1330 Toolworks, Inc. Supportive Housing University Ave 81 $47,665

In addition to the emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing described above, the City supports a variety of services that are not connected to housing. These include meal programs; drop in centers, substance abuse treatment, legal, employment and homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing.

The City funds two meal programs that specifically target people who are homeless.

FY 2014 City Meal Programs Address Meals Provided Funds

Berkeley Food and Housing Project 2362 Bancroft Dinner M-F, Quarter Meal Way 145/day $45,786

Dorothy Day Trinity Church 2362 Bancroft Breakfast M-Sat, Breakfast Way 168/day $41,223

There are five drop in centers that the City provides funding to. Drop in centers provide a multitude of services. First, they provide basic services such as restrooms, mail delivery, and medical services. Second, they provide housing management and related housing services. Third, they provide case management and retention services and provide social support.

People Served in FY 2014 City Drop In Centers Address FY 2012 Funds

Page 8 of 20

250 Alameda County Network of Mental Health Clients - Berkeley Drop In Center 3234 Adeline St 711 $89,817

Berkeley Food and Housing Project - 2362 Bancroft Multi-Service Center (MSC) Way 226 $197,294

Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (BOSS) Multi Agency Service Center (MASC) 1931 Center St 195 $187,163

United for Health Youth Suitcase 2300 Bancroft Clinic - Monday Night Clinic Way 168 $9,828

Women's Daytime Drop In Center Homeless Case Management and 1,193 (755 adults Health Care Services 2218 Acton St and 438 children $115,793

There are four substance abuse programs, two of which provide on-site housing and the other providing general services. While these programs are available for all people, there is a significant proportion of the homeless population (40%) that is substance abusers.

Substance Use Treatment People Served in FY 2014 City Program Address FY 2012 Funds

Bonita House Inc. 1410 Bonita St 15 bed capacity $0

Lifelong Medical Care Acupuncture Detox Clinic 2001 Dwight Way 271 $64,656

Residential program (6-9 New Bridge Foundation 1820 Scenic Ave months) 15 $50,000

Options Recovery Services Day Treatment Program 1931 Center St 895 $191,839

There are several legal services that receive funding from the City. These services help homeless people become eligible for entitlements and addressing legal issues which can often be a barrier to housing.

People Served in FY 2014 City Legal Services Address FY 2012 Type of Service Funds

Page 9 of 20

251 Alameda County 3126 Shattuck SSI (138) PCEI SSI advocacy and Homeless Action Center Ave (49) PCEI services $126,349

Crisis intervention, Family Violence Law advocacy, case Center Domestic management, Violence and financial Homelessness 470 27th St, assistance, legal Prevention Project Oakland 228 representation $87,030

The City also funds several employment programs. These programs are used by both the homeless and those that are housed.

People Employment Served in FY 2014 City Programs Address FY 2012 Type of Service Funds

Job readiness, pre- employment workshops, vocational assessment, planning and counseling, transitional employment, job placement, business Rubicon services, job retention and Workforce career advancement Services 1918 Bonita Ave 80 services $35,266

Rubicon Work Landscape service, on-job Maturity training, counseling Training preparation workshops, Program 1918 Bonita Ave 20 placement assistance $55,292

Affects of Criminalization of the Homelessness

In February 2015, the Policy Advocacy Clinic, a division of the UC Berkeley School of Law, published a report1 detailing the effectiveness of anti-homeless laws. The study looked at 58 cities in California that

1 California’s New Vagrancy Laws – Report on anti-homeless laws by Berkeley Law: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2558944

Page 10 of 20

252 combined have at least 500 anti-homeless laws. All these cities have restrictions on daytime activities such as sitting resting in public spaces, and all but one have restrictions on nighttime activities such as sleeping and lodging in public spaces.

Vagrancy laws, in which people were sited and jailed for selectively, enforced policies that often targeted people without homes, were stuck down by the US Supreme Court in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville in 1972. The ruling stated that vagrancy laws “encourage[d] arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions,” “ma[de] criminal activities which by modern standards [we]re normally innocent,” and placed “unfettered discretion […] in the hands of the Jacksonville police”.

In response to the rise of homelessness that started in the 1980s, a new wave of anti-homeless laws was enacted starting in the 1990s. The report found that 59% of anti-homeless laws in the 58 cities studied were enacted since 1990. The Great Recession worsened homelessness and more extreme anti-homeless laws followed. This equates to a collective total of 11 new laws a year under current trends. Californian cities have more anti-homeless laws than cities in other states, including being twice as likely to ban sleeping or lodging in vehicles.

Additionally, these laws appear to be targeted by status, and not behavior. The report goes on to say that there has been a 77% in arrests for vagrancy since 2000, even though during the same period arrests for behavioral problems such as public intoxication and disorderly conduct have decreased by 16% and 48% respectively.

The report concludes that there are several critical issues regarding the enactment of anti-homeless laws. First, it is harmful to the homeless as it perpetuates poverty by restricting access to the social safety net, affordable housing, and employment opportunities. Second, these laws raise many ethical, constitutional, and legal issues regarding the rights of homeless people. Finally, the cost of enforcing these laws is expensive, causing a lack of resources that could be used for policies that would be effective and humane in reducing homelessness.

It is clear that providing services, rather than resulting to criminalization, is both cost effective and ethical. While ultimately it should be up to the State to implement statewide homeless solutions, it is up to Berkeley to provide adequate services now. Failure to do so will only further drain resources and funding without dealing with the root causes of homelessness, causing an endless spiral of homelessness and wasteful spending.

Task Force Process

The Berkeley Homeless Task Force held its first meeting on August 15, 2013, with over 70 people in attendance. The meeting provided an overview of homelessness on a federal, county and local level and what policies and programs exist to address homelessness, as a foundation for future Task Force discussions. The Task Force heard presentations from Kristin Lee of the City of Berkeley Health, Housing and Community Services Department and Elaine DeColigny from Alameda County Everyone Home on existing Berkeley and County homeless services and Coordinated Access, and Katherine Gale from the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness on federal homeless policy. Pattie Wall, Executive Director of the Homeless Action Center presented the results of a survey of homeless clients about service needs, which indicated that housing was the main priority and unfulfilled need of homeless people. In addition, youth from Youth Spirit Artworks provided testimonials about their experiences being

Page 11 of 20

253 homeless. The meeting also started identifying questions and issues the Task Force would begin focusing on.

Before the first meeting, over 100 diverse stakeholders were contacted asking them to join the Task Force and to complete a survey to identify priorities for the Task Force. Out of that survey, several key issues emerged: Housing, Existing service needs and expanding services, Homeless Youth and Mental Health. Attendees of the August 15th meeting were asked to identify which subcommittees they wish to serve on. The second meeting of the Task Force was held in October 2013 and consisted of subcommittee meetings based on the priorities identified in the initial survey. Each subcommittee identified ideas/projects to work on.

Following the October 2013 meeting, the Homeless Youth Subcommittee met and not only visited Telegraph Avenue to talk to Transition Age Youth (TAY) congregating on the street, but they also visited service sites to get a sense of how is Berkeley doing in serving the homeless TAY population. Based on these site visits, the Youth Subcommittee worked on improvements to the Willard Shower Program and supporting the Suitcase Clinic’s request for city funding. The Housing Subcommittee also met regularly to work on the Berkeley Way development, identifying vacant houses and buildings for homeless housing, additional resources for the Housing Trust Fund, and Housing First.

In 2014, the Task Force moved towards a direction of hosting work sessions on specific issues around homelessness and using that as a spring board for discussion and recommendations. In February and April 2014, the Task Force focused on Housing First models and how Berkeley can fully move towards a Housing First approach. In September 2014, the Task Force reflected on its work to date and identified a process going forward to develop recommendations to the City Council.

Some of the accomplishments the Task Force acknowledged at that time included:  Successfully advocating for the Berkeley Way project (Bridge Housing and BFHP now selected for an RFQ, 1 year horizon on resolving the parking replacement issue).  Working on developing a Housing First policy.  Research and collaborative learning about Transitionally Aged Youth (TAY), tent villages, hostels, rainy day respite possibilities, residential co-ops, alternative funding sources for housing, how to network and streamline systems, and creating an available properties/housing inventory for Berkeley.  There’s been marked progress on improving the Willard Showers.  We have a great contact for residential co-ops: Rick Lewis, ED, Bay Area Community Land Trust. We’ve realized the need to draw more residents, merchants, service providers, churches, and the campus into our conversation.  We have the beginnings of a strong recommendation to Council.

From October 2014 to March 2015 the Task Force held focused workshops on important homeless issues: Mental Health services; the needs of the LGBT Youth Homeless population; Criminalization of the Homeless; Youth Homelessness.

From March to May 2015, the Task Force reviewed all of the issues each subcommittee identified, as well as ideas raised during each meeting and developed a comprehensive list of recommendations, which were refined and approved by consensus by the Task Force.

Goals and Priorities

Page 12 of 20

254 Over the past three decades, Berkeley has seen a continued growth in homelessness. While Berkeley’s targeted efforts to address chronic homelessness resulted in a 48% decrease in the 2009 Berkeley specific homeless count, the number of hidden homeless increased. While the results of the 2015 Berkeley specific count have not been released, rising housing costs and cost of living most likely has not resulted in a substantial decrease in chronic homelessness. Berkeley per capita has one of the largest chronic homeless populations in the entire county. While our community has provided great leadership funding an array of services and supporting regional efforts to address homelessness, there is clearly still more to do. The Task Force’s fundamental goal is ending homelessness in our city. We have the ability to leverage resources and the vision and dedication of our citizens to solve this crisis and to serve as a model for other cities.

Homeless is fundamentally a regional crisis, and our city’s efforts should focus on working with other communities in the Bay Area to develop regional strategies to address homelessness. Increased enforcement and rising housing costs result in a shifting of the homeless population from city to city. Countywide the Everyone Home program has led broader efforts to target federal dollars to promote rapid re-housing and address chronic homelessness, in support of the “Opening Doors” plan goal of ending chronic homelessness. But what happens in San Francisco and Contra Costa County also has an effect on the regional migration of homelessness. To that end the Task Force supports increased efforts to pursue regional coordination to address homelessness. A decade ago Berkeley led an ABAG level committee of elected officials from throughout the region to discuss regional solutions to homelessness.

However the City of Berkeley must also address the specific needs of our homeless population. The main need stated by homeless clients and agreed by nearly everyone throughout the Task Force process is HOUSING. Berkeley has a great safety net of services addressing the daily needs of the homeless, and providing emergency support, but in order to truly end homelessness we must provide permanent housing, and resources to prevent homelessness.

Our region and our community are facing a housing crisis. As regional pressures result in rising housing costs, Berkeley must significantly increase its supply of low-income housing, with particular emphasis on housing for extremely low income populations (30% AMI and less). Critical in success of this effort is increasing resources for affordable housing. The Task Force strongly supports any efforts to significantly expand the Housing Trust Fund as well as requirements to create mixed income housing. In addition we support efforts to preserve existing affordable housing from conversion or demolition.

As Berkeley is moving towards a coordinated access model with the implementation of the Housing Crisis Resolution Center (HCRC), we must increase our stock of transitional and permanent supportive housing. Berkeley has far few beds to house our existing homeless population. As the federal government and states and cities are moving towards a Housing First approach, the Task Force believes that the top priority for the City should be to adopt a Housing First goal, and work towards expanding the supply of housing and housing subsidies available to rapidly house homeless people, stabilize them, provide supportive services to help them escape the cycle of homelessness. We also believe that Berkeley should invest in new services to address identified service gaps, such as the needs of specific homeless populations (ex. Transition Age Youth). TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 13 of 20

255 In April and May of 2015, the Berkeley Homeless Task Force met to review, revise and adopt by consensus the following recommendations to the Berkeley City Council. These recommendations reflect close to three years of meetings (August 2013-May 2015) during which the Task Force held workshop discussions on a number of topics: existing homeless services, best practices other communities have used to address homelessness, and the needs of specific homeless populations in Berkeley (such as the McKinney Vento and Transition Age Youth populations). These recommendations reflect the input of several hundred Berkeley residents who have participated throughout this process including: homeless clients, service providers, city commissioners, business owners/representatives; UC Berkeley professors, students, clergy, youth, and homeless advocates.

These stakeholders brought their expertise and ideas to the table and many good ideas came forward in the Task Force’s discussions. In order to organize the many ideas, these recommendations have been divided into several sections to focus Council attention on short-term and long-term priorities, as well as additional ideas for Council and the City Manager consideration. Tier 1 recommendations are those the Task Force has identified as critical and which can be implemented immediately if the City were to dedicate funding and staffing to expand or establish these new services. Tier 2 recommendations are new concepts which require additional study and involve longer term implementation.

Recommendations Approved by Consensus by Task Force

Tier 1 Recommendations – for Immediate Implementation

Expand City Homeless Outreach Team

Expand the city’s Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) from the current staffing level of one FTE from the Mental Health Division. Allocate additional General Fund revenues and explore other funding (Federal, State, County, grants) to increase FTE on the Homeless Outreach Team, either in the form of additional full-time staff, or hourly staff. Also explore partnerships with UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare or Psychology Department to establish internships for coursework for interns to work alongside permanent HOT staff. Consider specialized HOT teams for Telegraph Avenue and Downtown and provide additional outreach to the Transition Age Youth (TAY) population. The HOT team should not just focus on mental health outreach, but rather broad homeless outreach, including referrals to housing and services. (Information the City’s HOT and on outreach in other cities can be found on pages 10 and 18-19 of this report: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2013/04Apr/Documents/2013-04- 02_Worksession_Item_01_Compassionate_Sidewalks.aspx)

Expand Mobile Crisis Team

Dedicate additional General Fund revenues, or additional County or Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) resources to expand staffing for the city’s Mobile Crisis Unit, beyond the .5 FTE proposed in the FY 2016-2017 budget, to increase hours and days of coverage. (A recent Berkeleyside article stated that mental health calls make up the largest number of calls for Police services. Limited numbers of Mobile Crisis staff put an increased burden on Police to interact, de-escalate and direct individuals suffering from a mental health crisis into appropriate treatment2.)

2 http://www.berkeleyside.com/2015/04/16/mental-health-calls-are-1-drain-on-berkeley-police-resources/

Page 14 of 20

256 Fund Increased CIT Training

Allocate additional resources to expand the number of Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) classes to increase the number of CIT-trained officers on patrol. Explore requiring CIT trained patrol officers to dress in plainclothes rather than in uniform. (CIT Coordinator Jeff Shannon recently told the Mental Health Commission that the limited number of classes has prevented the Police Department from increasing the number of CIT trained officers on patrol)

Public Restrooms

Establish a plan to expand the number of public restrooms available in Berkeley’s commercial districts and public spaces. Study approaches other cities have employed, including self-cleaning restrooms, attended restrooms, and the Portland Loo3 (www.portlandloo.com) being used in Portland and soon Emeryville4. Consider establishing incentives to business owners to allow public access to restrooms. Establish a policy of integrating in new city government buildings public restrooms and allocate necessary funding to construct additional public restrooms in parks and in commercial districts. Expand the hours of current public restrooms in Berkeley.

Request that BART re-opens its restrooms in its Berkeley stations, and urge UC Berkeley to make their restrooms on-campus available for use by the general public. Request that the Downtown Berkeley Association provide a dedicated public restroom or funding for additional public restrooms Downtown.

In addition, consider the inclusion of public restrooms in new high-rise Downtown developments as a “significant community benefit” or funding for constructing public restrooms in the Downtown area. Explore requiring as part of a vacancy tax, or through agreements with owners of vacant commercial spaces, to allow public use of restrooms in vacant spaces.

Storage Space for Homeless

Establish additional secure storage space, including refrigerated lockers, in existing service sites or in public facilities, for homeless people to store their belongings. (Information on previous City locker program: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/citycouncil/2004citycouncil/packet/032304/2004-03- 23%20Item%2009.pdf)

Warming Centers

Establish additional Warming/ Rain-Day Respite Centers during the winter months, in addition to the storm shelters funded by the City, to provide spaces for people to get off the streets and into a safe and comfortable environment, with particular emphasis on the Telegraph and Downtown areas. Warming Centers are an enclosed physical space so that people can get out of the rain and other natural elements. Explore working with service providers, including Night on the Streets Catholic Worker, to establish Warming Centers at existing service sites, and partnering with the faith-based community to provide space for Warming Centers at churches. Look into integrating Warming Centers in either the Telegraph-

3 http://www.citylab.com/design/2012/01/why-portlands-public-toilets-succeeded-where-others-failed/1020/

4 https://emeryville.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2252371&GUID=D09E7F37-E23C-4F60-8175- 4D33E597813F

Page 15 of 20

257 Channing Parking Garage or the new Center Street Garage, the entrance of the Veterans Memorial Building (1931 Center St.) or in other public facilities, such as senior centers and public libraries. Explore tying Warming Centers to the city’s Resiliency initiatives, funded through the Rockefeller Foundation grant.

Tier 2 Recommendations – Require Further Study/Longer Term Implementation

Rehabilitation/Renting Vacant Homes/Multi-Family Buildings for Homeless Housing

Develop an inventory of vacant single-family homes and multi-family properties or properties at risk of conversion to market-rate housing, and engage in discussions with property owners regarding non-profit developers acquiring those properties, as well as single room occupancy hotels, to be rehabilitated for transitional and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. Explore the city leasing existing multifamily properties to provide housing for the homeless.

Short-Term Shelter/Navigation Center

Explore establishing a short-term shelter such as the Navigation Center which recently opened in San Francisco, which would provide short-term housing for individuals who have had difficulty accessing or staying in shelters because of possessions, pets or prior negative experiences. A Navigation Center would provide short-term housing (a week or more) for people to stabilize, rest, and engage in intensive case management to connect people to housing and services. A Navigation Center would allow groups of individuals to remain living together as a community, rather than be separated by limited access to shelter beds. Explore whether HUD funding is available to help establish a Navigation Center in Berkeley.

Alternative Housing Options

Explore alternative housing options that are more affordable to provide short-term or long-term housing to get people off the street such as: tiny houses, micro units, Accessory Dwelling Units, boats or sleeping in vehicles. Explore converting commercial or industrial property into housing for the homeless. Look at amending City laws prohibiting individuals from sleeping in vehicles overnight, and eliminate penalties for sleeping in vehicles. In addition, explore designating public spaces where homeless people can camp overnight.

Additional Recommendations for Council Consideration a. Direct the City Manager and Chief of Police to provide expanded Police training on interacting with homeless persons and how to direct individuals to housing and services, including coordination with service providers. Limit the activities of Block by Block Ambassadors to beautification and cleaning, rather than direct interaction and outreach to the street population. Instead DBA should provide funding to the City to expand the city Homeless Outreach Team and Mobile Crisis Unit. If Block by Block Ambassadors are to continue to interact and conduct outreach with the street population, then they must engage in expanded training on crisis intervention, de-escalation, and how to interact with the homeless and connect them to services. (One such training could be the recently established Mental Health First Aid course)

Page 16 of 20

258 b. Increase funding for the city’s emergency rental assistance program, to increase the number of Berkeley residents served and to prevent eviction and homelessness. c. Expand direct, case specific outreach services to homeless TAY youth, either through expanding the HOT team or through contracting with a non-profit organization. d. Increase funding to employ more case workers to maximize federal housing dollars coming to Berkeley and to expand the number of Shelter Plus Care eligible individuals. e. Amend the city’s Housing Trust Fund Guidelines to add among the existing established priorities funding for permanent supportive housing and housing for Transition Age Youth. In addition, when establishing priorities for each Housing Trust Fund Request for Proposals, the city should also give preference to projects that provide transitional or permanent supportive housing for the chronic homeless, with particular emphasis on the Transition Age Youth population. f. Increase General Fund allocations to existing homeless service providers to reverse years of funding cuts. g. Establish a policy of ensuring 24-hour access to shelters and increasing access to services that offer alternatives to living on streets and in other public spaces. Ensure better access to services through outreach, program design and through available resources to address the basic needs of homeless persons, and to transition individuals from living on streets and in public spaces. Affirm the right of everyone, homeless or not, to have access and use sidewalks and public spaces.

h. Create an independent complaint and review system for the Block by Block Ambassador Program. The City should require as part of its contract with the Downtown Berkeley Association that they establish a formal complaint process including a standardized form for complaints, and that all complaints be forwarded to the city’s contract monitor who will review and ensure resolution of the complaint. i. Establish a city staff position in Health, Housing and Community Services Department of a homeless services ombudsperson, to take and review complaints from homeless clients related to their denial of services and placement in shelter/housing. In addition, the ombudsman would represent the person making the complaint to the social service agency that is the subject of the complaint. j. Work with the Berkeley merchants to expand acceptance by Berkeley restaurants of EBT cards.

Task Force Recommendations/Statements on Criminalization of the Homeless

a. The Task Force is opposed to any further criminalization of the homeless, including the proposals put forward by Councilmember Maio at the March 17, 2015 City Council meeting. The Task Force recognizes that criminalization does not end homelessness. In fact criminalization impedes

Page 17 of 20

259 efforts at ending homelessness including in the employment, qualifying for housing and benefits eligibility areas.

b. The City should establish a tracking system for infractions being levied against homeless people, including smoking and other quality-of-life violations. Currently, BPD is collecting data on all pedestrian and vehicle stops. Information regarding police stops and citations of the homeless and people sleeping and occupying public sidewalks and spaces should be collected and submitted in an annual report to the PRC, Homeless Commission and City Council.

c. Until we have the resources to house and serve the needs of our homeless it is critical that we stop the continued harassment and criminalization of street homeless people. No new laws or ordinances should be introduced and the laws which currently exist should be reviewed carefully, including those which cite or arrest people for behaviors related to their living situation. We want all people in Berkeley to have a right to use public sidewalks and spaces.

d. Criminalization is counterproductive and pushes homeless people to different parts of our city or to different communities, and does not solve the problem of homelessness. We should not shuffle homeless people throughout the region, but rather work to provide adequate housing and supportive services to end the cycle of homelessness.

e. Create opportunities to increase communication between merchants and the homeless, including providing Mental Health First Aid training, and specific training on how to interact and refer homeless people to services.

Possible Funding Sources for Recommendations:

a. Establish a vacancy tax on vacant ground floor commercial space (requires voter approval) b. Adopt an increase in the business license tax on rental property with funds dedicated to the Housing Trust Fund and homeless services. (requires voter approval) c. Allocate as part of the biennial budget process revenue from Downtown tax assessments towards homeless services. d. Expand the hours of enforcement for parking meters in the Downtown and Telegraph areas to 8 pm on Monday through Saturday, with a portion of that revenue dedicated to homeless services. e. Include in the requirement for “significant community benefits” from Downtown projects above 75 feet, that developers provide funding for affordable housing for the homeless and extremely low-income populations, as well as public restrooms.

FY 2016-2017 Budget Recommendations

The Homeless Task Force has reviewed the City Manager’s proposed allocations to community agencies for FY 2016-2017. We are concerned about proposed cuts, as well as the lack of funding at all, for a number of programs that provide important services to our homeless population. We strongly urge the City Council to identify funding to restore these cuts. These services either provide an important safety net currently for the homeless, or are new programs that would address identified gaps in services (such as the needs of the TAY population).

Page 18 of 20

260 The Task Force appreciates the Council’s budget referral of extending the YEAH Shelter beyond the winter months and urges the Council to identify funding to establish a year round shelter/drop-in center for the TAY homeless population. However, we feel that first and foremost we should restore the cuts to existing homeless services, which are identified below.

As we are transitioning out of the recession and more revenue becomes available to the city, we should not only invest those resources in physical infrastructure but in human infrastructure, and maintain and possibly expand the important continuum of services Berkeley provides to the homeless. The Berkeley City Council has historically been a leader in funding homeless services, and maintaining the safety net even in difficult economic times. During an improved economic climate we should not be reducing critical homeless services.

Existing services:

Berkeley Drop-In Center Case Management - $35,000 Dorothy Day Trinity Church Breakfast Program - $8,894 Youth Spirit Artworks: Vocational Arts Training - $33,777 BUSD Homeless Student Program - $50,000

New programs which should be funded:

Youth Spirit Artworks/YEAH Housing Subsidies proposal - $125,000 Youth Spirit Artworks TAY Youth Drop In Center/Daytime Job Training Program – $50,000 Suitcase Clinic – $15,000 Extending YEAH Shelter beyond winter months - $300,000 (estimated)

Next Steps

The Homeless Task Force strongly urges the Berkeley City Council to: Direct the City Manager to develop a plan detailing the costs and feasibility of implementing the Tier 1 Task Force Recommendations. The review should involve the Homeless Commission and a report should return to Council no later than six months. In addition, city staff should explore the possible funding sources recommended (page 17) as well as any available County, state and federal sources to implement the Task Force’s recommendations. The City Manager, Homeless Commission and Housing Advisory Commission should also begin to explore the feasibility of implementing the Tier 2 Recommendations.

Some of the recommendations put forward by the Task Force can be adopted in the Fiscal Year 2016- 2017 Biennial Budget, if additional funds are identified. The Task Force urges the Council to fully fund the existing homeless services slated to be cut and new programs identified on page 18.

The Task Force will continue to meet to study additional issues (needs of homeless seniors, LGBT homeless youth) and to monitor the implementation of the Task Force’s recommendations. We offer our expertise and commitment to the City in evaluating and implementing these proposals.

Page 19 of 20

261 Acknowledgements

The Homeless Task Force wishes to acknowledge and thank its co-conveners, Genevieve Wilson and David Stegman, for their leadership and work in guiding the Task Force process.

In addition we would like to thank the office of Berkeley City Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, most specifically Anthony Sanchez, Stefan Elgstrand, Audrey Gutierrez (former) and Rian Johnson (former) for all their work in organizing Task Force meetings and providing ongoing support to the Task Force.

The Task Force wishes to thank Kristin Lee from the City of Berkeley Health, Housing and Community Services; Elaine DeColigny from Alameda County Everyone Home; and Katherine Gale from the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness for participating in Task Force meetings and in providing important information on homeless policy and services on a federal, county and local level.

We wish to thank the Subcommittee Chairs:

Homeless Youth: Steve Martinot, Elliot Halpern, David Stegman

Housing: Genevieve Wilson and Igor Tregub

Most importantly we wish to thank the many dedicated people who have participated throughout the Task Force process and who have made important contributions towards identifying real needs for our homeless population and developing innovative ideas to help address homelessness in Berkeley.

Page 20 of 20

262 263

Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected]

ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 12, 2016)

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: City Manager Referral: Create a Pathway for City Employees to Earn a Living Wage Within Two Years

RECOMMENDATION Refer to the City Manager to create a pathway for City full-time and part-time employees to earn a living wage within two years.

BACKGROUND According to the City of Berkeley Living Wage Ordinance, a living wage pays $14.04 an hour with $2.33 for medical benefits, for a total of $16.37. There are dozens of people employed by the City of Berkeley that do not earn $16.37. It is imperative that the City lead in the effort of paying every person employed by the City a living wage.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: City Manager report will inform us.

ENVIROMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Consistent with Berkeley’s Environmental Sustainability Goals and no negative impact.

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

264

Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected]

ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 12, 2016) To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington, Councilmember Max Anderson and Councilmember Jesse Arreguin

Subject: Refer to the Rent Stabilization Board to Consider Creating an Ordinance Preventing Evictions for Minor Offenses

RECOMMENDATION Refer to the Housing Advisory Commission, and the Rent Stabilization Board to consider creating an ordinance preventing evictions for minor offenses.

BACKGROUND Since San Francisco has adopted this ordinance for eviction prevention, we propose the Housing Advisory Commission and the Rent Stabilization Board consider and evaluate which of these are appropriate and needed to protect tenants in Berkeley.

On the 22nd of September 2015, the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to approve the first reading for an ordinance amending the Administrative Code to prohibit evictions for minor offenses and allowing tenants to add roommates and extending rent control on vacated units in some cases.

Ordinance amends the Administrative Code to: 1) Prohibit, with certain exceptions, rent increases based on the addition of occupants even where a pre-existing rental agreement or lease permits such an increase; 2) Prevent evictions based on the addition of occupants if the landlord has unreasonably refused the tenant’s written request, including a refusal based on the amount of occupants allowed by the rental agreement or lease; 3) Require landlords, after certain vacancies, to set the new base rent, for the next five years, as the lawful rent in effect at the time of the vacancy; 4) Require that there be a substantial violation of a lawful obligation or covenant of tenancy as a basis for the recovery of possession; 5) Require a landlord, prior to seeking recovery of possession, to provide tenants an opportunity to cure the unauthorized addition of the tenant’s family members to the tenant’s unit;

265 6) Require that if a landlord seeks to recover possession based on a nuisance, substantial damage, or substantial interference with comfort, safety or enjoyment, the nuisance, substantial damage, or substantial interference be severe, continuing or recurring in nature; 7) Prevent a landlord from seeking recovery of possession solely because the tenant is occupying a unit not authorized for residency; 8) Require landlords to state in notices to vacate for certain good cause evictions the lawful rent for the unit at the time the notice is served; 9) Require the Rent Board to prepare a form in English, Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Tagalog stating that a notice to vacate may lead to a lawsuit to evict and stating that advice regarding notices to vacate is available from the Rent Board; 10) Require landlords to attach a copy of the Rent Board form in the primary language of the tenant to each notice to vacate; and 11) Require landlords to plead and prove in any action to recover possession that at least one of the grounds of Administrative Code, Section 37.9(a)-(b) stated in the notice to vacate is the dominant motive for recovering possession.

According to Supervisor Jane Kim “This package of reasonable amendments provides protections for our most vulnerable tenants during this speculative housing market”.

Berkeley has some of these protections, but not all. By considering adding similar amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code, we may be able to provide additional protection to Berkeley tenants.

For additional information: http://tinyurl.com/PreventEvictionsMO

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Consistent with Berkeley’s Environmental Sustainability Goals and no negative impact.

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

266

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Prioritizing the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Action Plan

RECOMMENDATION 1. Prioritize the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Action Plan to improve housing affordability in Berkeley through local funding and policy reform; and

2. Refer 7, 8, 9 to the Rent Board Stabilization Board and all other items to the Housing Advisory Commission.

BACKGROUND The City of Berkeley is experiencing tremendous economic growth and interest from investors in developing housing. However, the lack of affordable housing is the number one complaint of our constituents.

Berkeley is in dire need of an immediate comprehensive Affordable Housing Action Plan and policy reform if we wish to make Berkeley affordable to a variety of different communities. This is only possible if effective policy is implemented that allows all people, regardless of their income levels to live in the City. Currently, there are possible programs and policies suggested by affordable housing providers, senior citizens, students and advocates that the City of Berkeley can adopt. The City needs to immediately take action on short-term possibilities, take meaningful steps on mid-term opportunities, and work toward long-term solutions. Below outlines an effective design to prioritizing an action plan to help Berkeley become more affordable.

Short Term Actions

1. Rapidly regulating short term rentals and limit the removal of rental housing units. The City should pass a policy regulation by January 2017. 2. Placing $1,000,000 into Berkeley Housing Trust Fund. The City General Fund has plenty of reserve money to loan the Housing Trust Fund this money, especially since the City recently received $1.4 million in Housing Mitigation fees for a housing project on Durant.

267 3. Waive Housing Trust Fund guidelines to allow non-profit housing developers to apply of predevelopment loans of $150,000 to $250,000. This allows our non-profits to be competitive in the upcoming regional, state and federal funding cycles. 4. Updating Affordable Housing Mitigation fee, based on new nexus study. 5. Allowing more Accessory Dwelling Units. 6. Increasing housing on Telegraph between Dwight and Bancroft by increasing height as in nearby R-SMU Telegraph. 7. Tenant Protection/Eviction Protection (http://tinyurl.com/PreventEvictionsMO) 8. Protect Rent Board & staff from attacks. 9. Increase Tenant Relocation Fees for victim tenants displaced by Ellis Act, Owner Move-Ins, and property damaged by fires. 10. De-linking Housing/Parking ONLY IF funds transfer to affordable housing/transit 11. Reduce red tape for projects with all affordable units (http://tinyurl.com/ReduceRedTape). 12. Inclusionary Units at 10%, 20%, and 30% AMI for residents ineligible for 50% and 80% AMI units.

Mid-Term Actions

13. Matching incoming National Housing Trust Fund when received. 14. Ballot measure to increase tax on windfall high rent profits by placing on the November 2016 ballot. 15. Berkeley Inn site-pressure owner to build/ remove trash, rats, noise problems, and construct added Affordable Housing as required in legal settlement. 16. City density bonus if it adds additional affordable units. 17. Expand Cooperative Housing by increasing grants to expand communal housing opportunities for Northern California Land Trust scattered sites and Bay Area Community Land Trust. 18. Fund predevelopment funds to Disabled Housing including Grayson St Apts. 23 units (including 14 special needs and 3 HIV/AIDS). 19. Vacancy reduction: Community organizing to pressure landlords to rent blighted empty residential buildings. Explore (stronger responses) issuances of citations as public nuisances. 20. Reduce displacement and demolition impacts of luxury housing. 21. Work with state legislators to restrict threats and use of the Ellis Act and flipping of properties. 22. Facilitate 80/20 financing on projects when 50% of the units are affordable to the average median income.

Long-term Actions

23. Homeless Housing including Berkeley Way lot. 24. Student Housing- organize student/environmental coalition to pressure U.C. and working with Berkeley Student Cooperative for affordable housing.

268 25. Senior Housing including new construction, rehabilitation and extending existing senior housing to longer term contracts. 26. Restructure City Departments- housing is lost under Health 27. Workforce housing, when not taken away from extremely-low and very-low income resources.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Unknown.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Consistent with Berkeley’s Environmental Sustainability Goals and no negative impact.

CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

269

270 Kriss Worthington Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 PHONE 510-981-7170 FAX 510-981-7177 [email protected]

ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 (Continued from January 19, 2016)

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Housing Trust Fund Loan for 1,000,000

RECOMMENDATION: Loan $1,000,000 to the Housing Trust Fund.

BACKGROUND: There have been numerous media reports that rental prices are highest in history. Recent statistics indicate that Berkeley has become increasingly less affordable. According to the Rent Stabilization Board, an average rent controlled one bedroom rents for $1,400 a month. However, according to Zillow an online housing resource, the median rent for a two bed room home or apartment that is non rent controlled is $3,526.

Affordable housing is one of the primary needs of Berkeley residents. In the past, the Berkeley City Council invested in the development of affordable housing. In various years, the City Council invested $300,000, $500,000 and $1 million in to the Housing trust and referred 1 million to the 2015-2016 budget earlier this year.

Today, we continue to have an affordable housing crisis. Therefore, the City must make significant and sustained efforts to develop and maintain affordable rental units.

The Housing Trust Fund is a major resource for stimulating the development of affordable housing. By providing a loan, early capital needed can jumpstart the process of building more affordable housing.

Thus, in order for the City Council to maximize our efforts to build and preserve affordable housing, the Council must allocate money to the Housing Trust Fund. It is imperative that the City Council renew its commitment to affordable housing and help combat the crisis which exists.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: $1,000,000 loan.

ENVIROMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Creating affordable housing reduces dependence on fossil fuels.

271 CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

272

Parks and Waterfront Commission ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Parks and Waterfront Commission

Submitted by: Susan McKay, Chair

Subject: Designate Surplus Transfer Tax Funds for Parks Capital Projects for Budget Years 2017-2019

RECOMMENDATION Designate surplus Transfer Tax funds for previous, current, and upcoming years to fund parks capital improvement projects for budget years 2017 – 2019 at the rate of $2M per year using the following project list:  Grove Park ballfield phase 2;  James Kenney Park basketball and tennis courts;  Ohlone Park basketball court and picnic area;

 Rose Garden improvements (trellis phaseDRAFT 2, tennis courts, pathways);  San Pablo Park tennis courts;  Skate Park improvements;  Strawberry Creek Park courts phase 2;  Willard basketball courts/play structure/ picnic area.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS At a regular meeting on December 9, 2015, the Parks and Waterfront Commission took action to recommend to the City Council that surplus Transfer Tax funds for previous, current, and upcoming years, be designated to fund parks capital improvement projects for budget years 2017 – 2019 at the rate of $2M per year using the following project list:  Grove Park ballfield phase 2;  James Kenney Park basketball and tennis courts;  Ohlone Park basketball court and picnic area;  Rose Garden improvements (trellis phase 2, tennis courts, pathways);  San Pablo Park tennis courts;  Skate Park improvements;  Strawberry Creek Park courts phase 2;  Willard basketball courts/play structure/ picnic area.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/manager 273

(M/S/C : McKay/Kamen); Ayes: Ares; Brostrom; Catalfo; Harrison; Kamen; McGrath; McKay; Weinstein; Nayes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: None.

CITY MANAGER See City Manager companion report.

CONTACT PERSON Roger Miller, Secretary, Parks and Waterfront Commission, 981-6737

274

Jesse Arreguín City Councilmember, District 4 ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Jesse Arreguín

Subject: Allocating Additional Property Transfer Tax Revenue to the Housing Trust Fund

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution modifying Council Budget Development Policies to allocate 25% of Funds from the Property Transfer Tax above $10.5 million to the Housing Trust Fund. The remaining 75% of funding in excess of $10.5 million will be allocated to the Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 610)

BACKGROUND The cost of purchasing a single-family home in Berkeley has increased significantly over the past ten years. Currently the median price for a new home is over $1 million. A new home selling for the median price of $1 million generates $15,000 in transfer tax revenue for the city.. This has resulted in a roughly 67% increase in Property Transfer Tax revenue to the General Fund. Over the past five years, revenues from this fund have increased from $9,111,630 (FY2011) to $15,178,243 (FY2015).

In 2006, Council first adopted a Budget Development Policy that allocates any excess transfer tax revenue above $10.5 million to the General Fund as one-time revenue available for one-time capital improvement expenditures (fund 610). While revenue from the Transfer Tax is inconsistent, staff analysis of historical revenues place $10.5 million as the reoccurring level. Transfer Tax revenue dipped to $8 million in FY2010 as a result of the Great Recession, but has been on the rise ever since.

At the December 1, 2015 Council Worksession, City Staff provided updates on the balance of the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) and requests for funding. According to the report, as of November 5, 2015, there is $2,567,578 available funds in the HTF1. The report also lists affordable housing developments which are in the pipeline and the total funds needed to move these projects forward. It is estimated the total amount of HTF

1 As of 11/5/15, the total balance in the HTF is $3,067,578, but staff is working on a proposal to give $500,000 to the Northern California Land Trust, leaving an available balance of $2,567,578. The City Council is also considering several proposals which may change the amount of funds in the HTF by the time this report goes to Council. A copy of the report can be downloaded here: http://cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2015/12_Dec/Documents/2015-12- 01_WS_Item_03_Below_Market_Rate_Housing.aspx

Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Building ● 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 Fax: (510) 981-7144 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● E-Mail: [email protected] ● Web: www.jessearreguin.com 275 Allocating Additional Property Transfer Tax Revenue to the Housing Trust Fund ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016 needed to complete these projects would be between $16.8 million to $36.8 million by 2018, or 6.5 to 14.3 times the total amount currently available.

Since adoption of the Budget Policy allocating funds in excess of $10.5 million to capital needs, new sources of revenue have become available for infrastructure needs. For example, Measure M (2012), Measure F (2014) and Measure BB (2014) among many other state, regional, and local measures provide recurring funding for transportation, green infrastructure, parks, and other infrastructure projects. During the same time period, funding for affordable housing projects, especially at the state and federal levels, has decreased significantly. Historically, the main source of funding for the Housing Trust Fund was the HOME Investment and Partnership Program, providing on average $1.3 million a year to the HTF between FY2000-FY2012. This has since been reduced to $560,000, and it is unclear if the program will even continue in future years.

Adoption of this recommendation to allocate 25% of Property Transfer Tax revenue above $10.5 million to the HTF would provide the recurring revenue for affordable housing needed to address the crisis that we are facing. For example, under this new policy taking FY 2015 revenues would have resulted in $1,169,561 to the HTF.

The City Council has previously voted to earmark Transfer Tax revenue for affordable housing. In 1991, in an effort to supplement limited resources for affordable housing, the Council passed an increase in the transfer tax from 1% to 1.5% with the intention of using the additional 0.5% in revenue as a dependable local revenue stream for the Housing Trust Fund and community development activities.

Berkeley is facing an affordability crisis, which is making it difficult for low-income and middle-income residents to afford to live in our city. There is a critical need for more resources for affordable housing. With a number of large multi-family properties to be sold in recent months and a hot residential real estate market, now is the time to dedicate revenue from the Transfer Tax to address one of Berkeley’s most critical challenges - the lack of affordable housing.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This proposal will not change the rate of the Transfer Tax, currently at 1.5%, and therefore will have no net financial change. This proposal will change the way the monies received from the tax are spent, and will increase funds provided to the Housing Trust Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY No adverse effects to the environment.

CONTACT PERSON Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4 510-981-7140

Attachments: 1: Resolution 2: December 1, 2015 Worksession Report on the Housing Trust Fund

Page 2 276

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

MODIFYING COUNCIL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT POLICIES TO REQUIRE THE ALLOCATION OF 25% OF PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX FUNDS ABOVE $10.5 MILLION TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND

WHEREAS, Berkeley is facing a housing affordability crisis, which has made it difficult for low-income and middle-income residents to live in our community; and

WHEREAS, current available funds in the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) are $2,567,578; and

WHEREAS, the amount of funding needed from the HTF for new affordable housing projects over the next three years range from $16.8 million to $36.8 million; and

WHEREAS, the cost of property in Berkeley has risen substantially over the last few years, with a number of large multi-unit properties announced for sale; and

WHEREAS, this has resulted in increased revenue from the Property Transfer Tax, increasing from $9,111,630 to $15,178,243 over the past five years, an increase of over 67%; and

WHEREAS, the City Council’s adopted budget development policies include the following policy, “Transfer Tax in excess of $10.5 million will be treated as one-time revenue to be used for the City’s capital infrastructure needs (fund 610)”; and

WHEREAS, this policy by Council starting with the FY 2006 budget was adopted to address the critical shortage of funding for capital improvement needs; and

WHEREAS, since the adoption of this policy, Council has allocated excess revenue above $10.5 million from the Property Transfer Tax to the Capital Improvement Fund; and

WHEREAS, funding for capital improvements has increased over the past ten years as a result of new bonds, grants, and increased rates from local, regional, and statewide sources; and

WHEREAS, funding for affordable housing projects has decreased over the same time period, especially from federal programs such as the HOME Investment and Partnership Program, which historically provided $1.3 million in funding to the HTF, but now only provides $560,000 with the program at risk of being eliminated; and

WHEREAS, additional funding to the HTF is crucial to achieving the goals of the 2015- 2023 Berkeley Housing Element for providing housing for low, very low, and extremely low income households.

277

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that its adopted Budget Development Policies are hereby modified as follows:

 Focusing on the long-term fiscal health of the City by adopting a two-year budget and conducting multi-year planning;

 Building a prudent reserve;

 Developing long-term strategies to reduce unfunded liabilities;

 Controlling labor costs while minimizing layoffs;

 Allocating one-time revenue for one-time expenses;

 Requiring enterprise and grant funds to balance and new programs to pay for themselves; and

 Any new expenditure requires revenue or expenditure reductions.

 Allocate 25% of funds from the Transfer Tax in excess of $10.5 million to the Housing Trust Fund. The remaining 75% of funds in excess of $10.5 million from the Transfer Tax will be treated as one-time revenue to be used for the City’s capital infrastructure needs (fund 610).

 As the General Fund subsidy to the Safety Members Pension Fund declines over the next several years, the amount of the annual decrease will be used to help fund the new Police Employee Retiree Health Plan (fund 903).

278 Attachment 2 03 Worksession Item

Office of the City Manager WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Dee Williams-Ridley, Interim City Manager Submitted by: Kelly Wallace, Acting Director, Health, Housing & Community Services Subject: Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status

INTRODUCTION This report provides background information for some of the topics to be discussed at the December 1, 2015 worksession on housing, and to answer specific questions that have been asked of Housing & Community Services Division staff.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS Items to be discussed at the December 1, 2015 worksession include: Housing Trust Fund Loan for $1,000,000; Match All National Housing Trust Fund Grants Awarded to Recipient Projects in Berkeley Housing Advisory Commission referral: Revise or Waive Housing Trust Fund Guidelines on Predevelopment Funds to Facilitate More Viable Applications to Upcoming Funding Cycles Creating a Comprehensive Affordable Housing Action Plan by Considering 27 Housing Proposals and Referring to the Housing Advisory Commission and Rent Stabilization Board.

BACKGROUND This report provides an update on the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund programs to inform the Council’s housing policy discussion on December 1, 2015. What information do we have about the housing market?

The most recent data about the housing market that staff have appears in the Nexus Study. According to the Nexus Study, the average market-rate rent ranges from $1,105 for a studio to $2,914 for a 4-bedroom apartment. It states: “The data presented above indicate that market-rate rental units are generally not affordable to households earning the median income for Alameda County. For many households that earn less than the median income, market-rate rents are substantially higher than the affordable rental amount. The previous (2010) Nexus Study for the Berkeley’s Housing Impact Fee found that households earning more than 65 percent of AMI were generally able to afford

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager 279 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

market-rate rental units, indicating that market-rate units were substantially more affordable at the time when the 2010 Nexus Study was conducted.”

With regard to multifamily homeownership (condos), the Nexus Study stated “…as of July 2014, the median home sale price in Berkeley was $785,000, an increase of 21 percent over the July 2013 median.” That price exceeded the pre-recession peak, when the median home sale price was $713,000. “Only 12 percent of condominiums recently sold in Berkeley were affordable to households earning 100 percent of AMI, and only five percent were affordable to households earning 80 percent of AMI.”

The entire Nexus Study is available online at: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/recordsonline/export/16856136.pdf

The Planning Department is currently working with a consultant to prepare an update to the Nexus Study examining the issue of the replacement of historically affordable units. What are the City’s BMR rental requirements and how many units have been created?

In 2010, as a result of the Palmer court decision, the City replaced its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements for rental housing with the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance only included an in-lieu fee option for ownership units, not for rental. Developments were subject to whichever requirement was in place at the time they obtained a Use Permit. Together these requirements are referred to as the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) program.

The Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (AHMF) requires new market rate developments to provide affordable housing units equal in number to 10% of the market rate units, or to pay a fee of $28,000 per market rate unit, or provide a combination of units and fee. In February 2013, Council adopted a resolution that discounted the fee to $20,000 for projects which were already in the development process. This discount is still in place, pending completion of the new Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Nexus Study. As long as the Use Permit addresses both options, developers have until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued to decide which to provide. In most cases, developers choosing to provide units on site in lieu of paying the fee also receive credit under the state Density Bonus law, allowing them to increase the number of market rate units produced.

As of October 30, 2015, a total of 334 BMR rental units have been created in 27 developments, 330 under the previous Inclusionary Housing Ordinance when paying an in-lieu fee was not an option for rental properties, and four since the adoption of the AHMF. An inventory of developments appears in Attachment 1: Below Market Rate Rental Inventory.

Although program requirements have changed over time, all of the homes created through market rate developments regulated by the City’s BMR requirements are for households earning 81% of area median income or less. Federal programs treat 80% of area median income and below as “low income.” To date, the City has not required

Page 2 280 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

developers to provide “workforce” or “moderate income” housing, meaning definitions above 80% of area median.

How many units have been created and fees paid under the AHMF so far?

As of this writing, one development permitted under the AHMF has been completed: the Aquatic at 800 University Avenue. That project provided four BMR units and a fee of $280,000. The Varsity at 2024 Durant / 2025 Channing has paid a fee of $1.58 million and will soon be issued its final Certificate of Occupancy.

One other project permitted under the AHMF is in construction. 1935 Addison will owe $1.38 million.

The following table shows developments subject to the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee currently in some stage of working with the Department of Health, Housing & Community Services on a new or revised Regulatory Agreement. This is not a comprehensive listing of all developments with a Use Permit including BMR requirements.

Developments Subject to the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Requirement, Currently Working with HHCS on a Regulatory Agreement Density BMR Address Fee Bonus? Units Dwight 2107/2121 Yes 9 $0 Tenth 1920 No 0 or 1 $20,000 or $240,000 University 1698 Yes 4 $60,000 University 1808-14 / Overture No 4 $0 University Ave. 1974 / Stonefire Yes 8 $200,000 Total 25 - 26 $280,000 - $500,000

The table below shows other projects HHCS staff are currently working with which received Use Permits under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

BMR Address Plus Fractional Fee? Units Fidelity Building (2319 Shattuck Ave) 3 Yes. TBD, for 0.2 unit Parker Place (2598-2600 Shattuck Ave.) 31 No. Stranda (2489 MLK Jr. Way) 3 Yes. TBD, for 0.4 unit TOTAL 37

The AHMF assessed on commercial developments is expected to result in the following funds in FY2016:

Page 3 281 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

Address Fee 740 Heinz $180,672 Spengers (4th/5th Hearst) $51,957 TOTAL $232,629

How much money for the Housing Trust Fund has the City received through fee programs?

Fee Program and Fund Code First Year Total Received Inclusionary Housing Fund (254) FY 2006 $867,400 Condo Conversion Fund (258) FY 2009 $1,614,305 Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee FY 2011 $1,860,000 Housing Mitigation Fee on FY 1992 $3,269,611 Commercial Development (250) Total $7,611,316 ** These figures reflect total cumulative revenues to date from each fee source and DO NOT reflect amount available for future projects.

What incomes and rents are allowed for BMR rental units?

The older Inclusionary Housing Ordinance included requirements for units affordable to households earning 50% and 80% of area median income, and the current AHMF requires all units to be at 50% of area median income. A few past developments were approved with slightly different terms, including units at 60% and 81% of area median, and are subject to the terms of those regulatory agreements.

The rent schedule established under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance established rent and income limits based on the square foot size of each unit, rather than number of people and bedrooms, as is customary under federal housing programs. The following table shows the income and rent limits for the most commonly required income levels, 50% and 80% of area median.

Please note, one of the main differences between units produced on-site in developments and those produced through funding from the HTF is that at least 60% of all units in an eligible HTF project must be affordable, and of those, 40% of the units must be affordable to households whose income does not exceed 60% of AMI, and 20% of all units must be affordable to households whose income does not exceed 30% of AMI.

Page 4 282 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

Inclusionary Housing Income and Rent Limits by Unit Area for the Most Commonly Required Income Levels 1,200 Minimum Square 1,000- and Footage <400 400-599 600-699 700-849 850-999 1,199 above Equivalent Unit Type Studio Studio Studio 1 BR 2BR 3BR 4BR Household Size 1 1.25 1.5 2 3 4 6 Income Limits @ Initial Certification* COB Income at 50% of AMI $32,550 $33,713 $34,875 $37,200 $41,850 $46,450 $53,900 COB Income at 80% of AMI $52,080 $53,940 $55,800 $59,520 $66,960 $74,320 $86,240 Gross Rents2 Inclusionary Gross Rent at 50% AMI $814 $843 $872 $930 $1,046 $1,161 $1,348 Inclusionary Gross Rent at 80% of AMI $1,302 $1,349 $1,395 $1,488 $1,674 $1,858 $2,156 Inclusionary Gross Rent at 120% of AMI $1,953 $2,023 $2,093 $2,232 $2,511 $2,787 $3,234 *These figures fluctuate with the latest AMI figures provided by HUD.

How does the City ensure that rental BMR units are rented to qualified tenants at allowable rents?

The City’s compliance program includes five main components: 1. Affordability requirements are included in the Use Permit, and developers are required to enter into a Regulatory Agreement which is secured on the property prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy; 2. Property managers are required to prepare a marketing plan including outreach to low income households and acceptable the City before leasing up the property; 3. Before a tenant can move into each BMR tenant, the property manager must submit complete tenant information, including third party evidence of income, such as pay stubs and bank statements, to the City to review, approve, and confirm the rent calculation; 4. The owner must recertify each household annually to confirm continue eligibility, and provide an annual report online showing compliance; and 5. Staff visit each property every three years to review the physical state of the property and documentation of program compliance.

Page 5 283 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

What is the available balance in the Housing Trust Fund?

The balance of funds in the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) as of this writing on November 5, 2015 is $3,067,578. As a result of the 2015 HTF funding process, staff are still working with the Northern California Land Trust on their proposal for up to $500,000 of this balance, leaving $2,567,578 available.

This total includes the $280,000 fee paid by the Aquatic under the AHMF, referenced above. It also includes funds which staff had previously recommended setting aside because HUD had indicated its interest in recapturing $265,579 in HOME funds and $271,588 in CDBG funds that the City expended on the Prince Hall Arms project in the late 1990s. HUD completed a monitoring visit to the City’s HOME program in June of this year with no findings. In September, the City received a letter saying that, because the Harper Crossing affordable housing development project on the former Prince Hall Arms site was moving forward, HUD would no longer move to recapture the HOME funds. Therefore the funds no longer need to be retained for that purpose.

Housing Trust Fund Available Balance 11/05/2015 Source of Funds Amount CDBG 26,340 Housing Mitigation Fee (Commercial) 228,525 Inclusionary In Lieu Fee 225,408 Condo Conversion Fee 727,305 Housing Mitigation Fee (Residential) 1,860,000 HTF Total $3,067,578 Note: At its June 23, 2015 meeting, Council directed staff to continue working with Northern California Land Trust (NCLT) on their request of $500,000 for their scattered site properties. Any resulting fund allocation would need to come from this balance.

All of the funding now available for allocation in the Housing Trust Fund came from fees, and has accrued over a period of time. Fee income is variable with the market and the timing difficult to predict precisely because it depends on individual development project timelines.

Historically, the most consistent source of funds in the HTF has been HOME funds. From FY 2000 through FY 2012, the City received an average of nearly $1.3M in HOME funds annually. The HOME allocation peaked in FY 2005 when the City received $1.5M. From FY 2012 to FY 2013, however, the allocation was cut by over one-half, largely in response to a series of articles in the Washington Post about misused funds and failed projects nationwide. The City’s FY2016 allocation of HOME funds is $562,305. Ninety percent of this allocation is placed in the HTF and ten percent is used

Page 6 284 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

for program delivery costs. Earlier this year, the Senate’s FY 2016 spending bill included a 93% reduction in HOME funds, effectively eliminating the program in response to budget caps. Elimination of the HOME program would also result in a loss of approximately $50,000 per year that supports staff working on the HTF. The FY16 federal budget has not been finalized so we are unsure what level of cuts to the HOME funds might be adopted.

Some housing advocates and analysts predict that HOME will eventually be eliminated due to the damage to its reputation from the Washington Post investigation and the introduction of the National Housing Trust Fund. Certain federal budget proposals include using NHTF to fund the HOME program, and some housing advocates think NHTF is being considered as a replacement for the HOME program.

When was the last Housing Trust Fund Request for Proposals (RFP) process?

The City last released a Request for Proposals on February 2, 2015. Responses were due March 16, 2015. At its June 23, 2015 meeting, with Resolution 67,084-N.S., the City Council committed a total of $1,337,000 to Strawberry Creek Lodge and William Byron Rumford, Sr. Plaza. Both contracts were executed in August.

At that time, Council also directed staff to continue working with the Northern California Land Trust (NCLT) to develop a renovation proposal, including a revised scope and budget, for one to two sites that could be funded with local funds, and return to the Housing Advisory Commission’s (HAC) HTF Subcommittee and HAC for review. Staff has met with NCLT and NCLT is working on a predevelopment loan proposal to move the project forward.

This was the first RFP conducted by the City since 2012. The 2012 process followed up on developments originally proposed in 2010. Because of the limited and unpredictable amount of funds available in the HTF, it took several years to see these projects through to completion.

Page 7 285 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

What Housing Trust Fund projects have been completed recently?

The following table shows developments completed in 2014 and 2015.

Developments with a Housing Trust Fund Loan, completed in 2014 or 2015 Total Total Amount Of City Development Name Type Units Financing Strawberry Creek Lodge 150 $819,892 rehab $400,000 and land lease Berkeley 75 75 plus $300,000 for Berkeley rehab Housing Authority predevelopment work U A Cooperative Homes $1,213,016 47 rehab (UACH) and land lease U A Homes 74 $1,955,407 rehab Total 346 $4,688,315

What affordable housing developments are in the pipeline?

The following developments have received a commitment of City funds. More information about their status appears below the table.

Developments with a loan or loan commitment, in predevelopment Total Amount Total Development Name Of City Type Units Financing New construction/ Berkeley Way (City owned site) TBD $50,000 predevelopment loan Grayson Street Apartments 23 $1,095,000 new construction $1,821,839 Harper Crossing 42 and discounted new construction land sale William Byron Rumford Plaza 43 $4,665,648 rehab Total 108+ $7,632,487

Additional information about the status of developments in the pipeline follows. Berkeley Way. The City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with BRIDGE Housing and the Berkeley Food and Housing Project (BFHP) in December 2014, and committed a predevelopment loan of $50,000. Under the MOU, BRIDGE and BFHP will investigate alternatives for developing the site consistent with the priorities identified by Council and included in the Request for Qualifications which resulted in their selection by Council on September 9, 2014. They will meet with the Homeless Commission and

Page 8 286 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

Housing Advisory Commission in November and December 2015 before submitting their proposal to the City by the end of December. Once staff complete their review and any necessary follow up with BRIDGE and BFHP, staff will present the proposal to Council for further direction.

In their response to the City’s recent Request for Information, BRIDGE and Berkeley Food and Housing Project provided the following update: The Berkeley Way project is a proposed mixed use development. The site is currently a City‐owned surface parking lot, with 112 public parking spaces. BRIDGE Housing and Berkeley Food and Housing Project (“BFHP”) entered into an MOU with the City and are currently working through project feasibility. BRIDGE is proposing to build approximately 120 units of housing, while the BFHP building will include approximately 30 units of permanent supportive housing, 60 units of transitional housing, and services spaces in the HOPE Center. In addition, the proposed project will replace the existing public parking.

Other projects in the pipeline are:  Grayson Street Apartments. The City loaned over $1 million to Satellite Affordable Housing Associates for site acquisition and certain predevelopment costs. SAHA applied for an additional $1 million in the 2015 Housing Trust Fund RFP but was not awarded funds. SAHA is currently seeking project-based Section 8 vouchers from the Berkeley Housing Authority and have started working with City staff to evaluate opportunities for Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) (“cap and trade”) funds. Depending on SAHA’s success with these sources, they may request additional HTF funds.  Harper Crossing. This SAHA project has full funding and will start construction by December 2015.  William Byron Rumford Sr. Plaza. This Resources for Community Development project has full funding and will start construction in spring 2016.

In addition, staff are still working with the Northern California Land Trust (NCLT) on their request for $500,000 in the last Housing Trust RFP round. Staff recommend providing a predevelopment loan first, and are currently working with NCLT on their proposal.

How much funding are affordable housing developers seeking for Berkeley projects?

City staff issued a Request for Information (RFI) on November 6, 2015, and submitted the request to individuals representing 30 different developers and housing organizations. Staff received five responses from Bay Area Community Land Trust (BACLT), BRIDGE Housing and Berkeley Food and Housing Project, Northern California Land Trust (NCLT), Resources for Community Development (RCD), and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA).

Page 9 287 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

Respondents identified a need for $515,000 to $885,000 in predevelopment funding from the City of Berkeley. In addition, BRIDGE Housing and BFHP projected a need to $2 to $4 million in total predevelopment financing in the event the Berkeley Way project moves forward, and may request predevelopment funding in addition to the $50,000 they have already received for the feasibility study period. Additional predevelopment funding for Berkeley Way would increase the total above the amount mentioned above.

Respondents were also asked to identify the amount of permanent financing that would be needed for the resulting developments. The total amount of Housing Trust Fund estimated as required to complete all of these projects would be $16.8 to $36.8 million by 2018.

The RFI responses are summarized in the following table: Project Name, Status of Project Amount of Amount of Address and Number predevelopment permanent HTF loan of Units funding sought sought and year from HTF needed Bay Area Community Land Trust Brown Shingle Mutual Site acquired. $30,000-$40,000 $120,000 - 2016 Housing, 2 units need 2550 Ellsworth St. substantial rehab. 13 units, to be a co-op.

Ludins House. In contract. $20,000 $120,000 gap 2839 Ashby Ave. Needs some financing - 2016 House w/ 8 BRs, to be permanent financing a co-op. and minor rehab. Fish House, Owner has agreed to $20,000 $120,000 gap 1808 Bancroft Way, sell off market; financing - 2016 House w/ 8 BRs, to be seeking financing; no a co-op. rehab anticipated

BRIDGE Housing & Berkeley Food and Housing Project Berkeley Way Parking Currently in feasibility $50,000 from HTF $5-$8 million - 2018 Lot phase. (previously awarded) 2012 Berkeley Way (See narrative in (if the project moves Estimating 150 units predevelopment forward, total plus transitional status section above predevelopment housing and service for more information) costs will range from space $2 to $4 million)

Page 10 288 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

Northern California Land Trust NCLT-owned rental Existing, occupied $20,000-$50,000 $250,000-$500,000 rehab. affordable housing. In Total of 4 possible sites mid-financing of 20yr with 23 units rehab. Small-sites acquisition Seeking sites. $25,000 per site for Avg project.size 5-10 program/displacement Business planning pre-development and units, expect 5 sites in mitigation. Several funds awarded deposit funds. 16-17 FY. $50,000- identified opportunity through AHEAD. 100,000 per unit in sites. permanent subsidy. (upwards of $5 million) Resources for Community Development New construction No site identified. In $100,000-$150,000 TBD. Likely $75,000- affordable housing. discussions and when site identified $100,000 per 30-100 units exploration on affordable unit. Date No site secured. several Berkeley also TBD when site sites. identified. Likely 2016 to 2018. (upwards of $10 million) Acquisition and No site identified. $100,000-$150,000 TBD. Likely $75,000- rehabilitation of existing Seeking site and when site identified. $100,000 per rental housing. Likely determining feasibility affordable unit. Date 30-75 units. No site of this approach also TBD when site secured identified. Likely 2016 to 2018. (upwards of $7.5 million) Satellite Affordable Housing Associates Grayson Street Fee title ownership of n/a $1.4 million / by Apartments fully entitled site; March 2016 2748 San Pablo Ave plans at 60% CD; five 23 units funding sources secured. Pipeline project 1 Community partner $100,000-200,000 $2 million / by March North Berkeley owns development 2017 site. Negotiating ENA to begin entitlements.

Page 11 289 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

Pipeline project 2 Private site identified. $100,000-200,000 $2 million / by March San Pablo corridor Negotiating with 2018 seller to establish site control.

The respondents were also asked for information regarding the other sources of predevelopment funding they commonly used. Developers indicated a range of predevelopment funds used in conjunction with City financing, including developer capital, lines of credit, and loans or grants from organizations such as the Federal Home Loan Bank, Enterprise, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Low Income Investment Fund, and Northern California Community Loan Fund.

What tasks do City staff have in administering the Housing Trust Fund?

City staff work with developers throughout the development process on a range of tasks:  Develop Request for Proposals application process and reach out to developers to solicit applications;  Review proposed projects for feasibility;  Summarize and review projects with Housing Advisory Commission;  Report to Housing Advisory Commission and Council on status of projects;  Draft and negotiate loan documents, which typically include a Development Loan Agreement, Deed of Trust, Promissory Note, and Deed of Trust;  Coordinate execution of loan documents, typically with time constraints from other funders and HUD;  Coordinate review and execution of other lenders’ required documents, such as subordination agreements;  Monitor developments during construction period for HUD compliance;  Track and disburse HTF funds; and  Act as liaison to other City departments.

Related to the developments mentioned above, City staff in the Housing and Community Services division are in contact with development staff at Satellite Affordable Housing Associates and Resources for Community Development staff on a weekly basis, and in frequent communication with BRIDGE.

Page 12 290 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

Why didn’t the City apply for Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) (“cap and trade”) funds?

Earlier this year the state’s Strategic Growth Council released the first RFP for the new Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, funded through cap and trade funds. Through this program, housing funding was only available for specific development projects. The City could not have applied for funding for the Housing Trust Fund. Applications had to be submitted by the developer/sponsor or a local jurisdiction on behalf of the specific development project.

At the time applications were due, there were two projects in Berkeley that would have been eligible for the funds, both sponsored by Satellite Affordable Housing Associates: Harper Crossing and Grayson Street Apartments. SAHA decided not to apply for either. For Harper Crossing, SAHA had identified a funding strategy combining Alameda County boomerang funds and Low Income Housing Tax Credits, which was successful. For Grayson Street Apartments, both SAHA and staff thought the development was too small to be competitive. Based on the experience of the first funding round, SAHA believes Grayson Street may be competitive, and has approached the City to work together on an application. A successful application may require the City’s participation in a related infrastructure project.

What is the City’s role in predevelopment?

Predevelopment funding for affordable housing development typically pays for the costs necessary to prepare a feasible development project. The City’s HTF guidelines, last revised and adopted by the City Council in 2009, allow for the use of HTF funds for predevelopment. The HTF guidelines allow for expenses related to architectural fees, market research consultants, expenses related to acquisition of property, preliminary financial applications, reasonable and customary costs of obtaining firm construction loan commitments, architectural plans and construction specifications, zoning approval fees, engineering studies, legal fees, and other costs directly associated with activities prior to development of the property.

Staff are currently working on closing a $50,000 predevelopment loan to BRIDGE Housing for the Berkeley Way project, and recent projects with predevelopment loans include William Byron Rumford Sr. Plaza, Harper Crossing, and Strawberry Creek Lodge, among others. Due to limitations and timing restrictions in the HOME program, staff recommend using exclusively local funds for predevelopment activities.

The HTF Guidelines indicate that predevelopment loans will typically be for less than $50,000 unless the HAC recommends a higher amount based on the project’s needs and Council approves it, consistent with the City’s contracting requirements. (All contracts over $50,000 must be approved by Council.) If the project moves forward, the predevelopment loan is usually combined into a permanent loan. The Guidelines also specify that no more than $100,000 or ten percent, whichever is less, of available Fund resources committed to pre-development activities in any single fiscal year.

Page 13 291 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

There are several reasons for limiting the amount of predevelopment funds in a project:  Predevelopment funding is available from other funders;  Predevelopment loans are at higher risk of not being repaid and the projects not moving forward, since predevelopment funding is necessary to determine whether a project can proceed; and  It is a good practice to size any type of development loan to the specific project’s needs rather than a previously determined value.

That being said, the City easily can, and frequently has, waived these limits to support developments. For example, the City provided $75,000 in predevelopment funds for RCD’s University Avenue Cooperative Homes project, completed this spring, and waived the 10%/$100,000 cap to provide $300,000 to the Berkeley Housing Authority for the public housing rehabilitation project completed a year ago. No changes the HTF Guidelines are necessary to continue this level of support.

What opportunities will result from the National Housing Trust Fund?

The National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF) was created by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. That bill required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to transfer a percentage of their new income to the NHTF, which will be distributed to states to administer. Because of the sluggish recovery, contributions were suspended until January 1, 2015. HUD expects to start distributions to states by summer 2016. Funds are designated for rental housing for extremely low (30% of area median income) and very low income (50% of area median income) households, with up to 10% allowed to go into homeownership for extremely low and very low income households

AB90, signed by Governor Brown in October, designated the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to administer the funds through new or existing programs after it develops an allocation plan. The state’s analysis projects that for every $250 million generated for the NHTF, California will receive $30 million.

HCD has not yet circulated draft NHTF guidelines so the scoring criteria are unknown. It is likely that they will include points for local funding, since this is common in other funding programs. The City would not be eligible to apply directly for NHTF funds. The City’s HTF funds, as well as discounted land sales and leases, frequently help projects compete for state funds. For example, in HCD’s Multifamily Housing Program, leveraging other funds counts for a total of 20 out of 160 points. Typically the commitment of local funds is needed at the time of application, before the state awards funds. In the past, projects have applied for HTF awards and then applied for state funding.

The City’s ability to award HTF funds to help projects leverage NHTF will hinge on the amount of funds available in the HTF.

Page 14 292 Below Market Rate Housing and Housing Trust Fund Program Status WORKSESSION December 1, 2015

How much housing has been created through the Housing Trust Fund?

A total of 1,388 units of affordable housing have been created through the Housing Trust Fund since its establishment in 1990. An inventory appears in Attachment 2.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY This information report does not recommend any course of action and has no direct environmental effects.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Future action will be determined by the Council’s actions at the worksession.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Fiscal impacts depend on the course of action chosen by the Council.

CONTACT PERSON Amy Davidson, Senior Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981-5406

Attachments: 1: Below Market Rate Rental Inventory 2: Housing Trust Fund Inventory

Page 15 293 Attachment 1: Below Market Rate Rental Inventory

Total DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY ADDRESS BMR NAME Units 1 Addison Street, 651 Avalon Berkeley 14 2 Addison Street 2002 ARTech Building 4 3 Allston Way, 2116 Gaia Building 18 4 Allston Way, 2161 Allston Place 12 5 Bancroft Way, 2398 Wesley House 1 6 Center, 2055 Berkeley Central 23 7 Cherry, 2801 2801 Cherry 1 8 Fulton, 2310 Stadium Place 15 9 Haste, 2110 Fine Arts Building 20 10 Kittredge, 2020 Library Gardens 35 New Californian 11 Martin Luther King Way, 1950 22 (Trader Joe's) 12 Martin Luther King Way, 2500 2 13 Oxford, 1910 Berkeleyan 2 14 San Pablo, 2700 Avenue West 6 15 San Pablo, 3015 Higby 15 16 Shattuck, 1385 1385 Shattuck 8 1797, Shattuck / 2101 Hillside Village 21 17 Delaware *2 buildings Telegraph Bay Telegraph, 2616-20 4 18 Apartments 19 Telegraph, 3001 Telegraph Gardens 6 20 University, 700 4th & U Apartments 31 21 University, 800 Aquatic 4 22 University, 1116-1132 Campanile Court 13 23 University, 1370 Acton Courtyard 20 24 University, 1627 Renaissance Villas 6 25 University, 2004 Touriel 7 26 University, 2119 Bachenheimer 7 27 Heinz, 800 Durkee Building 17 Total BMR Units 334

294 Attachment 2: Housing Trust Fund Inventory

Total # of Development Name Units 1133-1139 Hearst Street 32 1320 Haskell Street Condominiums 5 1340 Blake Street 5 1534 Prince Street 6 1849 Shattuck 24 1900 Alcatraz Avenue 9 2207 Haste Street 7 2425 California Street 6 2500 Hillegass Street 19 Addison Court Cooperative Housing 10 Adeline Street Apartments 19 Allston Commons (1 of 2) 10 Allston Commons (2 of 2) 2 Allston House 47 Amistad House 60 Ashby Apartments 6 Ashby Commons 6 Ashby Court Apartments 20 Ashby Lofts 54 Berkeley 75 75 BFHP Transitional House 13 Bonita House 15 BUILD-Seventh Street 6 Casa Buenos Amigos Hsg Cooperative 4 Channing House 4 Crossroads Village Mutual Housing Assoc. 26 Dwight Way Apartments 16 Erna P. Harris Apartments 35 Fairview House Cooperative 9 Fred Finch Youth House 15 Harmon Gardens 16 Haskell Street Condominiums 3 Hearst Studios 8 Helios Corner 80 Hope Home 4 Idaho Street 1 Lorin Station 14 Mable Howard 40 Margaret Breland Senior Homes 28 McKinley House 7 MLK House 11

295 Attachment 2: Housing Trust Fund Inventory

Oxford Plaza 97 Regent House 6 Rosevine 10 Sacramento Senior Homes 40 Sankofa House 4 Savo Island Cooperative Homes 57 Shattuck Senior Homes 27 Strawberry Creek Lodge 150 U A Cooperative Homes (UACH) 47 U A Homes 74 University Lofts 29 University Neighborhood Apartments 27 William Byron Rumford Plaza 43 TOTAL 1,388

296

Jesse Arreguín City Councilmember, District 4 ACTION CALENDAR February 9, 2016

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Jesse Arreguín Subject: Homeless Task Force Recommendations: Expand Homeless Outreach and Mobile Crisis

RECOMMENDATION Direct the City Manager to analyze the following Tier One Recommendations from the Berkeley Homeless Task Force and return to Council in time for the FY 16-17 Mid- Biennial Budget Process with recommendations and information on financial and staff implications: 1) Expand city Homeless Outreach Team staff; 2) Expand the city’s Mobile Crisis Team to provide 24/7 coverage.

BACKGROUND The Berkeley Homeless Task Force is a community-driven process which has involved hundreds of stakeholders who met and developed solutions to address homelessness. At the June 23, 2015 Council Worksession, the Task Force presented its recommendations for increased housing and homeless services. The recommendations were split into two tiers based on the critical need for services and the amount of time for the City to implement them. Tier One recommendations were those the Task Force felt required immediate action to address important needs of the homeless population. Tier Two recommendations (which mainly focused on increased housing) require more time and resources to implement.

In the last six months since the Task Force presented its Tier One recommendations, many of the ideas have since been addressed by the City Council. In November, the Council directed staff to fund more restrooms and secure storage space for homeless residents. The plan to implement more storage and restrooms is being developed by City staff. In addition, City staff has opened temporary warming centers to provide shelter for the homeless from the cold weather and rain. Council should discuss whether and how to extend these warming shelters for the next winter season.

The following recommendations have not yet been discussed or addressed by the City Council.

Homeless Outreach Team, either in the form of additional full-time staff, or hourly staff. Also explore partnerships with UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare or Psychology Department to establish internships for coursework for interns to work alongside permanent HOT staff. Consider specialized HOT teams for Telegraph Avenue and Downtown and provide additional outreach to the Transition Age Youth (TAY) population. The HOT team should not just focus on mental health outreach, but rather broad homeless outreach, including referrals to housing and services. (Information the City’s HOT and on outreach in other cities can be found on pages 10 and 18-19 of this report: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2013/04Apr/Documents/2013- 04-02_Worksession_Item_01_Compassionate_Sidewalks.aspx)

While the City does contract with non-profits such as Berkeley Food and Housing Project and YEAH to provide outreach to homeless persons, one of the challenges is coordination with city departments to provide necessary interventions. Having additional City Homeless Outreach staff can help support the non-profit providers in providing direct outreach to the homeless and connecting them to the HCRC and other necessary services.

Expand Mobile Crisis Team Dedicate additional General Fund revenues, or additional County or Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) resources to expand staffing for the city’s Mobile Crisis Unit, to potentially provide 24/7 coverage.

The FY 2016/2017 budget allocated an additional 1.5 FTE for the Mobile Crisis team which expanded coverage during peak hours, but there are not the necessary resources to provide 24/7 coverage which is something both Berkeley Police and the community has requested. There is a growing need for additional emergency mental health services, and expanding the Mobile Crisis Unit is necessary to helping people on our streets get the care they need. It will also help address concerns raised by business owners regarding problematic behavior in commercial areas.

(A recent Berkeleyside article stated that mental health calls make up the largest number of calls for Police services. Limited numbers of Mobile Crisis staff put an increased burden on Police to interact, de-escalate and direct individuals suffering from a mental health crisis into appropriate treatment1.)

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY No adverse effects to the environment.

CONTACT PERSON Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember, District 4 510-981-7140

1 http://www.berkeleyside.com/2015/04/16/mental-health-calls-are-1-drain-on-berkeley-police-resources/

298

Upcoming Workshops Scheduled Dates

January 26 Priority Setting/Strategic Planning February 9 Ballot Measures/Community Poll February 23 Personnel Board Report/Audit Findings/Workers’ Compensation 1. Crime Report March 8 2. Public Access to Drinking Water (Capitelli) March 15 Public Health Priorities March 29 Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan April 5 Community Poll Results April 26 Updates on Police and Community Relations Referrals May 10 FY 2017 Proposed Budget May 24 Citywide RPP Program May 31 goBerkeley Expansion June 14 Zero Waste Commercial Collection June 28 Economic Development Update

Unscheduled Workshops 1. Mental Health Commission Referral - Crisis Response

299

City Council Referrals to the Agenda Committee

None

300 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT WORKING CALENDAR FOR SCHEDULING LAND USE MATTERS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL Determination Board/ Appeal Period Public Address on Appeal Commission Ends Hearing Submitted NOD – Notices of Decision 1065 Ashby Ave (Signage Alternation Permit - H.S. Heinz Co.) LPC 1/26/2016 2101 Shattuck Ave (Structural Alteration Permit - Mason Mc-Duffie) LPC 1/26/2016

Appeals Submitted

Public Hearings Scheduled 1016-1018 Jones St (move/construct single-family dwellings) ZAB 1/26/2016 2029-2035 Blake St (The Roost @ Blake) ZAB 2/9/2016 1169 Cragmont Ave (single-family dwelling) ZAB TBD 2777 Shattuck Ave (Landmark Initiation - former Berkeley Bowl) LPC

Remanded to ZAB or LPC

Notes

Last Updated: 1/21/16

301

302