Agenda Packet and the Council Meeting

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 2:30 P.M. 2180 Milvia Street, 6th Floor – Redwood Room Committee Members: Mayor Arreguin, Councilmembers Linda Maio and Sophie Hahn (Alternate: Councilmember Ben Bartlett)

AGENDA

1. Roll Call

2. Public Comment

3. Approval of Minutes: August 27, 2018

4. Review and Approve draft agendas: a. 9/25/18 – 6:00 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting 1. Selection of item for the Berkeley Considers online engagement portal b. 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, September 17, 2018

Monday, September 10, 2018 AGENDA Page 1 1 Additional items may be added to the draft agenda per Council Rules of Procedure. Rules of Procedure as adopted by Council resolution, 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 981-6418 (V) or 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

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 September 6, 2018.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Monday, September 10, 2018 AGENDA Page 2 2 BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2018 2:30 P.M. 2180 Milvia Street, 6th Floor – Redwood Room Committee Members: Mayor Arreguin, Councilmembers Linda Maio and Sophie Hahn (Alternate: Councilmember Ben Bartlett)

1. Roll Call: 2:32 p.m. Present: Bartlett, Arreguin.

2. Public Comment – 2 speakers.

3. M/S/C (Arreguin/Bartlett) to approve the Minutes of July 9, 2018. All Ayes.

4. Review and Approve draft agendas: a. M/S/C (Bartlett/Arreguin) to approve the agenda of the 9/13/18 – 6:00 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting as revised below.  Item Added – Release of Photos by BPD (Davila)  Item Added – Tree Removal at 1698 University (Harrison)  Item Added – Police MOUs (City Manager)  Item 17 Urban Forest and Wildlife (Davila) – Moved to Action Calendar  Item 18 Live/Work Housing (Harrison) – Revised item submitted  Item 19 Green Monday (Harrison) – Councilmembers Davila and Hahn added as co-sponsors; Moved to Action Calendar  Item 20 Oppose S. 3157 (Wengraf) – Removed from the agenda by author  Item 21 Standby Officers (Wengraf) – Revise item submitted; Councilmember Hahn added as a co-sponsor; Moved to Action Calendar  Item 23 Mini-Dorm Ordinance (Wengraf) – Revised item submitted  Item 25 ADU Ordinance (Hahn) – Revised item submitted  Item 29 Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza (Arreguin) – Requested revision to change recommendation to a “short-term referral in conjunction with the sidewalk ordinance” 1. Selection of item for the Berkeley Considers online engagement portal - No item selected b. Adjournments in memory of - Tom Clark, Berkeley Poet

Monday, August 27, 2018 MINUTES Page 1 3 5. Council Items: a. Council Worksessions – Review updates and approve - 10/16 worksession rescheduled to start at 4:30 p.m. b. Council Referrals to Agenda Committee - M/S/C (Arreguin/Bartlett) to determine that no further action is required on #5 Police Charter Amendment. All Ayes. c. Land Use Calendar – received and filed.

6. M/S/C (Bartlett/Arreguin) to adjourn the meeting.

Adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Monday, August 27, 2018 MINUTES Page 2 4 DRAFT AGENDA

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, September 25, 2018 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2134 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR Councilmembers: DISTRICT 1 – LINDA MAIO DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN DISTRICT 2 – CHERYL DAVILA DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – KRISS WORTHINGTON DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON 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. Speakers will be entitled to two minutes each to speak in opposition to or support of Consent Calendar and Information Items. A speaker may only speak once during the period for public comment on Consent Calendar and Information items. Additional information regarding public comment by City of Berkeley employees and interns: Employees and interns of the City of Berkeley, although not required, are encouraged to identify themselves as such, the department in which they work and state whether they are speaking as an individual or in their official capacity when addressing the Council in open session or workshops.

Consent Calendar 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”. No additional items can be moved onto the Consent Calendar once public comment has commenced. At any time during, or immediately after, public comment on Information and Consent items, any Councilmember may move any Information or Consent item to “Action.” Following this, the Council will vote on the items remaining on the Consent Calendar in one motion. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

1. Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on September 25, 2018 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: Parks Tax - $145,000 Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, 981-7300

2. Grant: Alameda County Transportation Commission for Measures B and BB Paratransit Revenue From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to receive funds and execute any agreements and amendments with the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) for the renewal of Measure B and Measure BB annual pass-through funds estimated to be in the amount of $600,667 for use during FY 2019, and execute resulting contracts for services with Easy Does It and Friendly Transportation. These funds are critical in supporting our Aging Services programs by meeting the transportation needs of seniors and people with disabilities in the Berkeley community. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kelly Wallace, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 2 6 Consent Calendar

3. Disposition of City-Owned, Former Redevelopment Agency Properties at 1631 Fifth Street and 1654 Fifth Street From: City Manager Recommendation: 1. Adopt first reading of an Ordinance authorizing the sale of two City-owned, former Redevelopment Agency properties at 1631 Fifth Street and 1654 Fifth Street at market rate and deposit the proceeds in the City’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF). 2. Direct the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals to select a real estate broker to manage the sale. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kelly Wallace, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

4. Contract No. 9649 Amendment: Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong LLP for Chief Labor Negotiations From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 9649 in the amount of $70,000 with Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong LLP for Chief Labor Negotiator services, for a total not to exceed $215,000. Financial Implications: General Fund - $70,000 Contact: LaTanya Bellow, Director of Human Resources, 981-6806

5. Donation: Memorial Bench at the South Cove in memory of Eileen Liching Tang From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution accepting a cash donation in the amount of $3,400 for a memorial bench to be placed at the South Cove at the Berkeley Marina in memory of Eileen Liching Tang. Financial Implications: $3,400 (Donation) Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, 981-6700

6. Donation: Memorial Bench at the South Cove in memory of Judith Scherr From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution accepting a cash donation in the amount of $3,400 for a memorial bench to be placed at the South Cove at the Berkeley Marina in memory of Judith Scherr. Financial Implications: $3,400 (Donation) Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, 981-6700

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 3 7 Consent Calendar

7. Contract No. 10397 Amendment: Nichols Consulting Engineers for On-Call Civil Engineering Services From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 10397 with Nichols Consulting Engineers for additional on-call civil engineering services by increasing the contract amount by $800,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $2,000,000, and extending the term through December 31, 2021. Financial Implications: Measure T1 - Infra & Facilities Fund - $800,000 Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, 981-6700

8. Contract: Cadmus for Development of a Berkeley EV Roadmap From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions, or change orders with The Cadmus Group LLC (Cadmus) to develop a Berkeley Electric Vehicle (EV) Roadmap for an amount not to exceed $65,000 for the period October 1, 2018 through October 31, 2019. Financial Implications: Various Funds - $65,000 Contact: Timothy Burroughs, Planning and Development, 981-7400

9. Contract No. 9786B Amendment: Karste Consulting, Inc. for Emergency Preparedness Services and Training From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 9786B with Karste Consulting, Inc. for emergency preparedness services and training by increasing the amount by $100,000 for a total amount not to exceed $250,000 and to extending the term through June 30, 2021. Financial Implications: Various Funds - $100,000 Contact: Phillip L. Harrington, Director, Department of Public Works, 981-6303

10. Contract No. 9674B Amendment: Direct Line Tele Response for Citywide After- Hours Answering Services From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment for up to $132,750 to Contract No. 9674B with Direct Line Tele Response to provide continued customer service support after normal business hours, on weekends and holidays, for a total contract amount not to exceed $282,750, and extending the contract term through December 31, 2020. Financial Implications: Various Funds - $132,750 Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 4 8 Consent Calendar

11. Final Map of Tract 9787: 2001 Fourth Street From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the final map of Tract Map 9787, a hundred-fifty-four unit condominium project consisting of a hundred-fifty-two residential units and two commercial units, located at 2001 Fourth Street. Financial Implications: None Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

12. Final Map of Tract 8401: 1035-1043 Pardee Street From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the final map of Tract Map 8401, a five-unit condominium project consisting of four residential units and one commercial unit, located at 1035-1043 Pardee Street. Financial Implications: None Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

13. Approval of Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan Addendum From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Approving the Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan Addendum. 2. Authorizing the City Manager to submit the remaining unfunded and partially funded Five-Year Priority Projects from the Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan Addendum to the Alameda County Transportation Commission for inclusion and funding in the County’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 – FY 2024 Comprehensive Investment Plan. 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements as needed for accepting the awarded grant funds. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

14. Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements for City Fleet From: Community Environmental Advisory Commission Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager the finalization of a policy which would require all new purchases of light-duty passenger vehicles to be electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids, and require the City-owned light-duty passenger vehicle fleet to be 100% electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids by the mid-2020s. This policy would be based on the City & County of San Francisco’s zero-emission light-duty passenger vehicle policy, and the report to Council should identify any additional costs associated with electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids, potentially accelerated fleet turnover, and necessary charging infrastructure on City lots. Financial Implications: See report. Contact: Viviana Garcia, Commission Secretary, 981-7460

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 5 9 Council Consent Items

15. Farmers’ Markets Investments From: Councilmembers Maio, Harrison, Hahn, and Mayor Arreguin Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to initiate improvements and changes to support the Berkeley Farmers’ Markets that would address growing public safety and access concerns while enhancing the shopping experience and benefit the markets. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Linda Maio, Councilmember, District 1, 981-7110

16. Proclamation in support of 50th Anniversary of Indigenous Occupation of Alcatraz Canoe Journey From: Councilmember Davila Recommendation: Adopt a Proclamation in support of the 50th Anniversary of Indigenous Occupation of Alcatraz Canoe Journey scheduled for summer 2019 and requiring planning in partnership with the City of Berkeley in the year leading up to the week of festivities ending in a canoe journey. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Cheryl Davila, Councilmember, District 2, 981-7120

17. Community-Based Disaster Preparedness Fair: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds From: Councilmembers Davila, Harrison, and Bartlett Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution to approve the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $250 per Councilmember, including $250 from Councilmember Cheryl Davila, to the Berkeley Disaster Preparedness Neighborhood Network for their Community-based Disaster Preparedness Fair on October 20, 2018, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Councilmember Davila and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Cheryl Davila, Councilmember, District 2, 981-7120

18. Refer to the Commission on Disability to examine the impacts that the parking citation system may have on persons with low income and disabilities From: Councilmember Bartlett Recommendation: Refer to the Commission on Disability to examine the impacts that the parking citation system may have on people with low income and disabilities. Financial Implications: Unknown Contact: Ben Bartlett, Councilmember, District 3, 981-7130

19. Resolution in Support of State Propositions 1 and 2 From: Councilmember Harrison Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Supporting State Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act, and Proposition 2, the No Place Like Home Act. Financial Implications: None Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, 981-7140

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 6 10 Council Consent Items

20. Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance From: Councilmember Wengraf Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to review draft Safe Storage of Firearms ordinance, identify and resolve issues, and return to Council within 90 days. Financial Implications: Minimal Contact: Susan Wengraf, Councilmember, District 6, 981-7160

21. Support for AB-2342, Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Screening From: Councilmember Wengraf Recommendation: Send a letter in support of AB-2342 (Burke and Waldron), which requires health care service plans, health insurers, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to provide coverage for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility screening as recommended by the United States Preventative Services Task Force. Financial Implications: None Contact: Susan Wengraf, Councilmember, District 6, 981-7160

22. Letter Opposing Telecommunications Act Forbearance From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: That the City Council send a letter to the Federal Communications Commission opposing the US Telecom Association forbearance petition. Financial Implications: Minimal Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

23. Traffic Circle Vegetation Maintenance Policy From: Councilmembers Droste, Bartlett, and Davila Recommendation: Refer to Parks and Waterfront Commission and the Transportation Commission to establish a city/community task force to: a) Evaluate the City’s current traffic circle vegetation policy and b) Conduct a community led process to update that policy to ensure pedestrian/bicycle/ vehicle safety and preserve community efforts to beautify traffic circles. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Lori Droste, Councilmember, District 8, 981-7180

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 7 11 Council Consent Items

24. Refer to the City Manager UC Berkeley Game Day Parking Restrictions and Fines in RPP Surrounding Campus From: Councilmembers Droste and Wengraf Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to adopt a Resolution: 1) Establishing a new Parking Fine Schedule including increased parking fines of $300 per violation of BMC 14.40.090 in Residential Preferential Parking zones A, B, D, E, F G on posted University of California football game days; 2) Modifying RPP zones A, B, and D on posted University of California football game days to prohibit parking without a valid Residential Preferential Parking permit; 3) Modifying RPP zones E, F, G (which do not have RPP on Saturdays) to include RPP enforcement on posted University of California football game days. 4) Replacing existing RPP signs in zones A, B, D, E, F, and G with new signs clearly indicating the University of California football game day parking prohibitions and listing the dates on the sign of University of California football game days; and 5) Assessing the modified University of California Football Game Day Parking Fine program within three years of implementation and recommend to Council whether to continue or modify the program; and rescinding Resolution 63,800- N.S. Financial Implications: Staff time and signage. Increased revenue from parking tickets on game days. Contact: Lori Droste, Councilmember, District 8, 981-7180

Action Calendar The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. For items moved to Action Calendar to Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period my speak again at the time the matter is taken up during Action Calendar. 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.

Action Calendar – Public Hearings 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.

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 8 12 Action Calendar – Public Hearings

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.

25. Facilitation of the Installation of IKE Smart City Kiosks; Amending Chapters 20.16 and 16.18 of the Berkeley Municipal Code From: City Manager Recommendation: 1. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 9.60, conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a first reading of an Ordinance granting a franchise agreement with IKE Smart City, LLC and the City of Berkeley to operate wayfinding kiosks in Berkeley. 2. Adopt a first reading of an Ordinance amending Section 20.16.090 of the Berkeley Municipal Code (the Sign Ordinance) to exempt wayfinding kiosks placed in the City pursuant to a contract between the City and Visit Berkeley (formerly the Convention & Visitors Bureau); and amending Section 16.18.040 of the Berkeley Municipal Code (the Encroachment Ordinance) to exempt wayfinding kiosks installed pursuant to a contract between Visit Berkeley and the City of Berkeley, provided they are installed and maintained in conformance with the requirements of the City Engineer. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Jordan Klein, Economic Development, 981-7530

Action Calendar – Old Business

26. Emergency Standby Officers for the Mayor and Councilmembers (Continued from July 24, 2018) From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution confirming the appointment of Standby Officers for the Mayor and each Councilmember to serve in the event the elected official is unavailable during an emergency, and rescinding Resolution No. 68,454- N.S. Financial Implications: None Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 9 13 Action Calendar – New Business

27. Recycling Markets Update From: City Manager Recommendation: Review the impacts of global market conditions on Berkeley’s recycling program and consider possible program changes to ensure the continued economic viability of recycling in Berkeley. Possible actions could include the adoption of new waste reduction policies or programs, modifications to the City’s curbside recycling program accepted materials, and adjustments to collection rates. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

28. Referral Response: Mandatory and Recommended Green Stormwater Infrastructure in New and Existing Redevelopments or Properties From: Community Environmental Advisory Commission Recommendation: Since the drought-storm-flooding cycle is predicted to get worse, refer to the City Man-ager to develop and implement measures to help reduce runoff from private property when rain exceeds two inches in a 24-hour period. The City Manager and staff should consider the following: - Comply beyond the State and Alameda County current requirements; -Encourage the treating and detaining of runoff up to approximately the 85th per-centile of water deposited in a 24-hour period; -Establish site design measures that include minimizing impervious surfaces; -Require homeowners to include flooding offsets in preparing properties for sale; - Offer option(s) for property owners to fund in-lieu centralized off-site storm-water retention facilities that would hold an equivalent volume of runoff; -Require abatements for newly paved areas over a specific size; -Make exceptions for properties that offer significantly below-market rent or sale prices; -Authorize a fee for all new construction or for title transfer to cover the cost of required compliance inspections. -Incorporate these measures for private property with similar measures for Public Works, while coordinating with EBMUD, BUSD, UCB and LBNL. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Viviana Garcia, Commission Secretary, 981-7460

29a. Ban on Receipts Made with Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol S (BPS) Bisphenol F (BPF) and Other Phenols From: Community Health Commission Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution and pass the first reading of an Ordinance adding Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 11.74 to ban the manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of receipt paper that contains Bisphenol A (BPA) or other phenols within the City of Berkeley by January 1, 2020. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Roberto Terrones, Commission Secretary, 981-5400

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 10 14 Action Calendar – New Business

29b. Companion Report: Ban on Receipts Made with Bisphenol A (BPA) and Other Phenols From: City Manager Recommendation: Take no action on the Community Health Commission recommendation to adopt an ordinance to ban the use of thermal paper by 2020 and instead implement a community education effort about methods for reducing exposure to BPA-treated thermal paper. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kelly Wallace, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

30a. Affordable Housing and Temporary Housing Proposals for City-owned 1281 University Avenue Parcel From: Housing Advisory Commission Recommendation: 1. Select Resources for Community Development’s proposal to develop 1281 University Avenue, with reservations regarding the proposal’s financial feasibility (especially in regards to its reliance on project-based Section 8), reliance on tax credits leveraged in combination with other RCD projects, RCD’s past performance, the level of homeless provided services on site, detail available about the service plan, and proposed reduction of open-space. 2. Direct the City Manager to provide the site as a temporary use for short term housing while a viable long term project is determined. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Amy Davidson, Commission Secretary, 981-5400

30b. Companion Report: Affordable Housing and Temporary Housing Proposals for City-owned 1281 University Avenue Parcel From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Resources for Community Development (RCD) regarding the proposed development of the City- owned parcel at 1281 University Avenue as affordable housing for the homeless. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kelly Wallace, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 11 15 Action Calendar – New Business

31a. Small Sites Loan Program Recommendations From: Housing Advisory Commission Recommendation: To proceed immediately with a one-time small sites pilot program, not to exceed $1 million, City Council should: 1. Waive certain sections of the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Guidelines for a Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) for small site housing acquisition and rehabilitation projects; 2. Adopt certain eligibility and loan criteria to be used in conjunction with the NOFA; and 3. Adopt an amendment to the City’s procurement policy to allow the City Manager to approve loans in excess of $50,000 resulting from the NOFA (rather than requiring Council approval). 4. Request that the Council and Housing Advisory Commission receive copies of small sites loan applications along with staff's corresponding analysis and decision. 5. Review the limitations of a one-time small sites pilot program as described within this memo. 6. Refer further consideration of a long-term small sites program to the City Manager and the Housing Advisory Commission. 7. Refer the small sites program to the November budget update and next biannual budget planning cycle in 2019. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Amy Davidson, Commission Secretary, 981-5400

31b. Companion Report and Referral Response: Creation of a Small Sites Program From: City Manager Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the creation of a small sites housing acquisition loan program (Small Sites Program) based on San Francisco’s program by: A. Establishing certain eligibility and loan criteria to be used in conjunction with the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA); and B. Waiving certain sections of the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Guidelines for a Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) for small site housing acquisition and rehabilitation projects; and C. Authorizing the City Manager to execute all original or amended documents or agreements to effectuate this program. 2. Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending the City’s procurement policy in BMC Chapter 7.18 to allow the City Manager to approve loans in excess of $50,000 resulting from the NOFA (rather than requiring Council approval); and 3. Direct the City Manager to issue a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the purpose of awarding funds under the Small Sites Program. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kelly Wallace, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 12 16 Action Calendar – New Business

32a. Path to End Homelessness From: Human Welfare and Community Action Commission Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution to address the immediate needs of our homeless and dislocated citizens in such a robust and urgent manner that the end of homelessness will soon be within sight. Our proposal is two-pronged: 1. Critical First Lines: Comprehensive delivery of critical and practical assistance to the current homeless population. 2. Permanent Housing. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Wing Wong, Commission Secretary, 981-5400

32b. Companion Report to Human Welfare and Community Action Commission’s Paths to End Homelessness Report From: City Manager Recommendation: Take no action on the Human Welfare and Community Action Commission’s recommendation and instead allow staff to finalize the 1000 Person Plan. Financial Implications: None Contact: Kelly Wallace, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

33a. Resolution asking Peace and Justice Commission to Develop a Regional Sanctuary-Community Working Group From: Peace and Justice Commission Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution referring a request to the Peace and Justice Commission to develop a working group including representatives of Sanctuary communities throughout the Bay Area, including Sanctuary cities and counties. This working group would have the purpose of coordinating response to the activities of DHS units including ICE and Customs and Border Enforcement along with other federal agencies responsible for abusive treatment of immigrants. Financial Implications: None Contact: Shallon Allen, Commission Secretary, 981-7071

33b. Companion Report to Peace and Justice Commission’s Resolution Asking Peace and Justice Commission to Develop a Regional Sanctuary-Community Working Group Report From: City Manager Recommendation: Take no action on the Peace and Justice Commission’s resolution, consistent with Berkeley Municipal Code 3.68.070 which identifies the Commission as an advisory committee to the Council. Financial Implications: None Contact: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager's Office, 981-7000

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 13 17 Council Action Items

34. Managing RV Parking Via Permit Process From: Councilmember Maio Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to look into how other cities use permitting to manage RV parking and suggest a permit process that Council can consider to enable RV parking but place some sensible limits. Financial Implications: Staff time for education and enforcement Contact: Linda Maio, Councilmember, District 1, 981-7110

Information Reports

35. City Council Short Term Referral Process – Monthly Update From: City Manager Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900

36. Audit Status Report Response: Written Guidance and Improved Monitoring Can Help Prevent Unnecessary Overtime at the Animal Shelter and Help Manage Citywide Comp Time at the Animal Shelter from January 1, 2018 – August 31, 2018 From: City Manager Contact: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager's Office, 981-7000

37. Referral Response: Move Out Initiatives in Partnership with UC Berkeley From: City Manager Contact: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager's Office, 981-7000

38. Audit Status Report: Unified Vision of Zero Waste Activities Will Help Align Service Levels with Billing and Ensure Customer Equity From: City Manager Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

39. Audit Status Report -- Underfunded Mandate: Resources, Strategic Plan, and Communication Needed to Continue Progress towards the Year 2020 Zero Waste Goal From: City Manager Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

40. Commission on Labor 2018-2019 Work Plan From: Commission on Labor Contact: Delfina Geiken, Commission Secretary, 981-5400

41. Annual Report - Open Government Commission From: Open Government Commission Contact: Jessica Mar, Commission Secretary, 981-6950

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 14 18

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

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, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 15 19

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, September 25, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 16 20 Page 1 of 3

Community Environmental Advisory Commission CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) Submitted by: Michael Goldhaber, CEAC Chair Subject: Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements for City Fleet

RECOMMENDATION: Refer to the City Manager the finalization of a policy which would require all new purchases of light-duty passenger vehicles to be electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids, and require the City-owned light-duty passenger vehicle fleet to be 100% electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids by the mid-2020s. This policy would be based on the City & County of San Francisco’s zero-emission light-duty passenger vehicle policy1, and the report to Council should identify any additional costs associated with electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids, potentially accelerated fleet turnover, and necessary charging infrastructure on City lots.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION: Small amount of staff time for development and finalization of policy. Potential additional costs – associated with purchase and installation of charging stations, purchasing more expensive vehicles, and potentially accelerated fleet turnover rate for implementation of policy – could range on the order of $1-10 million, distributed over several years. These costs could be reduced through currently available rebates and subsidies for charging stations and electric vehicles, such as CARB’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project2 and PG&E’s EV Charge Network3 program. Unknown savings associated with reduced maintenance requirements for electric and plug-in vehicles, and the use of electricity in place of gasoline as a fuel source.

Staff to provide full estimates of associated costs and savings, available rebates, and recommended timeline to ensure manageable impact on City budget.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS Based upon an extrapolation from the best available public data (a Fleet Vehicle Management Audit developed in 2003)4, the City of Berkeley operates a fleet of over 530 vehicles, of which roughly 75-80 are light-duty passenger vehicles, or about 15% of the total. (Light-duty passenger vehicles are defined as any motor vehicle that meets the criteria of a Federal Highway Administration Class 2 Vehicle, including all sedans, coupes, and station wagons, designed primarily for the purposes of carrying passengers and comprising of no more than five seats in addition to the driver's seat.)

1947 Center St, First Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7460 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981- 7470 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=10312 21 Page 2 of 3

Citywide Green Development Requirements CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

It is expected that almost none of the City’s existing light-duty passenger fleet are electric or plug-in hybrids, though many of the newer models are likely standard hybrid vehicles (e.g. Toyota Priuses). City staff can provide a more detailed breakdown and analyses of the City-owned light-duty passenger vehicle fleet.

In recent years, electric or plug-in hybrid light-duty passenger vehicles have become commercially available, with battery ranges that can meet most municipal needs at price points that are affordable to local governments. Berkeley has yet to adopt a policy requiring that City-owned vehicles be zero-emission or plug-in hybrid, and so its use of gasoline, natural gas, and diesel-fueled vehicles contributes to climate change and exacerbates the challenges associated with achieving the City’s Climate Action Plan goals.

BACKGROUND On June 12th, 2018, City Council referred item #30 “Fossil Free Berkeley” to the Energy and Transportation Commissions. Among other things, the referral called for requiring all future City government procurements of vehicles to minimize emissions, and to establish a goal and plan for transitioning the City’s vehicle fleet to all-electric vehicles.

CEAC reviewed item #30 at its regular meeting on June 14th, 2018 as an informational item. Upon review, CEAC determined it fell within the Commission’s scope of work and was in line with its 2018 work plan, and so referred it to a subcommittee for further discussion and recommendation.

In developing this proposal, the CEAC subcommittee reviewed a previous ordinance developed and passed by the City and County of San Francisco5 requiring all of the light-duty passenger vehicles owned by the City & County to be electric or plug-in hybrids by 2022. It also evaluated commercially available vehicle models and rated battery ranges from Plug In America6, and analyzed the City’s fleet based on the 2003 Fleet Management Audit7, to determine the feasibility and likely scale of impact of the policy.

This is considered only a first step, and it is expected that the City Council will review and adopt further policies to move towards a 100% carbon-free City fleet.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Replacing City-owned light-duty passenger vehicles with electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and help the City achieve its environmental sustainability goals, including its Climate Action Plan, Fossil- Fuel Free Berkeley Declaration, and Declaration of Climate Emergency. Staff can analyze current fuel consumption to estimate direct emissions avoided via this policy.

Page 2 22 Page 3 of 3

Citywide Green Development Requirements CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: Berkeley needs to take specific steps to achieve climate goals; this is a reasonable and doable step.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED: Doing nothing, or replacing all city vehicles with either electric or bicycles were both considered too extreme or unfeasible.

CITY MANAGER The City Manager concurs that the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report are consistent with and could positively advance the City’s Climate Action Plan, Resilience Strategy, and Strategic Plan goals. However, developing and implementing the recommended policy will require significant, currently unbudgeted staff and fiscal resources. If the CEAC recommendation is adopted and prioritized by City Council, then staff will first need to identify the costs associated with advancing implementation. Ultimately, implementation of the recommended policy would require dedicated funding for purchase of new vehicles, development of necessary EV charging infrastructure, and staff time for oversight and implementation.

CONTACT PERSON Michael Goldhaber, Chair, Community Environmental Advisory Commission

1 https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5205705&GUID=5B001FFA-9629- 43BC-B1EC-B348B76F8B29 2https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng 3https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/solar-and-vehicles/your-options/clean- vehicles/charging-stations/ev-charge-network.page 4https://www.cityofberkeley.info/auditor/pdf/FleetAuditReport5-13-03.pdf 5https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5205705&GUID=5B001FFA-9629- 43BC-B1EC-B348B76F8B29 6https://plugstardealers.com/en/index.php 7https://www.cityofberkeley.info/auditor/pdf/FleetAuditReport5-13-03.pdf

Page 3 23 24 Page 1 of 3

CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Council Members Maio, Harrison, Hahn, and Mayor Arreguin

SUBJECT: Farmers’ Markets Investments

RECOMMENDATION Refer to the City Manager to initiate improvements and changes to support the Berkeley Farmers’ Markets that would address growing public safety and access concerns while enhancing the shopping experience and benefit the markets. (See Background.)

BACKGROUND This referral is advanced in recognition of the many benefits the markets bring to our community, and to ensure their long term success through municipal investment. Clearly, these requests will involve additional funding but some can be done as short term referrals, as indicated.

The specific needs are to:

● Prioritize repaving of Center Street for safety (to be worked into Public Works paving plan) ● Designate 6 additional on-street disabled parking at both the Saturday and Tuesday markets, perhaps through signage hung on existing meters (short term) ● Repair or repave Tuesday and Thursday market areas (dangerous potholes; repair is short term, repaving to be referred to Paving Plan) ● Adopt National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations and install retractable bollards to protect markets from vehicle intrusion (Staff to develop a plan with the Ecology Center and a budget) ● Install permanent folding traffic control signage for use on market days (to be discussed with Staff and Ecology Center to determine funding needs) ● Provide free first hour of parking for market shoppers at the Center Street Parking structure (determine availability of parking stalls on Saturday mornings and, if unused, implement as short term referral) ● Provide unrestricted parking behind Old City Hall on Saturdays for customers (short term) ● Provide dedicated community policing and mental health services for Saturday and Tuesday markets (consider possibilities within staffing ability)

[email protected] · 510.981.7110 · cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio 25 Page 2 of 3

● Explore options for Saturday market to expand its footprint using appropriate parts of the park (Staff to discuss possible options with Ecology Center and return with plan - short term) ● Install permanent signage as occurs in other cities, communicating locations and hours of markets (Staff to discuss with Ecology Center to develop a plan and determine budget - short term) ● Increase overhead lighting for the Tuesday market (short term referral to Public Works to determine budget) ● Install additional power for the farmers and activities at Tuesday and Thursday locations (short term referral to Public Works to determine budget)

It would be helpful to have the plans and budgets for those items so designated before the Council revisits the budget again. For more than 30 years, the Ecology Center has operated the Berkeley Farmers’ Markets, creating three thriving healthy food access points across Berkeley, and building an important community gathering space for the community. Farmers’ markets contribute to place-making in a community, are highly effective small business incubators, promote a culture of health, increase food access, and drive foot traffic and customers to surrounding brick and mortar businesses. Berkeley’s farmers’ markets are a vital part of our community in their three locations. They provide wholesome foods direct from farms, engage in important educational endeavors, and provide a gathering place for residents and visitors.

University of California Davis researchers found that farmers’ markets create 13 full time jobs for every $1 million earned versus 3 jobs for those selling in other markets1. The three farmers’ market employ between 70-100 market vendors depending on season and provide tens of millions of servings of fresh healthy foods every year. These markets are a centerpiece to efforts to reduce diet related health inequities detailed in the 2018 Berkeley Health Status Report2, and provide a health positive community space for all people to enjoy.

For over three decades, the Berkeley farmers’ markets have inserted community vibrancy, food access, and economic development without permanent infrastructure or dedicated city resources. Recently, Berkeley has again become ground zero for sometimes violent political clashes creating new challenges for the Center Street market in particular. This, along with the intermittent and long term closure of Center Street, and the general wear and tear of the physical infrastructure at all three sites, necessitates reinvestment in our city’s beloved public market space to ensure safe, thriving farmers’ markets that continue to lift up and improve these important community fixtures.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY No environmental sustainability impact.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time. Infrastructure investments unknown at this time; TBD.

1 http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/files/238053.pdf [PDF] 2 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Health_Human_Services/Public_Health/Public_Health_Reports.aspx

26 Page 3 of 3

CONTACT Office of Councilmember Linda Maio, District 1 510.981.7110 | [email protected] | cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio Office of Councilmember Kate Harrison, District 4 510.981.7140 | [email protected] | cityofberkeley.info/councildistrict4 Office of Councilmember Sophie Hahn, District 5 510.981.7150 | [email protected] | cityofberkeley.info/district5 Office of Mayor Jesse Arreguin 510.981.7100 | [email protected] | cityofberkeley.info/mayor

27 28 Page 1 of 3

Councilmember Cheryl Davila District 2 CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Cheryl Davila

Subject: Proclamation in support of 50th Anniversary of Indigenous Occupation of Alcatraz Canoe Journey

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Proclamation in support of the 50th Anniversary of Indigenous Occupation of Alcatraz Canoe Journey scheduled for summer 2019 and requiring planning in partnership with the City of Berkeley in the year leading up to the week of festivities ending in a canoe journey.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Fees waived for use of Cesar Chavez Park and for canoes docking in the Berkeley Marina.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY None.

BACKGROUND 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the iconic Occupation of Alcatraz that launched today’s era of Indigenous rights and renaissance. As Indigenous people rise and speak on behalf of a planet at risk, the summer of 2019 marks an opportunity to stand alongside them in defending Mother Earth in a global fight against the destruction of the planet and all living things.

In the summer of 2019 in Ohlone and Coastal Miwok territory, indigenous nations are coming together for a Canoe Journey back to the shores of Alcatraz for ceremony, community and action. Berkeley was one of the first cities to adopt Indigenous Peoples Day therefore it is appropriate to acknowledge and honor this historic event.

Hundreds of canoes will take to the waters in and around San Francisco Bay. Some of the canoes will be cedar dugouts, others will be strip-bark vessels—the works of Indigenous artisans, skippered by canoe families who have traveled from the inlets of

29 Page 2 of 3

Bella Bella, British Columbia, the shores of Shinnecock, New York, the everglades of Seminole, Florida and dozens of communities in between.

The canoes are led by tule boats, the original watercraft of the Ohlone, Coastal Miwok and many California tribes. In other summers, these same canoe families will take to the waters, but they do so further north—in and around the Salish Sea. The annual canoe journey—a transnational Indigenous voyage to celebrate culture, water and community—is this continent’s fastest-growing Native tradition.

Summer 2019 will bring Indigenous peoples together to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the occupation of Alcatraz for a week of traditional art, culture and ceremony, education for youth and diverse Bay Area communities, and community building across Indigenous and other communities.

We stand with Indigenous peoples for Indigenous values and rights, for the protection of the water, land and air, for the generation to come and for an inclusive and diverse humanity.

CONTACT PERSON Cheryl Davila, Councilmember, District 2 510.981.7120

ATTACHMENT: 1: Proclamation

30 Page 3 of 3

PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF THE 50th ANNIVERSARY OF THE INDIGENOUS OCCUPATION OF ALCATRAZ CANOE JOURNEY

WHEREAS, 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the iconic Occupation of Alcatraz that launched today’s era of Indigenous rights and renaissance; and

WHEREAS, as Indigenous people rise and speak on behalf of a planet at risk, the summer of 2019 marks an opportunity to stand together with them in defending Mother Earth in a global fight for survival of the planet and all living things; and

WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley is on the Ohlone Land of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan; and

WHEREAS, in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the Alcatraz Occupation, during the summer of 2019 in Ohlone and Coastal Miwok territory, hundreds of canoes will take to the waters in and around San Francisco Bay and journey to the shores of Alcatraz Island; and

WHEREAS, the 50th Anniversary Canoe Journey seeks to bring global attention to a planet in peril and greater understanding of the sacred systems of life on behalf of future generations; highlight the perils of climate change, the urgent need to protect water that sustains life, imminent threats to biodiversity and the opportunity for Indigenous people to lead the way; raise-up Indigenous peoples (who comprise less than three percent of the world’s population yet protect more than 80 percent of its biodiversity) as environmental stewards; and demonstrate the potential for Indigenous values to counterbalance our culture’s pervasive focus on acquisition, consumption and their pernicious side effect: environmental degradation.; and

WHEREAS, the Canoe Journey will be an opportunity to teach children across the region about climate, water and their opportunity to make a difference as protectors and stewards of the planet, and engage and empower Native and non-Native youth to participate fully in planning, organizing, building, pulling and all activities associated with the Canoe Journey; and

WHEREAS, the Canoe Journey will be an opportunity to bring together California’s disparate tribes, the Bay Area’s urban Native communities plus allies from non-Native backgrounds to honor the Bay, celebrate human and Indigenous rights and build coalitions to address climate, water, biodiversity and environmental justice.; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley proclaims our support for the

50th ANNIVERSARY OF THE INDIGENOUS OCCUPATION OF ALCATRAZ CANOE JOURNEY taking place in Summer 2019 on the shores of the Bay Area, including Berkeley’s Marina.

______Mayor Jesse Arreguin Councilmember Linda Maio Councilmember Cheryl Davila

______Councilmember Ben Bartlett Councilmember Kate Harrison Councilmember Sophie Hahn

______Councilmember Susan Wengraf Councilmember Kriss Worthington Councilmember Lori Droste

31 32 Page 1 of 3

Councilmember Cheryl Davila District 2 CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmembers Cheryl Davila, Kate Harrison and Ben Bartlett

Subject: Community-Based Disaster Preparedness Fair: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to approve the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $250 per Councilmember, including $250 from Councilmembers Cheryl Davila, Kate Harrison and Ben Bartlett to the Berkeley Disaster Preparedness Neighborhood Network for their Community-based Disaster Preparedness Fair on October 20, 2018, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Councilmember Davila and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION No General Fund impact; $250 is available from Councilmembers Cheryl Davila, Kate Harrison and Ben Bartlett’s Council Office Budget discretionary accounts (budget codes 010-0224-410, 010- 0243-410, 010-0233-410).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Community-based Disaster Preparedness advances the goals of Climate Emergency Declaration and Climate Action Plan by educating and preparing the community for a disaster preparedness.

BACKGROUND The Berkeley Disaster Preparedness Neighborhood Network (BDPNN) is a volunteer organization formed in 2009 by neighborhood leaders to address the gap between the training and support capabilities of the City of Berkeley and the needs of neighborhoods preparing for disasters. BDPNN’s mission is to assist Berkeley households and neighborhoods to respond effectively to disasters by further developing organizational skills, human and material resources, and responsiveness through sharing experiences, seeking expert advice, enhanced training and information sharing.

33 Page 2 of 3

BDPNN is organizing a public community-based event to demonstrate that a cohesive and resilient community is the best way to prepare for a disaster.The effort will be planned and executed by a coalition of community groups and individuals, featuring demonstrations of disaster response techniques, and information on how best to prepare for various scenarios. The event will focus on the positive power of community, not fear. Presenters will include Berkeley resident CERT instructors, Berkeley Disaster Prep Neighborhood Network, East Bay Disaster and Disability Rights Group, NALCO (ham radio), BeCERTAINN (radio operators), and others.

CONTACT PERSON Cheryl Davila, Councilmember, District 2 510.981.7120

ATTACHMENT: 1: Resolution

34 Page 3 of 3

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE

WHEREAS, Councilmember Cheryl Davila has surplus funds in her office expenditure account (budget code 010-0224-410); and

WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax-exempt corporation Berkeley Disaster Preparedness Neighborhood Network (BDPNN) will hold their Community-Based Disaster Preparedness Fair on October 20, 2018; and

WHEREAS, the Community-Based Disaster Preparedness Fair seeks to demonstrate that a cohesive and resilient community is the best way to prepare for a disaster; and

WHEREAS, the event will focus on the positive power of community, not fear; and

WHEREAS, Berkeley needs a humanitarian, unified, resiliency-based approach to preparing and responding to the disasters it may face such as earthquakes, fires, sea level rise, and other climate change-related disasters; and

WHEREAS, Berkeley needs community preparation to respond to the possibility of active shooters; and

WHEREAS, in mass disasters, such as the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the community may have to rely on each other given the demand on City and County emergency responders.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget up to $250 per office shall be granted to Berkeley Disaster Preparedness Neighborhood Network (BDPNN) for their Community-Based Disaster Preparedness Fair on October 20, 2018.

35 36 Page 1 of 2

Councilmember Ben Bartlett City of Berkeley, District 3

CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett Subject: Refer to the Commission on Disability to examine the impacts that the parking citation system may have on persons with low income and disabilities

RECOMMENDATION Refer to the Commission on Disability to examine the impacts that the parking citation system may have on people with low income and disabilities.

BACKGROUND As the system stands, when a parking citation is issued, the registered owner of the vehicle is given 21 days to pay the citation. After this period, the fine for the citation increases. Allowing just three weeks to pay parking fines results in already-vulnerable citizens being unable to pay their citations on time.

This issue of equity in parking ticket payment deadlines is especially poignant for the disabled community because of the correlation between ability and income. US Census findings report that the average monthly income of a person without a disability is $2,724, while the average for a person with moderate disability is $2,402 and $1,577 for those with severe disabilities.1 This would indicate that individuals with disabilities are more likely to be significantly impacted by tickets, unable to pay fees and therefore be subjected to additional fines, have their licenses revoked, and possibly face negative financial and personal implications such as loss of employment and inability to access child care.

While parking tickets are meant to create a universal punishment for a violation of the law, the fines pose a greater risk to the financial security of low-income individuals while subsequent fees for inability to meet payment deadlines create endless cycles of delinquent debt. The subsequent fines and revocation of one’s license as a result of being unable to pay parking tickets imposes additional financial strain on these individuals, infringing upon one’s ability to work and meet basic needs, such as getting to and from doctor’s appointments, school, and child care. This, in turn,

1 https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/disability/20120726_cspan_disability_slides_15.pdf

37 Page 2 of 2

negatively impacts individuals’ family members as they are forced to take on additional financial strain and perform additional tasks to meet basic needs.

Although the establishment of more equitable payment deadlines for parking tickets would prove beneficial to individuals with disabilities, there is also evidence that it would be financially beneficial to the city. This is supported by findings of the California Amnesty Program that equitable payment programs resulted in triple the revenue in comparison to delinquent debt collections.2

According to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, “A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.”3 Taking this into consideration, we must alter the parking citation payment system so that it does not unfairly discriminate against and criminalize those with disabilities.

FISCAL IMPACT Unknown.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY N/A

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Ben Bartlett, District 3 (510) 981-7130

2 https://insightcced.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/May2017_DrivingintoDebt-Final.pdf 3 https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_regulations.htm#title2regs

38 Page 1 of 4

Kate Harrison Councilmember District 4

CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Harrison Subject: Resolution in Support of State Propositions 1 and 2 RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution Supporting State Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act, and Proposition 2, the No Place Like Home Act. BACKGROUND On August 31st, 2018, representatives of the East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO) requested that the City of Berkeley officially support statewide ballot measures Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, both of which generate state bond revenue for affordable housing. The Berkeley City Council has placed two affordable housing measures on the local ballot, Measure O, item 4 on July 31st meeting agenda, and Measure P, item 5 on July 31st meeting agenda. Propositions 1 and 2 complement and strengthen Measures O and P and demonstrate a commitment to affordable housing in Berkeley and across California. Proposition 1 is a $4 billion bond measure intended to address the affordable housing crisis in California by providing funding to support multi-family housing, farmworker housing, first-time homebuyer assistance, and home loans for veterans. A quarter of the bond revenue is designated for housing assistance for veterans. Proposition 2 authorizes the state to use revenue from Proposition 63 (2004) for homelessness prevention housing for persons in need of mental health services. It amends the previously ratified proposition to designate $2 billion towards financing permanent housing for individuals with mental illness who are homeless or at risk of chronic homelessness.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Consistent with the City’s climate and environmental goals. CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Kate Harrison, Council District 4, (510) 981-7140 Attachments:

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected] 39 Page 2 of 4

[Title of Report] CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

1: Resolution

Page 2 40 Page 3 of 4

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

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF STATE PROPOSITIONS 1 AND 2

WHEREAS, housing affordability is an urgent issue facing families and communities across California; and

WHEREAS, more than half of California households that rent (more than 3 million) spend more than 30 percent of their income toward rent, and nearly one-third (over 1.5 million households) spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent; and

WHEREAS, the devastation of the housing crisis is evident in the growing homelessness in our communities, and as many as a third of the people living in homelessness are living with an untreated mental illness; and

WHEREAS, permanent supportive housing for the homeless significantly reduces public health costs and achieves better health outcomes; and

WHEREAS, even though federal funding for affordable housing comprises a significant portion of California’s resources to support affordable housing, funds allocated to California from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME programs have declined by 51 and 66 percent, respectively; and

WHEREAS, last year the Legislature passed and Governor Brown signed both SB 3 (Beall) and AB 1827 (Budget Committee), that placed Propositions 1 and 2 on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Act, dedicates funding to help military veterans have a safe place to call home, provides stable housing for struggling families, people experiencing homelessness and individuals with disabilities; and

WHEREAS, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Act invests in Californians’ priorities including building homes, creating jobs, and boosting the economy with the measure projected to create 137,000 jobs and pump $23.4 billion into California’s economy; and

WHEREAS, a recent RAND study in Los Angeles County of supportive housing programs similar to those proposed under Proposition 2, the No Place Like Home act, found early success with more than 3,000 people moved off the streets, into housing and care, and saving taxpayers more than $6 million after just one year.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley hereby supports both the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act and the No Place Like Home Act on the November 6, 2018 ballot to provide much needed funding to support important affordable

41 Page 4 of 4

housing projects and connect people who have serious mental illnesses to the supportive housing they need to get treatment; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley supports and can be listed as a member of the Veterans and Affordable Housing Act coalition.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley supports and can be listed as a member of the Proposition 2: No Place Like Home coalition.

Page 2 42 Page 1 of 4

Susan Wengraf Councilmember District 6 CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Susan Wengraf Subject: Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance

RECOMMENDATION Refer to the City Manager to review draft Safe Storage of Firearms ordinance, identify and resolve issues, and return to Council within 90 days.

BACKGROUND Firearms kept unlocked can easily get into the wrong hands, including those of young children, teens and people struggling with mental health issues. In June 2017, CNN reported that 1,300 children are victims of unintentional child shootings in the US annually. Everytown, a gun violence prevention group, noted that on average, “someone gets shot by an American toddler a little more frequently than once a week.”

Storing firearms in a locked container or disabling them with a trigger lock has proven to reduce unintended child shootings and teen suicide rates. Researchers at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that youth suicide by gun rose dramatically between 2007 and 2014. For example, gun suicide by minors ten years and older increased by 60 percent in that time frame. Studies have also shown that the risk of suicide is significantly higher in homes where a firearm is kept loaded and/or unlocked—particularly amongst children and teens. Per the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence at least two academic studies have found that even for homes without children, the risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.

Unintentional shootings by unlocked and/or loaded firearms are also significant. A three year old is strong enough to fire some types of handguns. Everytown for Gun Safety published an analysis in 2014 which found that 70 percent of shooting deaths involving children could have been prevented if the firearm has been stored locked and unloaded.

Berkeley High students, Charlie Kaplanpettus, Ena June and Kayla Schalit of Berkeley High Students Demand Action for Gun Sense in America worked with Councilmember Wengraf to introduce a Safe Storage Ordinance for the City of Berkeley. They noted that 1.7 million children in the U.S. live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected] 43 Page 2 of 4

Ten California cities, including Oakland, San Francisco, Moraga, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, and Los Angeles, have safe storage laws. Safe storage laws reduce youth unintended shootings, teen suicide, and stolen guns. The proposed ordinance is modeled on San Francisco’s “Storage of Firearms in Any Residence” Ordinance.

Currently California has some of the strictest safe storage laws in the country. However, the laws only apply to some firearms, focused on where the gun is manufactured or purchased. The Berkeley Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance would mandate all gun owners to responsibly store their firearms. Firearms carried on the person of an individual in accordance with all applicable laws would be exempted while on the person.

FISCAL IMPACTS Minimal.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY In compliance

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

Attachments: 1: Draft Ordinance

44 Page 3 of 4

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT ANY PERSON FROM KEEPING A FIREARM WITHIN ANY RESIDENCE UNLESS THE FIREARM IS STORED IN A LOCKED CONTAINER OR DISABLED WITH A TRIGGER LOCK

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

Section 1. Chapter 13.69 of the Berkeley Municipal Code is hereby added as follows: FIREARMS located in ANY residence to be kept in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.

Section 13.69.010 Prohibitions (A) Prohibition. No person shall keep a firearm within any residence unless the firearm is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.

Section 13.69.020 Definitions As used in this Section 13.69.020, the following terms have the following meaning:

(A) "Firearm" means a Firearm as defined in California Penal Code, Section 16520, as amended from time to time.

(B)"Locked container" means a locked container as defined in California Penal Code, Section 16850, as amended from time to time and is listed on the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms roster of approved firearm safety devices.

(C) "Residence" means any structure intended or used for human habitation, including but not limited to houses, condominiums, rooms, in-law units, motels, hotels, SRO's, time shares, and recreational and other vehicles where human habitation occurs.

(D) "Trigger lock" means a trigger lock that is listed on the California Department of Justice's roster of approved firearms safety devices and that is identified as appropriate for that firearm by reference to either the manufacturer and model of the firearm or to the physical characteristics of the firearm that match those listed on the roster for use with the device under CA Penal Code section 23635.

Section 13.69.030 Exceptions (A) Exceptions. This Section 13.69.030 shall not apply in the following circumstances:

(1) The firearm is carried on the person of an individual in accordance with all applicable laws.

(2) The firearm is under the control of a person who is a peace officer under CA Penal Code Section 830

45 Page 4 of 4

Section 13.69.040 Lost or Stolen Firearms (A) Lost or Stolen Firearms. In order to encourage reports to law enforcement agencies of lost or stolen firearms pursuant to BMC Chapter 13.75, a person who files a report with a law enforcement agency notifying the agency that a firearm has been lost or stolen shall not be subject to prosecution for violation of Section BMC Chapter 13.69.

Section 13.69.050 Penalty (A) Penalty. Every violation of this Chapter 13.69 shall constitute a misdemeanor (reference BMC 1.20.010) and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed six months, or by both.

Section 2. Severability (A) Severability. If any provision, clause or word of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision, clause, word or application of this Section 2 which can be given effect without the invalid provision, clause or word, and to this end the provisions of this Section are declared to be severable.

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

46 Page 1 of 4

Susan Wengraf Councilmember District 6 CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Susan Wengraf Subject: Support for AB-2342, Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Screening

RECOMMENDATION Send a letter (see attached) in support of AB-2342 (Burke and Waldron), which requires health care service plans, health insurers, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to provide coverage for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility screening as recommended by the United States Preventative Services Task Force.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None.

BACKGROUND All women at high risk for breast or ovarian cancer, even those without symptoms, should be identified and given the opportunity to receive screening, counseling and testing. This is especially necessary to aid our health care system in providing more equitable care. Women of color are disproportionately dying from breast and ovarian cancer due to lack of early detection and proper treatment. It is imperative that we ensure that all high-risk women, regardless of socio-economic status or color, are provided with every resource possible to protect themselves and their family.

AB 2342, authored by Assembly Members Autumn Burke (D-Marina del Rey) and Marie Waldron (R-Escondido), requires health care service plans, health insurers, and the State Department of Health Care Services to cover screening, genetic counseling, and testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene mutations as recommended by United States Preventative Services Task Force. This applies to women who have not been diagnosed with cancer and do not have signs or symptoms of the disease, but who may have an increased risk based on one or more specific family history risk factors. Although those screenings are already required under the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA, Health Care Reform), California should ensure that despite the status of the ACA, the State of California will continue to cover these vital assessments and screenings.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY N/A

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected] 47 Page 2 of 4

Support for AB-2342, Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Screening CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

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

Attachments: 1: Link to AB-2342 2: Letter Addressees 3: Draft Letter

Page 2 48 Page 3 of 4

Letter to be sent to the following:

State Assembly Member Autumn Burke State Capitol P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0062

State Assembly Member Marie Waldron State Capitol Suite #4130 Sacramento, CA 94249

Cc:

State Senator Nancy Skinner State Capitol, Room 2059 Sacramento, CA 95814

State Assembly Member Tony Thurmond State Capitol P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-001

49 Page 4 of 4

September 25, 2018

RE: Support for AB-2342, Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Screening

Dear Assembly Members Burke and Waldron, The City of Berkeley strongly supports AB-2342, requiring health care service plans, health insurers, and the State Department of Health Care Services to cover screening, genetic counseling, and testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene mutations as recommended by USPSTF. The City of Berkeley further commends you for making your legislation apply to women who have not been diagnosed with cancer and do not have signs or symptoms of the disease, but who may have an increased risk based on one or more specific family history risk factors. Although those screenings are already required under the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA, Health Care Reform), California should ensure that despite the status of the ACA, the State of California will continue to cover these vital assessments and screenings. Preventative screenings are critical to saving lives and minimizing necessary treatments. All women, of all races and economic classes, should have access to susceptibility screenings. The Berkeley City Council fully supports AB-2342 and applauds your work on this matter. Thank you, The Berkeley City Council

cc: Honorable Senator Nancy Skinner Honorable Assembly Member Tony Thurmond

50 Page 1 of 2

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 September 25, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington

Subject: Letter Opposing Telecommunications Act Forbearance

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council send a letter to the Federal Communications Commission opposing the US Telecom Association forbearance petition.

BACKGROUND: The US Telecom Association has submitted a petition to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting to forbear the Telecommunications Act of 1996, meaning that the Act would be ruled outdated and no longer enforced. The Telecommunications Act requires incumbent internet service providers (ISPs) and established service carriers (Verizon, AT&T) to make bare copper lines, other copper-based network elements, and fiber optics available for rent at regulated prices. These critical unbundled network elements (UNEs) enable small internet providers to deploy equipment and provide services at a competitive price. UNE copper services are essential to a fair market because it allows small providers to aggregate demand and serve customers while deploying fiber.

The Telecommunications Act serves as the legal backbone for constituting business models for various small and independent ISPs that do not have the financial or human capital to personally procure or invest in market viable network infrastructure. There is already a lack of competitive choice in internet access and telecom service. If the petition is approved, independent carriers in Berkeley and across the country will lose access to critical network elements, and consumers could lose their choice of providers. The Berkeley City Council should use its voice to oppose the petition in order to support fair competition within Berkeley.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal.

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

CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

ATTACHMENTS: Text of letter https://savecompetition.com https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/customers-of-small-isps-could-pay-more-if-attverizon-lobby-

51 Page 2 of 2 gets-its-way/

Dear FCC Commissioners,

The Berkeley City Council opposes the Petition for Forbearance of USTELECOM, which calls for the forbearance of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Currently, the Act requires incumbent internet service providers (ISPs) and established service carriers to make bare copper lines, other copper-based network elements, and fiber optics available for rent at regulated prices. These critical unbundled network elements (UNEs) enable small internet providers to deploy equipment and provide services at a competitive price. UNE copper services are essential to a fair market because it allows small providers to aggregate demand and serve customers while deploying fiber.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act serves as the legal backbone for constituting business models for various small and independent ISPs that do not have the financial or human capital to personally procure or invest in market viable network infrastructure.There is already a lack of competitive choice in internet access and telecom service. If the petition is approved, independent carriers in Berkeley and across the country will lose access to critical network elements, and consumers could lose their choice of providers. The Berkeley City Council should use its voice to oppose the petition in order to support fair competition within Berkeley.

The City of Berkeley strives to ensure fair competition for the benefit of businesses and consumers. When reviewing the Petition for Forbearance of USTELECOM, it is important to consider the negative effects it will have on fair competition.

Respectfully, Berkeley City Council

52 Page 1 of 2

Lori Droste Berkeley City Council District 8 CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmembers Lori Droste, Ben Bartlett, and Cheryl Davila

Subject: Traffic Circle Vegetation Maintenance Policy

RECOMMENDATION Refer to Parks and Waterfront Commission and the Transportation Commission to establish a city/community task force to: a) Evaluate the City’s current traffic circle vegetation policy and b) Conduct a community led process to update that policy to ensure pedestrian/bicycle/ vehicle safety and preserve community efforts to beautify traffic circles.

Task force activities may include, but are not limited to: ● Conducting a survey of current traffic circles and their vegetation ● Conducting a survey of neighborhood associations, neighborhood captains, community and community groups such as Berkeley Partners for Parks to determine which traffic circles are being maintained by community members ● Examining the City of Oakland’s ‘Adopt a Spot’ initiative to encourage community involvement in the maintenance of public spaces by loaning tools, supplies, and technical assistance to committed members of the community ● Hosting a presentation from City staff to better understand concerns with the current traffic circle policy and any safety concerns that should be taken into consideration ● Developing a clear set of guidelines/criteria to allow for community maintenance of traffic circles ● Outlining the appropriate community outreach strategy and process to share the updated policy for managing vegetation in traffic circles ● Developing a replanting strategy, with emphasis on drought-resistant plants.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION Staff time

53 Page 2 of 2

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Supports the City’s Climate Emergency Declaration, the City’s Climate Action Plan and commitment to Vision Zero.

CONTACT PERSON Lori Droste, Berkeley City Council, District 8, 510-981-7180

Adopt a Spot, City of Oakland: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/s/SO/OAK024605

54 Page 1 of 16

Lori Droste Berkeley City Council District 8

CONSENT CALENDAR September 25, 2018

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Councilmembers Lori Droste and Susan Wengraf

SUBJECT: Refer to the City Manager UC Berkeley Game Day Parking Restrictions and Fines in RPP Surrounding Campus

RECOMMENDATION Refer to the City Manager to adopt a Resolution: 1) Establishing a new Parking Fine Schedule including increased parking fines of $300 per violation of BMC 14.40.090 in Residential Preferential Parking zones A, B, D, E, F G on posted University of California football game days;

2) Modifying RPP zones A, B, and D on posted University of California football game days to prohibit parking without a valid Residential Preferential Parking permit;

3) Modifying RPP zones E, F, G (which do not have RPP on Saturdays) to include RPP enforcement on posted University of California football game days.

4) Replacing existing RPP signs in zones A, B, D, E, F, and G with new signs clearly indicating the University of California football game day parking prohibitions and listing the dates on the sign of University of California football game days; and

5) Assessing the modified University of California Football Game Day Parking Fine program within three years of implementation and recommend to Council whether to continue or modify the program; and rescinding Resolution 63,800- N.S.

55 Page 2 of 16

BACKGROUND Due to the lack of garage parking around the South of campus and the low parking fines, many of vehicles park in the neighborhood RPP zones during UC Berkeley football games. This results in a great inconvenience to residents in these neighborhoods. In 2008, Councilmember Wozniak created a pilot program, which is still in place, to double parking fines associated with illegal parking in RPP areas A, B, and D on UC Berkeley football game days. Additionally, City Council unanimously passed a referral in April 2016 to address the impacts of game day parking on neighborhoods. The current fine for a game day parking ticket is $72. Because fraternities, sororities, and other entities charge $60-$100 for game day parking, the current $72 fine, although more than it previously was, does little to deter visitors from parking illegally in neighborhoods.

In response to the April 2016 Council referral, the Transportation Commission proposed that fines be raised to $300 and that RPP permits be required on game days in RPP Zones A, B, and D. Council members representing other parts of the City raised concerns that these changes would shift the impact of game day parking into their neighborhoods, which do not have RPP on Saturdays. To prevent game day parking in those neighborhoods, this Resolution would enforce the 2 hour parking rules on posted Game days.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Increased fees may encourage use of alternative forms of transportation to UC Berkeley football games thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

FISCAL IMPACT Staff time and signage. Increased revenue from parking tickets on game days.

CONTACT Councilmember Lori Droste (510) 981-7180 Councilmember Susan Wengraf (510) 981-7160

Attachments: Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus

56 Page 13 of 1316

City Manager ACTION CALENDAR July 25, 2017

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager Submitted by: Phillip L. Harrington, Director, Public Works Subject: Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F and G Surrounding Campus

RECOMMENDATION In order to implement the recommendation of the Transportation Commission, adopt a Resolution: 1) Establishing a new Parking Fine Schedule including increased parking fines of $300 per violation of BMC 14.40.090 in Residential Preferential Parking zones A, B, and D on posted University of California football game days;

2) Modifying RPP zones A, B, and D on posted University of California football game days to prohibit parking without a valid Residential Preferential Parking permit;

3) Replacing existing RPP signs in zones A, B, and D with new signs clearly indicating the University of California football game day parking prohibition and listing the dates on the sign of University of California football game days; and

4) Assessing the modified University of California Football Game Day Parking Fine program within three years of implementation and recommend to Council whether to continue or modify the program; and rescinding Resolution 63,800- N.S.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION There are approximately 600 existing Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) signs in zones A, B, and D, which would need to be replaced with signs indicating the new parking regulation and applicable dates to be updated each year. This includes a small number of spare signs to be used for maintenance or for new streets that may opt into the program in these zones. The one-time cost for signs will be $100 each or a total of $60,000. The portion of the sign identifying the dates of University of California (UC) football game days will be a decal to be replaced annually showing the new dates. Based on historical rates of damage or defacement, 900 decals per year will be required at a material cost of $9,000 per year. Initial installation will require 200 person hours for a one time labor cost of $20,000. Annual sign maintenance and decal replacement will

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 57 Page 24 of 1316

Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus July 25, 2017

require 100 hours for an annual labor cost of $10,000. Thus the total first year cost to install new signs will be $89,000. The annual cost of updating the signs will be $19,000. It is unknown how many citations may be issued and what resultant revenue would accrue to the General Fund (010-7303-351.40-10) to offset the cost of implementation. The cost to fabricate and install signs will come from the General Fund (010-5505- 431.13-01 and 010-5505-431.55-20). Enforcement will be done using existing parking enforcement staff supported by Parking Meter Fund (840-7303-420.11-01). The costs to install and maintain the new signs and decals are listed in the table below.

First-Year Cost Ongoing Annual Cost

Signs Materials $60,000 -

Labor $20,000 -

Decals Materials $9,000 $9,000

Labor Included in sign installation $10,000

Total $89,000 $19,000

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS On June 16, 2016, the Transportation Commission took the following action:

It was moved and seconded (Parolek/Ghosh) to recommend Council increase game day parking fines to $300 and remove the two-hour parking option on UC football game days in (RPP) Zones A, B, and D in the South campus area. This action would create permit-only parking south of campus on game days, and the increased fine for parking citations would provide a strong deterrent to intentional game-day parking violations in these three zones. Ayes: Bruzzone, Gerhardstein, Ghosh, Humbert, Parolek, Thomas, Zander Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Howe, Lathbury (7-0-0-2) Motion carried.

It was the Commission’s view that even with double parking fines for game day parking violations set at $72, many game day visitors tend to view this cost favorably when compared to event parking rates charged by other entities.

The City Manager’s report differs from the Commission report only in specifying that implementation of the recommendation requires rescinding and replacing Resolution 63,800-N.S. which contains the existing parking fine schedule.

Page 2 58 Page 35 of 1316

Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus July 25, 2017

BACKGROUND This report responds to an April 5, 2016 Council referral sponsored by Councilmembers Droste, Wengraf and Capitelli.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY If these steps prove effective based upon before-and-after evaluation, they would reduce the amount of local game day vehicle traffic congestion and exhaust emissions and encourage use of alternative forms of transportation to UC Berkeley football games.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION A reduction in RPP parking violations would benefit the quality of life for residents in impacted neighborhoods.

The Commission discussed options for fine levels that could be expected to reduce the congestion caused by on-street game day parking. Consensus was that the most effective fine should exceed the price of available off-street game day parking by a significant margin. After discussion, the Commission concluded that the most effective deterrent would be a $300 fine.

Commissioners felt these two actions should be taken for a trial period in existing double-fine areas, Zones A, B, and D only. The Commission further emphasized the need for clarity in the new signage indicating that RPP Zones A, B, and D would become permit-only parking on football game days.

These steps would be expected to streamline parking enforcement on game days during the trial period.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED Consideration was given to creating more Tow Away zones, but after considering capacity of resources and effectiveness, this was rejected. The Commission concluded that a more effective approach would be to simply eliminate the two-hour parking allowance in RPP Zones A, B, and D on football game days. Zones F and G do not require permit parking enforcement on Saturdays.

Enacting a new resolution to increase game day fines; design and install the necessary signs; and take the other necessary steps to implement the Commission recommendation would take more than 90 days (the threshold for short term referrals), and could be sent back to Council for the annual referral prioritization process. However, the Commission did not initially anticipate the magnitude or duration of this task and took action shortly after the Council referral. Based on that action by the Commission, staff has prepared the cost analysis necessary to provide Council an opportunity for implementation prior to the 2017 football season.

Evaluation of the effects and costs of this pilot program would determine whether it should be replicated in Zones F, G, and possibly K.

Page 3 59 Page 46 of 1316

Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus July 25, 2017

CITY MANAGER The City Manager concurs with the recommendations of the Commission’s Report. However, in order to properly establish the modified fine schedule and maintain the appropriate legislative history it is necessary to rescind the fine schedule established in Resolution 63,800-N.S. and adopt a new resolution with the revised fine schedule per the recommended action of this report.

CONTACT PERSON Farid Javandel, Transportation Commission Secretary (510) 981-7058

Attachments: 1: Resolution Exhibit A: Football Game Day Fines 2: RPP Zone Boundary Map 3: Original Referral Report from Councilmembers Droste, Wengraf, and Capitelli April 5, 2016

Page 4 60 Page 57 of 1316

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

INCREASE FINES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS AND LATE PAYMENT PENALTIES AND PROHIBIT PARKING WITHOUT A PERMIT FOR SELECTED AREAS ON THE DAYS DURING SATURDAYS WHEN THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY CONDUCTS FOOTBALL GAMES AT THE BERKELEY CAMPUS AND RESCIND AND REPLACE RESOLUTION NO. 63,800–N.S. AND DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE ANNUAL NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF THE DATES DURING WHICH FINES WOULD BE INCREASED

WHEREAS, the State of California Vehicle Code Section 40203.5 states that cities may establish the amount of parking fines and late payment penalties; and

WHEREAS, on June 24, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 62,127– N.S. which established a schedule of parking fines and late payment penalties; and

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 62,848– N.S. which amended the schedule to establish fines and late payment penalties for violations of Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 14.52.063 which makes it unlawful for a vehicle to park within a pay-and-display area without a dispensing ticket displayed upon the vehicle and BMC Section 14.52.066 which makes it unlawful for a vehicle to improperly display a pay-and-display dispensing ticket within a pay-and-display area; and

WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 63,800-N.S. which established a pilot program for the period from September 1, 2007 to November 11, 2007 inclusive and amended the fine schedule to establish a parking violation fine of $72, and late payment penalties of $102 and $152, respectively, for payments made 27 days and 46 days after the original due date, for violation of BMC Section 14.40.090 in Residential Parking Permit areas designated as A, B and D in the South campus area on September 1, September 15, September 22, October 13, November 3, and November 10, 2007 during University of California football game days: and

WHEREAS, on September 16, 2008 The City Council adopted Resolution Number 64,192-N.S. permanently establishing the increased parking fines specified in Resolution 63,800-N.S. on Saturday Football home game days to be determined annually and reasonably noticed to the public; and

WHEREAS, the University of California football games have substantial attendance that has impacted the parking situation in surrounding neighborhoods with residential parking, namely areas designated A, B, and D which are enforced on specified Saturdays during football home game days; and

61 Page 68 of 1316

Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus July 25, 2017

WHEREAS, there is a lack of off-street parking around the South campus area and it is the City’s intent to reduce private automobile use by promoting mass transit options such as BART and AC Transit; and the current parking fine of $72 is not sufficient to deter extended game day parking, particularly in comparison to the $60-100 charged by various institutions for parking near the campus and stadium; and

WHEREAS, increasing fines will help City revenues, a portion of which is to be used to promote mass transit and mitigate the impact of the games on neighborhoods, including police costs and post-game clean-ups; and

WHEREAS, the permanent double parking fines program established by Council adoption of Resolution No. 63,800–N.S. on September 16, 2008 has proven insufficient to address parking concerns for the neighborhoods in residential parking areas A, B and D during Saturday home games; and

WHEREAS, on April 5, 2016, the City Council referred to the Transportation Commission to review current parking fines ($72) for UC Berkeley Football game day parking in RPP zones A, B, D, F and G and recommend higher fees to deter visitors from parking in those RPP zones; and

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2016, the Transportation Commission reviewed current parking fines ($72) for UC Berkeley Football game day parking in RPP zones A, B, and D and recommended increasing the citation amount to $300 and prohibiting parking without a permit to deter visitors from parking in those RPP zones; and

WHEREAS, it is therefore reasonable to establish increased parking violations of $300 and late payment penalties of $330 and $380, respectively, for payments made 27 days and 46 days after the original due date, for vehicles parked in violation of BMC Section 14.40.090 for the following violations: no preferential parking permit displayed, preferential parking permit expired and/or improper preferential permit displayed; and

WHEREAS, since the dates when the University of California at Berkeley conducts home football games changes annually, the City Manager will provide reasonable annual notification to the public of the dates during which the fines are doubled; and

WHEREAS, as shown in Exhibit A, all football day parking violation fines are in effect from 9 AM to 11 PM.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that a parking violation fine of $300, and late payment penalties of $330 and $380, respectively, for payments made 27 days and 46 days after the original due date, be established for violation of BMC Section 14.40.090 in Residential Parking Permit areas designated as A, B, and D in the South campus area during Saturdays when the

Page 6 62 Page 79 of 1316

Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus July 25, 2017

University of California at Berkeley conducts football games at the Berkeley campus as specified in the Parking Fine Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is directed to annually determine the dates during which parking fines shall be increased to $300 and provide reasonable notice to the public of these dates by posting of such dates on signs within the specified RPP areas.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is directed to assess the modified University of California Football Game Day Parking Fine program within three years of implementation and recommend to Council whether to continue or modify the program

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Resolution 63- 800-N.S. is hereby rescinded and replaced by this resolution.

Page 7 63 PagePage 10 8 of of 13 16

Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus July 25, 2017

PARKING FINE SCHEDULE EXHIBIT A Violation Code Description Old New Addt’l Addt’l Section Amount Fine $30 After $50 On Amount 27th day 46th day 21113A cvc Parked on public grounds 41 41 71 121 21211B cvc Vehicle blocking bike lane 41 41 71 121 22500A cvc Parking in an Intersection 47 47 77 127 22500B cvc Parking in a Crosswalk 47 47 77 127 22500C cvc Parking in a Safety Zone 47 47 77 127 22500D cvc Parking in 15Ft of Fire Sta. 47 47 77 127 22500E cvc Parking in Driveway 47 47 77 127 22500F cvc Parking on or across sidewalk 47 47 77 127 22500G cvc Parking construction no permit 47 47 77 127 22500H cvc Double parked 47 47 77 127 22500I cvc No parking/stopping coach zone 250 250 280 330 22500J cvc Parked in tunnel 41 41 71 121 22500kcvc Parked on bridge 41 41 71 121 22500Lcvc Blocking disable ramp 250 250 280 330 22502A cvc 18" from curb two-way street 65 65 95 145 22502 cvc 18” from curb one-way street 39 39 69 119 22507.8A cvc Parking in disabled zone 275 275 305 355 22507.8B cvc Obstructing access disab. Zone 275 275 305 355 22514 cvc Within 15' of fire hydrant 65 65 95 145 21718 cvc Parking on freeway 41 41 71 121 22521cvc Parked on railroad tracks 41 41 71 121 22522 cvc Parked w/in 3' of wheelchair ramps 275 275 305 355 22523A cvc Aband veh on highway 155 155 185 235 22523B cvc Aband veh on pub/prvt property 155 155 185 235 14.40.010 BMC 30 mnt parking overtime zone 30 30 60 110 14.40.010 BMC Overtime Zone 10 min limit 30 30 60 110 14.40.010 BMC Overtime Zone 15 min limit 30 30 60 110 14.40.010 BMC Overtime Zone 24 min limit 30 30 60 110 14.40.010 BMC Overtime Zone 5 min limit 30 30 60 110 14.40.030 BMC Overtime Zone 60 min limit 30 30 60 110 14.40.130A BMC City Lot - Area Permit Parking 44 44 74 124 14.40.130C BMC Reserved Parking - No Permit Displayed 36 36 66 116 14.40.130E BMC Reserved City Hall Parking - Towable 51 51 81 131 14.40.150A BMC Car parking in motorcycle area 38 38 68 118 14.40.150B BMC Time limits-m/c zones 38 38 68 118 14.40.040 BMC Overtime Zone 2 hr limit 30 30 60 110 14.40.050A BMC Vehicle out. markers (parallel) 35 35 65 115 14.40.050B BMC Facing wrong way /one way st. 35 35 65 115 14.40.050B BMC Over 18" from curb-one way st 38 38 68 118 14.40.060A BMC Outside marks (diagonal) 38 38 68 118 14.40.060B BMC Diag FW 6'/curb Diag. Front 38 38 68 118 14.40.070 BMC Tow zone 4-6 p.m. 51 51 81 131 14.40.070 BMC Tow zone 7-9 a.m. 51 51 81 131

Page 8 64 PagePage 11 9 of of 13 16

Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus July 25, 2017

Violation Code Description Old New Addt’l Addt’l Section Amount Fine $30 After $50 On Amount 27th day 46th day 14.40.070 BMC Tow zone 9pm-6am 51 51 81 131 14.40.090 BMC No preferential permit displayed 36 36 66 116 14.40.090 BMC Preferential parking pmt improperly displayed 36 36 66 116 14.40.090 BMC Preferential Park. Permit expired 36 36 66 116 14.40.110 BMC No Parking Certain Hours 35 35 65 115 14.40.130 BMC Parking/Standing in City Lots & spaces 42 42 72 122 14.40.130C BMC Reserved Parking - No Permit Displayed 36 36 66 116 14.40.130E BMC Reserved City Hall Parking - Towable 51 51 81 131 14.40.160 BMC Double Parked Commerc. Vehicle on Center 47 47 77 127 St. 14.44.020 BMC Commercial Zone No Bus. Permit 44 44 74 124 14.44.020 BMC Commercial Zone Over Time 44 44 74 124 14.44.030 BMC Passenger loading 44 44 74 124 14.44.040 BMC Parking in Bike Zone 42 42 72 122 14.44.050 BMC Passenger loading zone only 44 44 74 124 14.44.060 BMC Bus Zone 51 51 81 131 14.44.070 BMC Unauth. Use of Funeral Zone 38 38 68 118 14.44.080 BMC Unauth. Use of Taxi Zone 38 38 68 118 14.44.080 BMC Taxi cab parking only 38 38 68 118 14.52.050 BMC Expired Meter 30 30 60 110 14.52.060 BMC Extending meter time 30 30 60 110 14.52.063 BMC Pay-Display Ticket not displayed 30 30 60 110 14.52.066 BMC Pay-Display Ticket improperly displayed 30 30 60 110 14.24.070 BMC Parking on private property 51 51 81 131 14.36.110 BMC Parking without a permit 39 39 69 119 14.36.030A BMC Divisional Islands 42 42 72 122 14.36.030C BMC No parking sign posted 51 51 81 131 14.36.030C BMC Red Curb (no parking) 51 51 81 131 14.36.030E BMC No parking railroad tracks 51 51 81 131 14.36.030F BMC Obstructing Traffic 51 51 81 131 14.36.030G BMC Construction 51 51 81 131 14.36.050 BMC On st for 72 consecutive hours 47 47 77 127 14.36.060 BMC Repair vehicle on street 39 39 69 119 14.36.080 BMC School Zone 38 38 68 118 14.36.090 BMC Parking grade curb wheels/brakes 42 42 72 122 14.036.030D Street Sweeping 36 36 66 116 BMC 4000cvc No current registration 50 50 80 130 4000A cvc Expired Registration 50 50 80 130 5200 cvc Missing Plates 25 25 55 105 5201 cvc License plate not mount properly 25 25 55 105 5202 cvc Hanging of license plate 25 25 55 105 5204 cvc Expired tags (read back) 25 25 55 105 5204 cvc Missing Tags 25 25 55 105 6.24.020I BMC No Permit Displayed - Reserved Park 35 35 65 115 6.24.060I BMC Overtime Parking in Meter Lot 30 30 60 110

Page 9 65 Page 1012 of 1316

Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus July 25, 2017

6.24.090 BMC Extend Meter lot 30 30 60 110 6.24.100 BMC Expired Meter in public lot 30 30 60 110 6.24.130 BMC Motorcycle zone only 35 35 65 115 6.24.130 BMC No parking before 10 am 35 35 65 115 6.24.130 BMC Park. Outside designated lines 35 35 65 115 6.24.130 BMC Public lot Disable zone 275 275 305 355 6.24.130 BMC Restricted Load zone pub lot 35 35 65 115 6.24.130 BMC Restricted over 2hr public lot 35 35 65 115 6.24.130 BMC Unmarked space public lot 35 35 65 115 6.24.140 BMC Restricted lot back in 35 35 65 115 9.52.140 BMC Unattended taxi 78 78 108 158 Note: cvc - California Vehicle Code

FOOTBALL GAME DAY FINES Violation Code Description (for enforcement between the Old New Addt’l Addt’l Section hours of 9 :00 AM and 11:00 PM on Amount Fine $30 After $50 On Saturdays during UC home games) Amount Residential Preferential Parkingt (RPP) 27th day 46th day Areas A, B, and D 22500A cvc FD Parking in an Intersection 57 57 87 137 22500B cvc FD Parking in a Crosswalk 57 57 87 137 22500C cvc FD Parking in a Safety Zone 57 57 87 137 22500D cvc FD Parking in 15 ft of Fire Station 57 57 87 137 22500E cvc FD Parking in Driveway 57 57 87 137 22500Fcvc FD Parking on or across sidewalk 57 57 87 137 22500G cvc FD Parking construction no permit 57 57 87 137 22500H cvc FD Double parked 57 57 87 137 22500 I cvc FD Bus Zone 250 250 280 330 22502A cvc FD 18" from curb on two way st 56 56 86 136 22507.8B cvc Obstructing access disab. Zone 275 275 305 355 22522 cvc *FD parked w/in 3’ of wheelchair ramp 275 275 305 355 14.40.010 BMC FD Overtime Zone 10 min limit 47 47 77 127 14.40.010 BMC FD Overtime Zone 24 min limit 47 47 77 127 14.40.010 BMC FD Overtime Zone 3 min limit 47 47 77 127 14.40.010 BMC FD Overtime Zone 5 min limit 47 47 77 127 14.40.030 BMC FD Overtime Zone 60 min limit 47 47 77 127 14.40.040 BMC FD Overtime Zone 2 hr limit 47 47 77 127 14.40.050B BMC FD-Facing wrong way/one way st 47 47 77 127 14.40.050B BMC FD-Over 18" one way street 47 47 77 127 14.40.070 BMC FD Tow zone 4-6 pm 56 56 86 136 14.40.090 BMC FD Preferential Parking Area 44 44 74 124 14.44.020 BMC FD Commercial Zone No Bus. Permit 48 48 78 128 14.44.020 BMC FD Commercial Zone Over Time 48 48 78 128 14.44.030 BMC FD Passenger loading 48 48 78 128 14.44.060 BMC FD Coach Zone 50 50 80 130 14.52.050 BMC FD Expired Meter 36 36 66 116 14.52.060 BMC FD Extending Meter time 30 30 60 110 14.52.063 BMC Pay-Display Ticket not displayed 30 30 60 110

Page 10 66 Page 1113 of 1316

Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus July 25, 2017

Violation Code Description (for enforcement between the Old New Addt’l Addt’l Section hours of 9 :00 AM and 11:00 PM on Amount Fine $30 After $50 On Saturdays during UC home games) Amount 27th day 46th day Residential Preferential Parkingt (RPP) Areas A, B, and D 14.52.066 BMC Pay-Display Ticket improperly displayed 30 30 60 110 14.36.030A BMC FD Divisional Islands 56 56 86 136 14.36.030C BMC FD No parking sign posted 56 56 86 136 14.36.030C BMC FD Red Curb (no parking) 56 56 86 136 14.36.030F BMC FD Obstructing Traffic 56 56 86 136 14.36.030G BMC FD Construction 56 56 86 136 6.24.100 BMC FD Expired Meter in public lot 36 36 66 116 6.24.130 BMC FD Outside Designated lines 42 42 72 122 6.24.130 BMC FD Public lot Disabled Zone 275 275 305 355 6.24.130 BMC FD Restricted Load zone pub lot 42 42 72 122 6.24.130 BMC FD Restricted over 2 hr pub lot 36 36 66 116 6.24.130 BMC FD Unmarked space public lot 42 42 72 122 14.40.090 BMC No Pref Pmt Displayed (Saturday Home 72 300 330 380 Games) 14.40.090 BMC Pref Pkg Pmt Improp Disp (Saturday Home 72 300 330 380 Games) 14.40.090 BMC Pref Pkg Pmt Expired (Saturday Home Games) 72 300 330 380 Past due notices are issued 7 days after citation. On the 27th day after the issuance of the citation, the citation increases by $30. If payment is not received within 45 days of the issuance of the citation, on the 46th day, the citation increases by an additional $50.

Page 11 67 Page 1214 of 1316

Companion Report: Referral Response: Reassess UC Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Game Day Parking Fines in RPP Areas A, B, D, F, and G Surrounding Campus July 25, 2017

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 12 68 Page 1315 of 1316

Lori Droste Councilmember District 8 CONSENT CALENDAR April 5, 2016

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Councilmembers Lori Droste, Susan Wengraf, and Laurie Capitelli SUBJECT: Refer to Transportation Commission to Reassess UC Berkeley Game Day Parking Fines in RPP areas A, B, D, F and G Surrounding Campus

RECOMMENDATION: Refer to the Transportation Commission to review current parking fines ($72) for UC Berkeley Football game day parking in RPP zones A, B, D, F and G and recommend higher fees to deter visitors from parking in those RPP zones.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS: Due to the lack of garage parking around the South of campus and the low parking fines, many of vehicles park in the neighborhood RPP zones during UC Berkeley football games. This results in a great inconvenience to residents in these neighborhoods.

In 2008, Councilmember Wozniak created a pilot program, which is still in place, to double parking fines associated with illegal parking in RPP areas A, B, and D on UC Berkeley football game days. The current fine for a game day parking ticket is $72.

Because fraternities, sororities, and other entities charge $60-$100 for game day parking, the current $72 fine, although more than it previously was, does little to deter visitors from parking illegally in neighborhoods. An increased fee may be an effective deterrent from illegally parking in RPP zones on game days.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Increased fees may encourage use of alternative forms of transportation to UC Berkeley football games.

FISCAL IMPACT: Staff time and increased revenue from parking tickets on game days.

CONTACT: Councilmember Lori Droste (510) 981-7180 Councilmember Susan Wengraf (510) 981-7160 Councilmember Laurie Capitelli (510) 981-7150

69 Page 16 of 16

70 Page 1 of 5

ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) Submitted by: Michael Goldhaber, Chair, CEAC

Subject: Referral Response: Mandatory and Recommended Green Stormwater Infrastructure in New and Existing Redevelopments or Properties

RECOMMENDATION Since the drought-storm-flooding cycle is predicted to get worse, refer to the City Manager to develop and implement measures to help reduce runoff from private property when rain exceeds two inches in a 24-hour period. The City Manager and staff should consider the following:  Comply beyond the State and Alameda County current requirements;  Encourage the treating and detaining of runoff up to approximately the 85th percentile of water deposited in a 24-hour period;  Establish site design measures that include minimizing impervious surfaces;  Require homeowners to include flooding offsets in preparing properties for sale;  Offer option(s) for property owners to fund in-lieu centralized off-site storm-water retention facilities that would hold an equivalent volume of runoff;  Require abatements for newly paved areas over a specific size;  Make exceptions for properties that offer significantly below-market rent or sale prices;  Authorize a fee for all new construction or for title transfer to cover the cost of required compliance inspections.  Incorporate these measures for private property with similar measures for Public Works, while coordinating with EBMUD, BUSD, UCB and LBNL.

SUMMARY Current climate-change predictions for California suggest severe droughts combined with extreme storms, causing dangerous erosion, flooding, and increased Bay pollution. According to Berkeley’s watershed management plan, in a 10-year storm or greater, both the Codornices and Potter Creek watersheds have a propensity to flood, and climate change increases the probability and severity of storms. BART and the city currently run pumps to mitigate the flow underground.

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 71 Page 2 of 5

Referral Response: Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Runoff ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

In order to prevent flooding, there is an urgent need for the City to offset impermeable surfaces and detain stormwater. Impermeable surfaces generate faster stormwater flows of more intensity (volume per duration), therefore creating greater flooding threats. In addition, stormwater flows carries trash, pathogens, pesticides, fertilizer, metals, motor vehicle related contaminants to the creeks and the Bay. Stormwater detention can help mitigate this pollution.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION If inspection fees are adequate, there should be no net costs to the City, except for staff time to firm up the plan. With widespread implementation of features that promote stormwater detention, treatment, and infiltration, overall flood damage within the City should decrease, which in turn could result in increased property values and higher tax revenues.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS This report responds to Referral #2016-21, which originally appeared on the agenda of the September 15, 2015 Council meeting and was sponsored by then-Councilmember Arreguin.

The State stormwater discharge permit requires the City of Berkeley to use Low Impact Design (LID) and Green Infrastructure (GI) to comply with stormwater management requirements, which is in keeping with Berkeley's goals for promoting sustainable development.

Currently, the City does seem to be enforcing rules requiring mitigation when 2,500 square feet or more of new impermeable surface is added to a property. Required mitigation typically takes up an area of approximately 4% of the total new impermeable area and is therefore a very fair and feasible requirement. However, smaller areas, especially pavement, ought to require similar mitigation as they increase runoff.

At present, permits are not required for adding new pavement unless these impinge on the street-property boundary. As a result, the City and its inspectors are not aware of most small projects that add new pavement. Requiring permits for all (most) (re)paving over permeable surfaces will help ensure that the City is aware, can ask for appropriate mitigation, or can recommend permeable paving that will reduce runoff. Requiring permits for paving beyond a very small threshold area is an essential part of preventing the cumulative effects of increased stormwater runoff.

All these requirements can be met by using on- or off-site strategies to manage the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. The approach integrates stormwater into the urban environment to achieve multiple goals. It reduces stormwater pollution and restores natural hydrologic function to the City's watersheds. It can also provide wildlife habitat and contribute to the gradual creation of a greener city.

72 Page 3 of 5

Referral Response: Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Runoff ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

A crucial aspect of identifying and implementing effective mitigation, also mandated by law, is within a comprehensive Watershed Management Plan, which we understand the City is committed to complete. This should include both water from private properties, the topic of this CEAC message, and the City's contributions from public properties including streets and parks.

BACKGROUND A recent UCLA study [“Increasing precipitation volatility in twenty-first-century California”, Daniel L. Swain, Baird Langenbrunner, J. David Neelin & Alex Hall, Nature Climate Change 8, 427–433 (2018)] …”found that over the next 40 years, the state will be 300 to 400 percent more likely to have a prolonged storm sequence as severe as the one that caused a now-legendary California flood more than 150 years ago.

“The Great Flood of 1862 filled valleys with feet of water and washed gold rush miners and their equipment out of the mountains. In the Central Valley, floodwaters stretched up to 300 miles long and as wide as 60 miles across.” [UCLA Newsroom]

When there are heavy storms in Berkeley such as 10-year or greater, stormwater that is not absorbed runs downhill towards the Bay and collects in low elevation areas. As the movement of stormwater slows, it can result in flooding if drainage channels become overwhelmed, unless there are means of capturing the water for irrigation or other beneficial uses. It can also pick up pollutants that then will be carried into streams and eventually the Bay.

Urban development has caused two important changes in the nature and volume of stormwater. First, natural, vegetated permeable ground cover is converted to impermeable surfaces such as paved highways, streets, rooftops, and parking lots. Vegetated soil can both absorb rainwater and remove pollutants, providing a very effective natural purification process. This benefit is lost when pavement, or buildings are constructed. With the construction of more impermeable surface, stormwater runoff increases in intensity with higher flows of shorter duration, increasing the chance of overwhelming drainage channels and flooding in flood prone areas.

In addition, urban development creates pollution sources as urban population density increases. The contamination of urban stormwater comes from many and various sources including pathogens from both pet and human waste, solid waste from litter and trash, pesticides from both residential and commercial uses, fertilizers from landscaping, and heavy metals and other contaminants from the operation of motor vehicles. All these pollutants and others can be deposited on paved surfaces, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces as fine airborne particles, thus yielding stormwater - runoff pollution that is unrelated to the activity associated with a given project site.

As a result of these two changes, stormwater discharges into the Bay from the

73 Page 4 of 5

Referral Response: Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Runoff ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

developed urban area is significantly greater in volume, velocity and contaminants than the same area experienced prior to its conversion into an urban environment.

Additionally, increased flows and volumes of stormwater discharged from new impermeable surfaces resulting from new development and redevelopment can physically modify the natural aquatic ecosystems in our creeks, through bank erosion and deepening and widening of channels, elevating turbidity and sediment loads to the Bay.

Pollutants of concern in stormwater include heavy metals, excessive sediment production from erosion, petroleum hydrocarbons from sources such as motor vehicles, microbial pathogens of domestic sewage origin from illicit or accidental discharges, pesticides and herbicides, nutrients (from fertilizers), and trash.

Effective mitigation to offset the unpredictable and sometimes intense behavior of urban stormwater becomes increasingly necessary. Other cities, including San Francisco, Emeryville, and the North Bay Counties (Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Solano), as well as the Alameda County clean water program, of which the City of Berkeley is a member, have put together comprehensive requirements that are available as guides. Berkeley, given our pioneering status in green issues, should wish to be even more forward looking and develop our own comprehensive green infrastructure program. In addition, Berkeley should continue to work on a comprehensive water management plan, seeking input and cooperation from EBMUD, surrounding cities, UCB, LBNL and BUSD.

Berkeley's program should include requirements for construction projects to implement appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures to address water quality, and to prevent increased intensity stormwater runoff volumes.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The proposed recommendation will improve the sustainability of new construction and redevelopment, increase the City’s resiliency to climate change, 10-year storms, and flooding, while helping mitigate pollution from stormwater runoff.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION Berkeley’s drought-storm cycle is likely to get worse as Climate change has more effecting the coming years and decades. Therefore, more efforts to control flooding and prevent pollution are needed. In addition, unless mitigated, increased paving on private property increases the stormwater runoff and related problems.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED CEAC considered City Council Referral #2016-21 from September 15, 2015 to develop an ordinance requiring large residential developments of 100 units or more or commercial developments that result in 5,000 square feet of new or replaced

74 Page 5 of 5

Referral Response: Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Runoff ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

impervious surface, to incorporate Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) and water conservation features into new projects.

CITY MANAGER See companion report.

CONTACT PERSON Viviana Garcia, Secretary, Toxics, (510) 981 7460

75 76 Page 1 of 17

Community Health Commission ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Community Health Commission Submitted by: Nuha Khalfay, Chairperson, Community Health Commission Subject: Ban on Receipts Made with Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol S (BPS) Bisphenol F (BPF) and Other Phenols

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution and pass the first reading of an Ordinance adding Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 11.74 to ban the manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of receipt paper that contains Bisphenol A (BPA) or other phenols within the City of Berkeley by January 1, 2020.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION Staff time within the department of Environmental Health to implement and enforce the Ordinance.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS Currently, there is no study or data showing how many Berkeley businesses use thermal paper that contains BPA.

BPA is an endocrine disruptor that can interact and alter the functions of hormone receptors, affect fertility, and are especially harmful to pregnant women, infants, and young children. BPA has been found in already 90% of American adults and children. High levels are associated with altered thyroid function, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, impaired liver and kidney function, inflammation, hyperactivity, and impaired learning (see exhibit A and attachment 2).

A receipt is most likely thermal paper containing BPA or other phenols if it discolors easily when scratched with a coin or paperclip and feels thin, often have a slick feel or sheen finish.

Although the price of phenol-free options is currently slightly higher compared to BPA thermal paper, it is becoming more cost-competitive due to higher market demand.

On alternative is formulated with ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Ascorbic acid is verified to be of low concern by the EPA’s Safer Chemical Ingredients List (see attachment 3).

Ban on Receipts Made with Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol S (BPS) ACTION CALENDAR Bisphenol F (BPF) and Other Phenols September 25, 2018

BACKGROUND Thermal paper a kind of paper used in many receipt printers, often contains a chemical known as Bisphenol A. In addition to point-of-sale receipts, it can also be found in shipping or other container labels, automated-teller machine receipts, parking tickets, and luggage tags, among other uses. In thermal printing, text or graphics appear as a result of a color-change induced by localized heating of the paper in a thermal printer. No ink is applied in the process.

Multiple studies have indicated a strong possibility that BPA acts as a synthetic estrogen and endocrine disruptor in humans and poses multiple possible health risks, including an altered immune system, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, reproductive health problems, increased risk of breast and prostate cancer, obesity, and diabetes, especially in infants and fetuses. Evidence also suggests that other phenols, like Bisphenol S (BPS) and Bisphenol F (BPF) may also pose significant health concerns to humans.

The BPA in receipt paper can be readily absorbed through the skin when handled or ingested through hand to mouth exchange. The adult population most at risk of these effects are the people who handle receipts, like retail and food cashiers, as BPA has been found to linger on the body for a week or more (see attachment 4).

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION In following the precautionary principle, the Council should take reasonable steps to minimize human exposure to BPA and related compounds, especially for those employed in fields that put them in repeated and extended contact with such compounds. Banning the use of receipt paper containing phenols is a narrow and targeted way of addressing these concerns.

Additionally, thermal paper containing BPA or other phenols cannot be recycled and go directly into the landfills. In an effort to support Berkeley’s goal to achieve Zero Waste by 2020, banning thermal paper containing phenols ultimately removes them from our waste stream. Alternative thermal paper that does not contain phenol can be recycled.

The enforcement of this ordinance would mirror that in BMC 11.58, 11.60, and 11.62, measures restricting the sale and use of chlorofluorocarbon-processed food packaging, polystyrene food packaging, and products that utilize ozone-depleting compounds respectively.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED Conduct a city-wide survey to gauge how many Berkeley businesses use thermal paper containing phenols, and are exposing their employees to potential health hazards.

Page 2 78 Page 3 of 17

Ban on Receipts Made with Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol S (BPS) ACTION CALENDAR Bisphenol F (BPF) and Other Phenols September 25, 2018

CITY MANAGER See companion report.

CONTACT PERSON Roberto Terrones, Community Health Commission Secretary, (510) 981-5324

Attachments: 1: Resolution Exhibit A: Research by the Environmental Working Group. Can be found at https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts#.WqlvE-jwaUk 2: Ordinance 3: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Summary of BPA. Can be found at https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/sya-bpa/index.cfm 4: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Resources for BPA in Thermal Paper. Can be found at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/green-chemistry/bpa-thermal-paper#phenol-free- 85b4b27f 5. Healthline Summary pf BPA research. Can be found at https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-is-bpa

Page 3 79 Page 4 of 17

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

BAN ON RECEIPTS MADE WITH BISPEHNOL A (BPA) AND OTHER PHENOLS

WHEREAS, the Council should take reasonable steps to minimize human exposure to BPA and related compounds, especially for those employed in fields that put them in repeated and extended contact with such compounds; and

WHEREAS, Multiple studies have indicated a strong possibility that BPA acts as a synthetic estrogen and endocrine disruptor in humans and poses multiple possible health risks, including an altered immune system, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, reproductive health problems, increased risk of breast and prostate cancer, obesity, and diabetes, especially in infants and fetuses; and

WHEREAS, Evidence also suggests that other phenols, like Bisphenol S (BPS) and Bisphenol F (BPF) may also pose significant health concerns to humans; and

WHEREAS, thermal paper containing BPA cannot be recycled and go directly into the landfills; and

WHEREAS, In an effort to support Berkeley’s goal to achieve Zero Waste by 2020, banning thermal paper containing phenols ultimately removes them from our waste stream.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley Bans any phenols, including but not limited to Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol S (BPS) and Bisphenol F (BPF) from being used on any receipt paper within the City of Berkeley or manufactured, sold or distributed within the City of Berkeley by January 1, 2020.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the staff of the Public Health Department and the Environmental Health work together to design appropriate materials to educate the business community so that they may answer questions from the wider community regarding the reasons for the change away from paper containing BPA and BPS. According to a WebMD article, published on the Internet on 12/2/2011, research shows that BPA is also in a wide variety of paper products, including napkins, toilet paper, tickets, food wrappers, newspapers, and printer paper.

Violations should be reported to Code Enforcement for city follow through.

80 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 1 of 11 Page 5 of 17

Home > Research > BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts

TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2010

by Sonya Lunder, Senior Analyst; David Andrews, Senior Scientist; and Jane Houlihan, Senior VP for Research

BPA COATS CASH REGISTER RECEIPTS

Tests Find Chemical-Laden Receipts at National Retailers

Update: see report on green chemistry pioneer John Warner's new research on BPA in receipts here.

The plastic component bisphenol A (BPA) has been in the headlines nonstop as scientists, health experts and consumers press for a federal ban on food packaging made with this synthetic estrogen, shown to leach readily into infant formula, beverages and canned food. But most Americans are probably unaware that they are regularly exposed to the same endocrine-disrupting chemical in cash register receipts.

Two-fifths of the paper receipts tested by a major laboratory commissioned by Environmental Working Group were on heat-activated paper that was between 0.8 to nearly 3 percent pure BPA by weight. Wipe tests conducted with a damp laboratory paper easily picked up a portion of the receipts' BPA coating, indicating that the chemical would likely stick to the skin of anyone who handled them. The receipts came from major retailers, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, fast-food restaurants, post offices and automatic teller machines (ATMs).

Major retailers using BPA-contaiSignning receiptsUp! in at least some outletsDonate included McDonald's, CVS, KFC, Whole854 Foods, Walmart, Safeway and the U.S. Postal Service. Receipts from some major chains, including SHARES

81 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 2 of 11 Page 6 of 17

into the body. Possibilities being explored include:

Oral exposure -- BPA moves from receipts onto fingers and then onto food and into the mouth. Dermal exposure -- BPA from receipts is directly absorbed through the skin into the body.

A study published July 11 by Swiss scientists found that BPA transfers readily from receipts to skin and can penetrate the skin to such a depth that it cannot be washed off (Biedermann 2010). This raises the possibility that the chemical infiltrates the skin's lower layers to enter the bloodstream directly. BPA has also been shown to penetrate skin in laboratory studies (Kaddar 2008).

EWG collected 36 receipts and commissioned the University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences laboratory to investigate their BPA content. This laboratory is considered one of the world's foremost research facilities in its capability to detect environmentally relevant BPA concentrations.

The Missouri scientists found that the total mass of BPA on a receipt is 250 to 1,000 times greater than the amount of BPA typically found in a can of food or a can of baby formula, or that which leaches from a BPA- based plastic baby bottle into its contents. These data should not be interpreted to suggest that policymakers shift their focus from BPA contamination of food, which is widespread, to receipts. BPA exposure from food sources is ubiquitous and should remain the first priority of U.S. policymakers. However, a significant portion of the public may also be exposed to BPA by handling receipts. Since many retailers do not use BPA-laden thermal paper, this particular route of exposure is easy to correct.

Biomonitoring surveys by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found BPA in the bodies of 93 percent of Americans over age 6. EWG analysis of CDC data has found that people who reported working in retail industries had 30 percent more BPA in their bodies than the average U.S. adult, and 34 percent more BPA than other workers. (CDC 2004). As of May 2009, 1 in 17 working Americans -- 7 million people -- were employed as retail salespersons and cashiers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

EWG's biomonitoring study of minority newborns, published last December, found BPA in 9 of 10 samples, marking the first detections of the chemical in the cord blood of U.S. infants. EWG has published a Safe Baby Bottle and Formula Guide to help parents of infants avoid BPA and other harmful substances during this critical window of development.

In animal tests, scientists have produced evidence that BPA can induce abnormal reproductive system development, diminished intellectual capacity and behavioral abnormalities and can set the stage for other serious conditions, such as reproductive system cancer, obesity, diabetes, early puberty, resistance to chemotherapy, asthma and cardiovascular system disorders. It has caused epigenetic changes, meaning alterations in the way genes switch off and on and genetic changes that can be passed on to the next generations.

Frequent exposures to relatively large amounts of BPA in receipts are an obvious concern to every shopper, but even more so to the legions of people who staff cash registers and bag groceries at tens of thousands of retailers across the country. These workers handle BPA-loaded receipts hundreds of times a day, with as yet unknown854 consequences for their health (Biedermann et al 2010). According to the U.S. Department of SHARES

82 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 3 of 11 Page 7 of 17

Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics

much BPA-coated receipts contribute to people's total exposure to the ubiquitous plastics chemical. What is certain, however, is that since many retail outlets already use BPA-free paper for their receipts, this is one source of contamination that could easily be eliminated completely.

Thermal paper is widely used for point-of-sale receipts, prescription labels, airline tickets and lottery tickets. Thermal printers use paper that is coated with a dye and developer (BPA or an alternative chemical). Heat from the thermal printing head triggers a reaction between the dye and developer, allowing the black print to appear.

In an effort to quantify how much BPA would transfer to a person’s hand, the laboratory performed wipe tests on four BPA-laden receipts. In all four cases, BPA transferred from the receipts to the wipes. An average of 2.4 percent of the receipts’ total BPA content wiped off, suggesting that a person who handled receipts would be exposed to some BPA in the thermal paper. There have been no published studies of BPA residues inside pockets, purses and wallets, on wet produce in grocery bags or on the hands of people after they crumpled and discarded a receipt.

Since 60 percent of the receipts EWG collected did not have significant levels of BPA, it is apparent that many retailers are using alternatives. The leading U.S. thermal paper maker, Wisconsin-based Appleton Papers Inc., no longer incorporates BPA in any of its thermal papers (Raloff 2009). Reacting to concerns about the toxicity of BPA, the Japan Paper Association began to halt the use of BPA in 1998, completing the phase-out by 2003 (AIST 2007). EWG's analysis of three receipts collected in Japan at KFC, McDonald's and Starbucks found only trace amounts of BPA. In addition, 11 of 13 U.S.-based retailers whose receipts EWG tested used non-BPA paper in at least one outlet.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated a program to evaluate the safety and availability of alternatives to BPA in thermal paper (EPA 2010).

EWG urges retailers to use BPA-free paper and to consider paperless options such as emailed electronic receipts. These measures could greatly reduce the volume of BPA disseminated by the retail industry and save paper in the bargain. Retailers should make public the identity of any chemicals used in the alternative they select. Very little information is publicly available on the now-common BPA alternatives for thermal receipts.

TIPS TO REDUCE EXPOSURES TO BPA IN RECEIPTS

Minimize receipt collection by declining receipts at gas pumps, ATMs and other machines when possible. Store receipts separately in an envelope in a wallet or purse. Never give a child a receipt to hold or play with. After handling a receipt, wash hands before preparing and eating food (a universally recommended practice even for those who have not handled receipts). Do not use alcohol-based hand cleaners after handling receipts. A recent study showed that these products can increase the skin's BPA absorption (Biedermann 2010). 854Take advantage of store services that email or archive paperless purchase records. SHARES

83 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 4 of 11 Page 8 of 17

paper.

Methodology and Findings. EWG collected 36 receipts from retailers in seven states and the District of Columbia:

Ten national retail and service chains, including Walmart, Chevron and McDonald's; Three government establishments - the U.S. Postal Service and the cafeterias in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate; and One local supermarket in Colorado.

We contracted with the analytical laboratory at the University of Missouri-Columbia's Division of Biological Sciences to perform the analysis. The laboratory weighed, measured and photographed the receipts, dissolved them in an alcohol, then analyzed them for BPA using a sensitive, standard BPA test method (High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with CoulArray detection).

The laboratory detected substantial amounts of BPA on 16 of 36 receipts at an average amount of 1.9 percent by weight, and a range of 0.8 to 2.8 percent (Table 1).

TABLE 1. TEST RESULTS - BPA IN STORE RECEIPTS

Mass of Percent Mass BPA relative of BPA of BPA to surface that Total mass Size of relative area of rubbed Establishment where of BPA on receipt Location to receipt off of receipt was obtained receipt (square mass (micrograms receipt (milligrams) centimeters) of of BPA per onto receipt square wet centimeter) wipe

U.S. retailers

National Safeway Berkeley, 20.7 1,006 2.8% 35.9 Supermarkets CA

Boulder, CO 20.6 1,575 1.8% 14.9 3.80%

Washington, 41.0 2,671 2.1% 10.1 DC

Whole Superior, 10.8 902 1.8% 25.7 0.71% Foods CO

Portland, 0.0005 1,911 0.0% 0.00 OR Gas854 station Chevron Berkeley, 0.0084 456 0.002% 0.06 * SHARES CA

84 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 5 of 11 Page 9 of 17

Portland, 382 1.6% 52.9 OR

Stafford, VA 400 0.8% 27.3

Pharmacy CVS Sacramento, 0.0008 1,258 0.0% 0.00 CA

Clinton, CT 0.0009 882 0.0% 0.00

Kensington, 28.8 2,294 1.7% 9.68 MD

Food Starbucks Boulder, CO 0.0000* 739 0.0% 0.00 *

Ames, IA 0.0206 805 0.003% 0.05

Wheaton, 0.0208 938 0.003% 0.04 MD

Portland, 0.0164 739 0.003% 0.05 OR

KFC Boulder, CO 9.36 591 2.2% 48.6 2.88%

Ames, IA 0.0001* 498 0.0% 0.00

Wheaton, 10.64 836 1.7% 27.0 MD

McDonalds Superior, 0.0002 724 0.0% 0.00 * CO

Clinton, CT 13.3 703 2.7% 48.9

Washington, 9.07 739 1.4% 25.0 DC

Superstores Target Albany, CA ND 765 ND ND

Superior, 0.0001* 617 0.0% 0.00 CO

Wheaton, ND 1,126 ND ND * MD

Walmart Ames, IA 0.0001* 2,069 0.0% 0.00 *

Portland, 0.0003 1,325 0.0% 0.00 OR

Stafford, VA 16.3 1,091 2.1% 25.2

Banks Bank of Berkeley, 854 ND 805 ND ND America CA SHARES

85 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 6 of 11 Page 10 of 17

Clinton, CT 954 ND ND

Wheaton, 765 ND ND MD

Sunflower Local Farmers Boulder, CO 0.145 994 0.017% 0.22 supermarket Market

Government establishments

U.S. Postal Service Boulder, CO 23.6 1,600 2.0% 16.4 2.21%

Clinton, CT 22.7 1,539 2.0% 17.0

Washington, 16.6 1,249 1.9% 19.1 DC

U.S. House of Washington, 5.42 494 1.3% 32.8 Representatives Cafeteria DC

U.S. Senate Cafeteria Washington, 0.00 540 0.0% 0.00 DC

Retailers in Japan

Sendai, Kentucky Fried Chicken 0.0014 570 0.0% 0.01 Japan

Sendai, McDonalds ND 352 ND ND Japan

Sendai, Starbucks ND 826 ND ND Japan

Source: EWG compilation of BPA test results from the University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences Laboratory, for receipts collected by EWG. * Only trace BPA levels were detected on wipe samples of receipts not coated with BPA.

Safeway supermarket receipts had the highest levels by several measures. Safeway receipts had 3 of the top 6 highest overall BPA levels. A store in the District of Columbia had the greatest total estimated mass of BPA (41 milligrams). A Berkeley, CA Safeway had the highest concentration of BPA relative to the paper mass (2.8 percent of the receipt weight). Safeway was one of two retailers that had detectable BPA in all three store locations sampled.

The receipt for a McDonald's Happy Meal™ purchased in Clinton, Conn. on April 21, 2010 had an estimated 13 milligrams of BPA. That equals the amount of BPA in 126 cans of Chef Boyardee Overstuffed Beef Ravioli in Hearty Tomato & Meat Sauce, 854 SHARES

86 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 7 of 11 Page 11 of 17

Sourc e: BPA test result s from the Univ ersity of Miss ouri Divis ion of Biolo gical Scien ces Labor atory, for receipts collected by EWG.

* BPA at trace level or not detected.

EWG also collected receipts from stores and bank ATMs in three or four cities for each of the ten national retail and service chains sampled. Analysis of the laboratory tests found that of the 10 stores and bank ATMs:

One, Safeway, issued BPA-containing receipts in all cities. Six issued a BPA-laden receipt in at least one, but not all, outlets - CVS, Walmart, KFC, Whole Foods, Chevron, and McDonald's - indicating that these retailers use BPA-free receipts at some outlets. Three provided receipts that were BPA-free or contained only trace amounts at all locations - Bank of America, Target and Starbucks.

EWG also collected receipts from post offices and government cafeterias. All receipts from the U.S. Postal Service contained BPA. A receipt from the U.S. House of Representatives cafeteria contained BPA, while a receipt from the U.S. Senate cafeteria did not.

The laboratory performed four wipe samples on four BPA-laden receipts - 0.7-to-3.8 percent of the BPA detected on the receipt easily wiped off onto a lightly moistened, BPA-free laboratory paper, with an average of 2.4 percent wiping off. 854 SHARES

87 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 8 of 11 Page 12 of 17

Sources of Americans' exposures to BPA. BPA exposure is ubiquitous in the U.S. population. The CDC's National Biomonitoring Program found the chemical in the urine of 93 percent of Americans age six and older (Calafat 2008).

Researchers have considered BPA contamination of canned foods and beverages to be the primary sources of exposure in most populations, especially for infants and children.

In 2007, Environmental Working Group published a ground-breaking study documenting that BPA had leached from epoxy can linings into more than half the canned foods, beverages and canned liquid infant formula randomly purchased at supermarkets around the country. In the absence of any U.S. regulation on BPA contamination of food, EWG has published an online guide to baby-safe bottles and formula.

However, a recent study suggests that other sources may also be important (Stahlhut 2009). These researchers measured urinary levels of BPA in 1,469 adults after variable periods of fasting. They expected BPA levels in urine to fall rapidly in the absence of new food exposures, since the chemical is excreted very quickly from the body. Instead, BPA levels dropped only slowly, leading them to theorize that BPA from sources other than food may be significant, or, alternatively, that BPA may be stored in human fat and released slowly and constantly into the body.

EWG assessed CDC biomonitoring data from Americans tested between 2003 and 2004 to learn if retail workers carry higher amounts of BPA in their bodies than other adults. CDC provided employment information for 916 of 1,862 adults tested. EWG analysis found that the 195 people who reported working in retail industries had 28 percent more BPA in their bodies than the average U.S. adult, and 34 percent more BPA than other workers. EWG also found that four of the five occupations with the highest BPA measurements may come in contact with receipts, including those in retail department stores, communications, retail food stores, and eating and drinking establishments (Table 2).

Table 2. CDC biomonitoring studies indicate that retail workers are exposed to more BPA than other adults

Population tested Number of people tested Geometric mean concentration of BPA (ug/L)

Male (age 18 and above) 801 2.7

Female (age 18 and above) 864 2.3

All adults (age 18 and above) 1,665 2.5

All workers 916 2.5

Non-retail workers 721 2.4

Retail workers* 195 3.2

854 SHARES

88 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 9 of 11 Page 13 of 17

employees' BPA exposures.

REFERENCES

AIST. 2007. Risk ASsessment Document Series No. 4: Bisphenol A. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), November 2007. AIST07-A00001-4.

Biedermann S, Tschudin P, Grob K. 2010. Transfer of bisphenol A from thermal printer paper to the skin. Anal Bioanal Chem. Published online: July 11, 2010.

Calafat AM, Ye X, Wong LY, Reidy JA, Needham LL. 2008. Exposure of the U.S. population to bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-octylphenol: 2003-2004. Environmental Health Perspectives 116(1): 39-44.

CDC 2004. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data 2003-2004. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control andPrevention: National Centre for Health Statistics (NCHS). Hyattsville, MD, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/nhanes03_04.htm

EWG. 2007. Bisphenol A: Toxic plastics chemical in canned foods. Environmental Working Group, March 2007.

EWG. 2009. Body Burden: the Pollution in Minority Newborns. Environmental Working Group, March 2007.

EPA. 2010. BPA Alternatives in Thermal Paper Partnership. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Design for the Environment. Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/bpa/index.htm

Kaddar N, Harthé C, Déchaud H, Mappus E, Pugeat M. 2008. Cuteanous Penetration of Bisphenol A in Pig Skin. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 71(8):471-73.

LaKind JS, Naiman DQ. 2010. Daily intake of bisphenol A and potential sources of exposure: 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology:1-8

Raloff J. 2009. Concern about BPA: Check your receipts. Science News. October 7, 2009. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48084/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__ Concerned_about_BPA_Check_your_receipts

Stahlhut RW, Welshons WV, Swan SH. 2009. Bisphenol A data in NHANES suggest longer that expected half-life, substantial nonfood exposure, or both. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(5): 784-89.

APPENDIX - LABORATORY METHODOLOGY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES

Laboratory854 Methodology - EWG staff collected receipts in seven U.S. states -- California, Colorado, Connecticut,SHARES Iowa, Maryland, Oregon and Virginia -- and the District of Columbia.

89 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 10 of 11 Page 14 of 17

and tubed. ATM and gas station receipts were collected directly from the machines in most cases.

EWG sent receipts to a laboratory at University of Missouri-Columbia, Division of Biological Sciences in Columbia, Mo. The laboratory weighed, measured and photographed the receipts, analyzed for BPA and screened for bisphenol B, bisphenol S and bisphenol F, using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with CoulArray detection. The standard curve in our assay ranges from 0.05 -4 nanograms per HPLC run. Four receipts that had values below and above the range of the standard curve are considered to be outside the limit of quantitation of the assay. These estimated values were different from five samples labeled as "non-detectable (ND)," in which there was no evidence of BPA.

Digestion analysis: Lengths of receipt weighing 200 mg each were cut and placed in a glass tube. No attempt was made to control for the amount of printing on the receipt. The receipts were incubated in methanol (15 ml, to cover the receipt) for 3 hours at room temperature, with occasional agitation. The methanol was then poured into clean glass tubes and diluted for analysis.

Migration analysis : EWG selected 9 of the collected receipts for migration analysis. For these, a piece of lab wipe (KimWipe) was lightly dampened with methanol and wiped in a zigzag fashion across the top (printed) surface of a 5 cm by 5 cm piece of receipt. This wipe was then soaked in methanol for 3 hours at room temperature, and the methanol then decanted and analyzed for BPA.

QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES

The laboratory found no detectable BPA on sampling materials, including KimWipes, gloves and shipping tubes.

The laboratory assessed recoveries of BPA from paper by spiking a piece of filter paper approximately 8-by-8 centimeters with BPA and soaking it in methanol, as described for the sales receipts. This method only approximates BPA recovery from receipts since the paper and coating matrices are different.

The laboratory also analyzed samples with added BPA to determine whether the sample extract quenches or augments BPA measurements. Recoveries in positive controls averaged 92 percent. Sample data values presented in this study are not corrected for recovery.

The laboratory did not detect BPB, BPF and BPS in the receipts tested. Unidentified peaks were seen in some receipt samples that did not contain BPA. Some of these appeared to reflect high concentrations.

KEY ISSUES:

LATEST NEWS

• Article: Will Brett Kavanaugh Keep Asbestos Legal?

• 854Testimonies & Official Correspondence: EWG Comments on ATSDR Draft Toxicological Profile for PFAS SHARES

90 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 BPA Coats Cash Register Receipts | EWG Page 11 of 11 Page 15 of 17

•

EWG'S SKIN EWG'S GUIDE TO EWG'S DEEP DATABASE HEALTHY SHOPPER'S CLEANING GUIDE TO PESTICIDES IN PRODUCE

ABOUT US NEWS KEY ISSUES SUPPORT OUR WORK

Board Members EWG News And Children's Health Ways To Donate Staff Analysis Midwest Stay In Touch Offices News Releases Toxics Funding Statements Consumer EWG VERIFIED Successes Planet Trump Products Job Openings Agmag Energy Annual Reports Videos Farming Testimony & Food Official Water Correspondence

Legal Disclaimer updated April 2016 | Privacy Policy updated March 2016

854 SHARES

91 https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-in-store-receipts 8/24/2018 Page 16 of 17

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

BAN OF RECEIPT PAPER CONTAINING BISPHENOL A AND OTHER PHENOLS; ADDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 11.74

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

Section 1. That Chapter 11.74 is added to the Berkeley Municipal Code to read as follows:

Chapter 11.74 Ban of Receipt Paper Containing Bisphenol A and Other Phenols.

Sections:

11.74.010 Finding and purpose. 11.74.020 Prohibition. 11.74.030 Existing contracts exempted. 11.74.040 City of Berkeley: purchases prohibited. 11.74.050 City Manager’s powers. 11.74.060 Liability and enforcement. 11.74.070 Severability. 11.74.080 Effective date.

11.74.010 Findings and purpose. The council finds and declares as follows: A. Available scientific evidence indicates a strong possibility that Bisphenol A (BPA) acts as a synthetic estrogen and endocrine disruptor in humans and poses multiple possible health risks, including an altered immune system, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, reproductive health problems, increased risk of breast and prostate cancer, obesity, and diabetes, especially in infants and fetuses. B. Thermal receipt paper contains BPA, which can be readily absorbed through the skin when handled or ingested through hand to mouth exchange. Those who frequently handle receipts, like cashiers, have been shown to have significantly higher concentrations of BPA in their bodies than other adults. C. Scientific evidence also suggests that other phenols commonly used as a replacement for BPA, like Bisphenol S (BPS) and Bisphenol F (BPF), may pose similar health concerns as BPA. D. There are multiple manufacturers that produce thermal paper that does not contain BPA or other phenols. E. It is the intent of the council to reduce the amount of products containing BPA and other phenols purchased and used by the City and people of Berkeley and thereby to reduce the potential for negative health effects associated with these products.

11.74.020 Prohibition. No person or entity shall manufacture, distribute, sell, or use any paper containing BPA or other phenols for the recording of any business or banking transaction including,

92 Page 17 of 17

but not limited to, receipts, credits, withdrawals, deposits, and credit and debit card records, or for use in any cash register or receipt printer used for any purpose.

11.74.030 Existing contracts exempted. Receipt paper required to be purchased under a contract entered into prior to this ordinance becoming effective is exempt from the provisions of this chapter.

11.74.040 City of Berkeley: purchases prohibited. The City of Berkeley shall not purchase any receipt paper containing phenols, nor shall any City-sponsored event utilize such paper.

11.74.050 City Manager’s powers. The City Manager is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter, including, but not limited to, inspecting any vendor’s premises to verify compliance.

11.74.060 Liability and enforcement. A. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. B. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this chapter. C. The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive.

11.74.070 Severability. If any part or provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this chapter are severable.

11.74.080 Effective date. The provisions of this chapter shall become effective 365 days after the passage of this ordinance.

Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of Council Chambers, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

93 94 Page 1 of 2

Housing Advisory Commission ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Housing Advisory Commission Submitted by: Igor Tregub, Chairperson, Housing Advisory Commission Subject: Affordable Housing and Temporary Housing Proposals for City-owned 1281 University Avenue Parcel

RECOMMENDATION 1. Select Resources for Community Development’s proposal to develop 1281 University Avenue, with reservations regarding the proposal’s financial feasibility (especially in regards to its reliance on project-based Section 8), reliance on tax credits leveraged in combination with other RCD projects, RCD’s past performance, the level of homeless provided services on site, detail available about the service plan, and proposed reduction of open-space.

2. Direct the City Manager to provide the site as a temporary use for short term housing while a viable long term project is determined.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION There will be costs for the staff time required to manage the disposition and development process as well as the coordination and management of any short term uses. Expenditures for preparation, maintenance, management and liabilities for short term housing uses would be required.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS At the July 11, 2018 Housing Advisory Commission meeting, the commission took the following action regarding the proposals the City received for the City owned lot at 1281 University Avenue:

Action: M/S/C (Owens/Amezcua) to recommend the Resources for Community Development (RCD) proposal with reservations regarding the proposal’s financial feasibility (especially in regards to its reliance on project-based Section 8), reliance on tax credits leveraged in combination with other RCD projects, RCD’s past performance, the level of homeless provided services on site, detail available about the service plan, and proposed reduction of open-space, and recommend the site provide a temporary use for short term housing while a viable long term project is determined.

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 95 Page 2 of 2

Affordable Housing and Temporary Housing Proposals for ACTION CALENDAR City-owned 1281 University Avenue Parcel September 25, 2018

Vote: Ayes: Amezcua, Holman, Johnson, Kesarwani, Lewis, and Winters. Noes: Lord. Abstain: Owens. Absent: Tregub (excused), Wolfe (excused), and Wright (excused).

BACKGROUND See staff’s companion report for more detail.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY See staff’s companion report for more detail.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The Housing Advisory Commission prefers the proposal submitted by Resources for Community Development over the proposal submitted by Open Door. The proposed development would meet a local need by providing housing for the homeless.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED The HAC also discussed not pursuing the RCD proposal and instead seeking another housing use, to be determined. Commissioners did not propose selecting the Open Door proposal.

CITY MANAGER See companion report.

CONTACT PERSON Amy Davidson, Senior Community Development Project Coordinator, Health, Housing & Community Services, 981-5406

96 Page 1 of 12

Housing Advisory Commission ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Housing Advisory Commission Submitted by: Igor Tregub, Chairperson, Housing Advisory Commission Subject: Small Sites Loan Program Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION To proceed immediately with a one-time small sites pilot program, not to exceed $1 million, City Council should:

1. Waive certain sections of the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Guidelines for a Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) for small site housing acquisition and rehabilitation projects; 2. Adopt certain eligibility and loan criteria to be used in conjunction with the NOFA; and 3. Adopt an amendment to the City’s procurement policy to allow the City Manager to approve loans in excess of $50,000 resulting from the NOFA (rather than requiring Council approval).

Further details of these proposals are given in the staff report attached.

Those changes to HTF Guidelines and procurement rules should be solely for the purpose of the pilot program.

Additionally, the Housing Advisory Commission recommends that City Council:

4. Request that the Council and Housing Advisory Commission receive copies of small sites loan applications along with staff's corresponding analysis and decision. 5. Review the limitations of a one-time small sites pilot program as described within this memo. 6. Refer further consideration of a long-term small sites program to the City Manager and the Housing Advisory Commission. 7. Refer the small sites program to the November budget update and next biannual budget planning cycle in 2019.

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 97 Page 2 of 12

Small Sites Loan Program Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

On July 11, 2018, the Housing Advisory Commission voted as follows to make these recommendations:

Commissioner Winters recused himself due to his employment at Northern California Land Trust which may apply for a Small Sites loan.

Action: M/S/C (Lord/Owens) to adopt recommendations dictated by the Commission for a Small Sites Multi-Family Housing Loan Program. Vote: Ayes: Amezcua, Holman, Johnson, Kesarwani, Lewis, Lord, and Owens. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Tregub (excused), Winters (recused), Wolfe (excused), and Wright (excused).

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION Funds for this program were previously allocated. Adoption of this recommendation would determine certain details about how loans are awarded.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS The small sites pilot program is new.

BACKGROUND On November 28, 2017, City Council established the development of a “Small Sites” multifamily housing loan program as their first priority among Affordable Housing Action Plan referrals.

Limitations of the Pilot Program The pilot program as envisioned has the following limitations: a. The pilot does not fully implement the ownership structures Council specified. From the Small Sites Program Recommendation Outline: A purpose of the pilot program is to support "potential for conversion [of acquired sites] to limited equity housing cooperative (LEHC)"

Council's small site referral was not limited to LEHCs.

From the Council referral of November 28, 2017: "Consider giving priority to the creation of limited and non-equity cooperatives affiliated with a democratic community land trust. Consider master leasing as a mechanism for managing distinct, smaller properties." (emphasis added) b. The pilot program threatens to reduce the supply of rent stabilized units. From the outline: A purpose of the pilot is "Conversion of rent controlled properties to restricted affordability".

98 Page 3 of 12

Small Sites Loan Program Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

Such a purpose is nowhere to be found in Council's referral. Conversion to restricted affordability can, in some circumstances, suppress the supply of affordable housing in Berkeley rather than expand it. For example, a system of widely mixed income households - in contrast to a system of restricted affordability properties - is more likely to be self-financing and self-expanding, resulting in a greater net addition to the pool of available, affordable housing. c. The pilot is arbitrarily limited to occupied properties. From the outline: A purpose of the pilot is "Acquisition and renovation of occupied, multifamily rental properties."

Such a purpose is again not found in Council's referral and, if generalized to a longer term program, would hamper the opportunity to acquire vacant properties and bring them back into use. d. The pilot's financing structures are limiting. For the purposes of a small pilot, staff has proposed requiring the City to have first lien on the property and for City's loan to be leveraged by a private first mortgage (in the second lien position). In addition, the City would impose certain requirements for operating and replacement reserves, and for the dispersal of residual income.

While those provisions will help to ensure that the pilot itself is on a reasonably sound financial footing, they may be too inflexible for a larger and longer term program. For example, reasonable replacement reserve requirements may be different if the purchasing entity is large enough to self-insure while a replacement reserve is built up after purchase. For another example: the requirement of a first mortgage may be an inappropriate capital cost for a purchasing entity that can instead self-finance. e. The pilot omits some City Council Priorities. The pilot as envisioned would not normally create a competitive process in that applications are processed "first come, first served" excepting applications received within 10 days of one another.

Consequently, the pilot does not in any way implement a preference for democratized or cooperative housing, as directed in the original referral. A longer term program should correct this omission.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY There are no direct environmental impacts associated with the content of this report.

99 Page 4 of 12

Small Sites Loan Program Recommendations ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION These recommendations move the pilot forward, allow for an evaluation of its outcomes, and set the stage for consideration of a more permanent program.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED None.

CITY MANAGER The City Manager has no objections to the content and recommendations of the Commission’s report, though some recommendations are better suited to a more expansive Small Sites Program, if additional funding and resources are allocated to the program. If Council recommends the Commission actions, the recommendations would need to be ranked according to Council’s referral priority process. See companion report for more information.

Two of the issues the HAC identified in “Limitations of the Pilot Program” above were due to unclear wording in the staff proposal that has subsequently been clarified. First, the program is not limited to cooperatives although cooperatives are encouraged. Second, staff do not propose to exclude vacant properties, but are proposing to prioritize occupied properties consistent with the San Francisco Small Sites program goal of preventing displacement.

CONTACT PERSON Amy Davidson, Commission Secretary, Health, Housing & Community Services, (510) 981-5406

Attachments:

1: Small Sites Program Staff Recommendation (July 11, 2018 Housing Advisory Commission Meeting)

100 Page Small5 of 12 Sites Loan Program Recommendations Attachment 1

Health Housing and Community Services Department Housing & Community Services Division

MEMORANDUM

To: Housing Advisory Commission

From: Jenny Wyant, Community Development Project Coordinator

Date: July 5, 2018

Subject: Small Sites Program Staff Recommendation

On November 28, 2017, City Council established the development of a “Small Sites” multifamily housing loan program as their first priority among Affordable Housing Action Plan referrals. A previous referral specifically identified San Francisco’s Small Sites housing acquisition loan program as the model for consideration. Council approved the following: the development of “a Small Sites Program to assist non-profits in acquiring multi-unit properties of 25 units or less. Consider giving priority to the creation of limited and non-equity cooperatives affiliated with a democratic community.” On December 5, 2017, Council reserved $1,000,000 in Measure U1 revenues for the Small Sites program, contingent on the Housing Advisory Commission’s (HAC) recommendation. On April 3, 2018 Council directed staff to issue a Request for Information (RFI) to allocate $50,000 of the Small Sites funds for capacity building for a nonprofit to convert properties to limited equity housing cooperatives.

At the Housing Advisory Commission’s (HAC) May meeting, housing staff presented an informational report on Small Sites Programs, and Berkeley-specific considerations for a potential program. The attached Small Sites Program Recommendation outline includes proposed program requirements, as well as the HAC and Council actions necessary to establish a successful program.

Housing staff recommend that the HAC recommend that Council take three actions to authorize a small sites housing acquisition loan program based on San Francisco’s program: 1. Waive certain sections of the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Guidelines for a Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) for small site housing acquisition and rehabilitation projects; 2. Adopt certain eligibility and loan criteria to be used in conjunction with the NOFA; and

101 Page Small6 of 12 Sites Loan Program Recommendations Attachment 1

3. Adopt an amendment to the City’s procurement policy to allow the City Manager to approve loans in excess of $50,000 resulting from the NOFA (rather than requiring Council approval).

The proposal is summarized below and described in more detail in the attachment.

Expedited Housing Trust Fund Staff propose awarding the $1m in City funds through an expedited Housing Trust Fund process, in which some of the requirements and processes outlined in the HTF Guidelines are waived in order to effect a more streamlined review and approval process, suitable for an acquisition program.

The City would release a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), but would not set a due date for proposal submission. Staff would review applications on a first come, first served basis, though if two applications were submitted within 10 business days of each other, staff would rank the projects based on how well each meets the Small Sites Program priorities identified in the outline.

Staff would aim to review project proposals and award funding within a 90-day period to accommodate developers pursuing acquisition of properties on the market. That accelerated timeframe would preclude review and approval by the HAC and City Council, so staff would request a partial waiver of the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines and a waiver of the City’s standard procurement process. Staff’s underwriting would include a review of developer capacity, project feasibility, property condition, and how well the project would achieve the Small Sites Program objectives.

Funding amounts would be based on project need, and subsidy limits would be based on project size and type.

Small Sites Projects Staff anticipate that $950,000 would be available through the NOFA, which would likely be sufficient to fund one multifamily property with 2-6 units. The City would prioritize occupied properties at risk of Ellis Act evictions.

The developer would be responsible for:  Identifying and pursuing suitable properties  Educating existing tenants on the transition from rent control to restricted affordability  Obtaining tenant income information  Undertaking a physical needs assessment of the property to inform the renovation scope and budget  Securing a private loan for the balance of the project financing  Managing the property renovation

102 Page Small7 of 12 Sites Loan Program Recommendations Attachment 1

 Managing the conversion to an LEHC, if applicable  Providing ongoing support for the LEHC, as needed

Housing staff would review the applications, award funding, monitor during construction, and monitor the units through the 55-year affordability period to ensure that the property remains in compliance with the City’s requirements.

103 Page Small8 of 12 Sites Loan Program Recommendations Attachment 1

Small Sites Program Recommendation Outline Revised 7/5/2018

1. Small Sites program purpose a. Acquisition and renovation of occupied, multifamily rental properties b. Conversion of rent controlled properties to restricted affordability c. Potential for conversion to limited equity housing cooperative (LEHC)

2. Small sites program requirements a. Eligible properties i. Up to 25 units ii. All residential units must meet City’s definition of ‘dwelling unit’ (BMC 23F.04.010) and fully conform to applicable local codes. If a project includes occupied, unpermitted units, it can be eligible for Small Sites Program funds if legalization of the units is included in the project scope. iii. Properties with commercial spaces are eligible, so long as the majority of the project is residential 1. Commercial space counts as one unit for City subsidy calculation 2. City funds cannot be used for tenant improvements b. Project Funding: i. Combination of City funds and another loan secured by developer ii. City will size its loan based on project need: acquisition cost, rehabilitation costs, and developer fee, not to exceed the maximum subsidy limits. iii. Maximum City Subsidy: 1. $300,000 per unit for buildings of 10-25 units 2. $375,000 per unit for buildings of 3-9 units 3. $175,000 per bedroom for group living accommodations or single room occupancy (SRO) housing iv. Repayment of the City loan will be through residual receipts. 1. 1/3 of the residual receipts may be retained by the developer. 2. For any year when the replacement reserve balance is less than 1.5 times the original capitalized replacement reserve, the remaining 2/3 must be deposited into the project’s replacement reserve account, if the funding sources allows. 3. For any year when the replacement reserve balance is greater than 1.5 times the original capitalized replacement reserve, the remaining 2/3 must be distributed to the City for debt repayment. v. First Mortgage 1. Developer must leverage City funding with a first mortgage 2. City to record its regulatory agreement with affordability restrictions in first lien position, ahead of the first mortgage

104 Page Small9 of 12 Sites Loan Program Recommendations Attachment 1

c. Renovation Scope i. Renovations should address health and safety items, and systems with a remaining useful life of 10 years or less. ii. Renovation scope and costs must be substantiated by a recent physical needs assessment (PNA) of the property d. Project Proforma i. Project proformas must demonstrate a positive cash flow for 15 years after project completion, and must demonstrate sufficient cash flow to support debt and the ability to refinance or repay debt in a timely manner without additional resources from the City. ii. Proformas must show a 5% residential vacancy rate and a 20% commercial vacancy rate. iii. Reserve deposits must comply with the following: 1. Operating reserves: None unless balance drops below 25% of prior year’s operating expenses. 2. Replacement reserves: The higher of a) the amount needed according to the approved 20-year PNA or b) $400 per unit per year ($350 per unit for projects with 11+ units). e. Project Budget i. The acquisition price must be substantiated by an appraisal showing both the fair market value and the anticipated restricted value. ii. Fees charged to project must be reasonable, subject to review by HHCS. iii. The developer fee is limited to $80,000 plus $10,000 per unit, not to exceed 5% of project costs excluding the developer fee. iv. Construction management fees may not exceed $25,500 per project, and will be reimbursed at a rate proportional to the predevelopment or development work completed to date. v. All City-funded capital loans are subject to state prevailing wage requirements vi. Project budget must include a 15% construction contingency. If the project has leftover construction contingency, 50% of the remaining funds will be deposited into the replacement reserve account. vii. Project must include a 15% soft cost contingency. viii. Project budgets must include the following capitalized reserves: 1. Operating reserves: 25% of budgeted 1st year operating expenses 2. Replacement reserves: The greater of $2,000 per unit or the amount necessary to pay replacement costs for the next 10 years, as specified in an approved PNA. 3. Vacancy reserves: the monthly rent for units (residential and commercial) vacant at acquisition multiplied by the number of months expected to remain vacant during development and lease- up.

105 Page 10Small of 12 Sites Loan Program Recommendations Attachment 1

ix. If the source of funds allows, up to $100,000 in unspent City loan funds may be retained by the developer for deposit into the project’s reserve accounts. Subject to final building permit or other documentation of developer’s completion of the approved renovation scope. f. Affordability will be measured at the building (rather than unit) level, with the goal of achieving an average of 80% of the area median income for the project. The City’s loan documents will include guidelines for how this will be calculated. g. Existing Tenants i. Developer to educate tenants on the conversion from rent control to restricted affordability ii. At loan closing: 1. 75% of households must acknowledge their agreement to participate (in the conversion to restricted affordability) in a format approved by the City 2. 66% of households must income-certify for the property to be eligible for the program (with incomes less than 80% AMI). Up to 34% may be over income (above 120% AMI) or refuse to certify. iii. Within 60 days of loan closing, developer must submit a relocation plan to the City for approval, outlining plans for the temporary relocation of residents during renovations, if needed. 1. Relocation shall not exceed 90 days 2. Developer must hire a relocation consultant or similar staffing to provide advisory services to tenants 3. Notice will be given to tenants 90 days and 30 days prior to relocation, at a minimum 4. Commercial relocation shall be offered in the form of temporary suspension of rent plus a negotiated lump sum to ensure that the business is able to withstand the relocation period. h. Developer must be willing to accept tenants holding Section 8 or Shelter + Care rental assistance vouchers i. Developer Requirements i. Developer must have completed one comparable project, and have demonstrated capacity to undertake the proposed project. ii. City and City-controlled entity would be eligible to directly purchase properties under the program. j. Exceptions to Program Requirements i. Will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and could be approved by the HHCS Director only if they are consistent with the program purpose, project feasibility, and sustainable housing operations. The HHCS Director may determine that certain requested exceptions would require Housing Advisory Commission review and Council approval.

106 Page 11Small of 12 Sites Loan Program Recommendations Attachment 1

ii. The source of the City’s funds may impact certain program requirements, if the funding carries limitations on its uses.

3. Application Process a. Release NOFA and accept applications on a first-come, first-served basis (no due date) b. Applications will be reviewed in the order they are received c. Over the counter process would not be able to provide priority rankings, except if projects came in within 10 business days of each other d. Project review for consistency with guidelines by HHCS staff e. Approval by City Manager or her designee only (no subcommittee, HAC, or Council approval) f. Aim for review, approval, and project funding within 90 days of application

4. Program Administration a. Staffing i. Housing staff will administer (no additional staff needed for $1m program) ii. HHCS Housing Inspector to review PNA and project scopes iii. Limited legal support anticipated b. Program Guidelines i. Based on HTF Guidelines with certain sections waived (outlined under section 6, below) ii. Score projects based on the NOFA priorities if applications are received within 10 days of each other. iii. Use HTF boilerplate documents, updated with program-specific requirements iv. City loans would have a 30-year term c. Priorities/scoring criteria: i. Buildings at imminent risk of Ellis Act eviction ii. Existing residents include vulnerable populations (families with minor children, elderly, disabled, and catastrophically-ill persons) iii. Buildings housing residents with lowest incomes iv. Buildings that require the lowest amount of subsidy per unit v. Projects preserving the greatest number of affordable units vi. Buildings with a potential for conversion to LEHCs

5. Limited equity housing cooperatives a. For projects proposing LEHCs, include successful experience with LEHC conversions as a threshold requirement for developer experience b. Section IV. A. 2. E. of the HTF Guidelines indicate that properties acquired with the intent of converting to LEHCs should be considered as homeownership projects

107 Page 12Small of 12 Sites Loan Program Recommendations Attachment 1

i. Existing tenants have the right to remain in units as tenants ii. Developer is required to assist tenants in obtaining financing to become owners, if needed

6. HAC/Council actions requested a. Waivers required - HTF Guidelines i. Section III.A. – eligible entities (allow smaller nonprofits to compete for funds) ii. Section IV.A.1 and IV.A.2. - affordability standards (set building at 80% AMI) iii. Section V.B. - allow subsidy greater than 40% of project costs iv. Section VI: 1. allow staff to set NOFA priorities, review applications, and make funding recommendations based on program guidelines 2. expedited review process/staff level approval (bypassing subcommittee, HAC, and Council) 3. providing info to commissions (HAC, planning, ZAB, disability) 4. public hearing/notification of neighbors 5. site control – not a threshold requirement b. Waivers of City procurement process i. Request that Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to approve loans greater than $50,000 in accordance with the Small Sites Program c. Approve priorities and additional requirements outlined above (2.f and 2.g)

7. Timing for program implementation a. Recommendation to HAC July b. Program Approval by Council September c. Meet with HTF Subcommittee to establish NOFA priorities October d. Release NOFA October

108 Page 1 of 24

Human Welfare and Community Action Commission ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Human Welfare and Community Action Commission Submitted by: Denah S. Bookstein, Chairperson, Human Welfare and Community Action Commission Subject: Path to End Homelessness

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution to address the immediate needs of our homeless and dislocated citizens in such a robust and urgent manner that the end of homelessness will soon be within sight. Our proposal is two-pronged:

1. Critical First Lines: Comprehensive delivery of critical and practical assistance to the current homeless population 2. Permanent Housing

Critical First Lines: Based on current City assessment and identification of homeless congregation, we ask our Council to take the following actions urgently and comprehensively.

A) Select a minimum of three locations. Install a dome or a large tent and deliver the following essential human services simultaneously: 1. Medical triage and mental health assistance 2. Porta potties, Mobile shower units 3. HUB connectors--direct service 4. Emergency pallets and space blankets 5. Dumpsters, trash receptacles, 6. Parking stations for personal belongings 7. Classes for rehab, exercise, music and similar creative activities 8. Job training and similar opportunities for interacting with volunteers

B) Citizens’ Cafe (Food trucks at the established locations)

C) Establish a trailer park for RV/vans/buses, and ensure access to utility connection 1. Issue fee permits 2. Porta potties, Mobile shower units; Provide dumpsters, trash receptacles D) Develop and nurture shared responsibility for each location

Path to End Homelessness ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

Permanent Housing for the current homeless population to be executed in conjunction with the “Critical First Lines” as well as other (existing) programs aimed at preventing recidivism.

Convert all existing temporary shelters to permanent and supportive housing. For a city in dire need of rental units, there are currently too many empty units; units that homeowners are often reluctant to rent. On a district by district level, each Councilmember can seek ways to help potential landlords overcome the underlying causes of the reluctance. To increase supply, the City can also incentivize private citizens to create accessory units, using ‘tiny-homes’ for example. In addition to the ADU ordinance, provide low or interest free loans to homeowners who commit to renting to qualified low income tenants. This move might produce hundreds of units as well as create much desired inclusionary, not segregated living.

Develop a City-based program to offer subsidies to the landlords who rent to tenants whose vouchers are below reasonable or fair market value.

Require each district to provide a specified number of units to low-income people.

Elicit the participation of neighboring towns for properties or vacant lots to create more units (similar to the Berkeley Way plan).

Expand current relationship with YMCA to produce permanent, supportive housing.

The Ed Roberts Campus, with its highly supportive environment, can provide housing for the homeless or at-risk disabled persons.

Senior Citizens’ homes can provide permanent accommodation for the homeless elders.

Retrofit and convert the Veteran Administration building for Veterans and struggling artists.

Compel the University to provide full accommodation for its students by using, among other resources, all safe vacant land on and around the Campus to build dormitories.

Demand units, not ‘fees-in-lieu’ from Developers.

Develop serious job training programs and other diversions to prevent former homeless people from returning to the street.

Craft a definitive homelessness policy complete with a maxim, and abide by it. The policy is to state clearly the number of supportive housing Berkeley can provide. Once

Page 2 110 Page 3 of 24

Path to End Homelessness ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

all units are filled, transients may be accommodated in SRO hotels or the Y for a defined period. Homeward Bound Busing or accommodations in a neighboring town may be offered.

SUMMARY We believe that homelessness is solvable. What has led some to believe or argue otherwise is quintessentially due to our failure to view homelessness as a socio- economic failure that affects us all, albeit in different ways. The solutions we propose recognize this failure.At its June 20, 2018 meeting, HWCAC passed a motion to submit this report to City Council (M/S/C (Vrankovecki/Dunner). Vote: Ayes – Dunner, Vrankovecki, Kohn, Omodele, Bookstein; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Sood (excused), Earl, Holman, Howard.

While we recognize the urgent need to care for our fellow citizens who have fallen on the hard times of homelessness, we must also embrace the principle and reality that nothing short of helping them into housing can end their ordeal. In other words, our solutions must lead firmly to a policy that is aimed at ending the homeless crisis by providing housing. All alternatives are most likely to keep the crisis at the current level, engendering a deliberate or unintentional institutionalization of homelessness.

While cure is good and worth pursuing, prevention is even better. Based on many pronouncements and deed, Mayor Arreguin and the current Council have demonstrated that they are of the mindset that homelessness is solvable and preventable. While the devil may be in the details, we are aware that where there is a will, there is a way. The current attitude and mindset in the City Hall are laudable. But we need to speed up our work of caring for the homeless, and align the work squarely to a goal that has permanent housing at its core and end. To limit our commitment solely to emergency care and temporary shelters is nothing more than superficial compassion and a waste of our resources--financial and human.

Our proposal and recommendations may seem broad and indeed overambitious. But it is also arguable that the homeless crisis has reached today’s overwhelming and near- unmanageable proportion because our measures in the past have often proven to be too little and too late; like putting a bandaid on a festering wound. Ideally, the approach to solving this national crisis at its onset should have been akin to the Marshall Plan (also known as the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 under Harry Truman and the 80th Congress). With this awareness in mind our small city can trailblaze the nation in ending homelessness by using both established and creative methods for which Berkeley is renown. We have the benefit of hindsight to help us learn from our past missteps, and strengthen our future by steering our safety nets prudently.

It is noteworthy that many towns in the USA and around the world have succeeded in ending or stemming homelessness. In so doing, these towns have also come to realize that housing their former homeless citizens is actually cheaper than leaving them in the

Page 3 111 Page 4 of 24

Path to End Homelessness ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

streets. When “Housing First” policy was adopted in Utah, homelessness plummeted by 91% within ten years. Even those who are critical of Utah’s method of counting its homeless readily agree that Utah has done a lot of good things. The state has rightly focused most intensely on the homeless who sleep on the streets and who have serious problems with mental illness and addiction. Hundreds of people have been moved from the street and shelters into housing.1 As “EveryOne Home” (an organization that is committed to “ending homelessness in our own Alameda County) says,

● Study after study shows a permanent housing response, not a shelter response, reduces homelessness. In fact, HUD defines people in shelters as still homeless. We know what works to solve homelessness among individuals and families: [it is] known as “permanent housing”; a safe, decent, affordable place to live without limits on length of stay. While interim interventions can keep people safe, they do not solve homelessness unless coupled with pathways to permanent housing.2

1www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-corinth/think-utah-solved-homeles_b_9380860.html 2https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/163e0c45743b7ca3?compose=163c0efaae68a ef4%2C163d7c403a43b26e%2C163a9527626d108d%2C163dcea8a9da6f4b&projector =1

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION Without connections to the right types of care, [homeless people] cycle in and out of hospital emergency departments and inpatient beds, detox programs, jails, prisons, and psychiatric institutions... Some studies have found that leaving a person to remain chronically homeless costs taxpayers as much as $30,000 to $50,000 per year. https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Ending_Chronic_Homelessness _in_2017.pdf

By adopting the recommendations in the Critical First Lines in a comprehensive and rapid manner, we anticipate improved physical and mental health, increased socialization and readiness for permanent housing.

We can also maximize financial and administrative resources by integrating, coordinating and connecting all programs, bringing new charitable community organizations into the mix.

We can better assess and update referrals system so that direct service responders can be just that--people helping people directly. This can reduce the potential for emergency situations that are often caused by avoidable delays and/or missed connections.

Volunteers’ efforts and time will be better utilized under this proposal.

Page 4 112 Page 5 of 24

Path to End Homelessness ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

Added benefits to the city and the homeless population include possible business opportunity for food vendors, for example. Many homeless people are capable of purchasing their own food. For the homeless, readily attainable and nutritious diet will lead to improved condition of health.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS As California housing prices continue to rise while wages stagnate, the number of people living on our streets has grown. Over the past 8 years, Berkeley has seen an increase of 43 percent in its homeless population, and currently has the highest per capita rate of homelessness in Alameda County. Alarmingly, more than a third of people who become homeless for the first time remain unhoused for one year or more, illustrating how difficult it is in our current economic climate to find a way out. Berkeley provides some of the most generous services in Alameda County--if not in Northern California. In 2016 “Berkeley [directed] approximately $17.6 million in federal, state and local funds into a comprehensive constellation of services to help homeless people lead better lives.” http://www.berkeleyside.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/2016-11-01-Item-24-Referral-Response-Comprehensive.pdf

Councilman Kriss Worthington believes the services currently available to the homeless would be more effective if “personalized” and “delivered to the recipients in a home setting”.

Councilmember Susan Wengraf states in her July 2017 Newsletter #59, “We are spending more on homeless services and programs than ever before. I am cautious and skeptical that this will make a difference... My thinking is that we have to put significant resources into creating permanent housing with supportive services, and that doing anything else is neither a sustainable nor permanent solution to the problem”.

Mayor Arreguin is currently working to find solutions. His Pathway Project (consisting of Stair Center and Bridge Living Community) is underway, and it promises to provide 6- month transitional housing for 50 homeless individuals beginning from 2018. His ‘vision’ is to develop innovative ways to provide short-term shelter and ultimately permanent housing for our growing homeless population. This will relieve the pressure on city streets, parks, business districts and neighborhoods that are disproportionally impacted by the concentration of homeless, and provide a real chance for the homeless to move their lives forward.

BACKGROUND In a study released in 2001, John Quigley, Stephen Raphael, and Eugene Smolensky of the Goldman School of Public Policy at the UC Berkeley, conclude that “growing income inequality is a contributing factor in the growth of homelessness” adding that “The greater the disparity between the distributions of housing rents and income, the higher the incidence of homelessness.” http://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/R_1001JQR.pdf

Page 5 113 Page 6 of 24

Path to End Homelessness ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

Regardless of all the other issues that have emerged as components or characteristics of homelessness, most researchers agree that homelessness rises as vacancy rates fall; that homelessness rises as rents rise. The rise in the rate of homelessness in California is often traced to the 1980s, to Reaganomics.

To combat homelessness, Alameda County and Berkeley (like many counties and cities in California) provide a gamut of programs, some mandated by HUD while others are the creative inventions of Berkeley volunteers. The Alameda County Social Services Agency directly provides cash aid or housing voucher assistance to families and single adults who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. There are also contracts with local county homeless shelter providers who run emergency shelters for homeless singles and families throughout the county. CalWORKS Program provides families with emergency and permanent housing assistance, including motel vouchers and move-in assistance. Efforts to make these services more effective have led to the creation of BOSS, HUB, and most recently, Centralized Entry.

Under Mayor Tom Bates, Berkeley voters supported 20 projects in the area roughly bounded by Berkeley Way on the north, Dwight Way on the south, UC Berkeley on the east and the Civic Center on the west. Together they include more than 1,500 housing units which many thought would be affordable/low income housing. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Keeping-downtown-Berkeley-s-design- distinctive-6475024.php

Unfortunately, developers chose to exercise the option to pay “fee in lieu”. Mayor Jesse Arreguin, who made homelessness and affordable housing the centerpiece of his campaign, continues to reiterate his belief that housing is the real answer.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for a homeless person was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker. Utah then launched “Housing First”, and began giving away apartments, with no strings attached. Each participant in “Housing First” program also gets a caseworker and other services necessary to achieve self- sufficiency. Even when they fail they keep the apartment. Clients pay some rent — either 30 percent of income or up to $50 a month, whichever is greater. Still Salt Lake City and the state of Utah as a whole have continued to save money while reducing (according to Kelley Mcevers of NPR’s report,) chronic homelessness by 91% as of 2015”.

Many of Berkeley’s homeless people earn money which, under normal circumstances, can be spent on healthy and productive habits. This change alone will benefit both the

Page 6 114 Page 7 of 24

Path to End Homelessness ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

community and the homeless rather than drug dealers and other pimps of poverty as it is currently the case.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION It is a great failure of our society that we have allowed this humanitarian crisis to grow out of hand, not just in our city, but also throughout our country. Berkeley per capita has one of the largest chronic homeless populations in the entire county. While our community [funds] an array of services and [supports] regional efforts to address homelessness, there is clearly still more to do. We have the ability to leverage resources and the vision and dedication of our citizens to solve this crisis. Mayor Jesse Arreguín.

Based on the evidence that it is cheaper to provide people experiencing chronic homelessness with supportive housing than to have them remain homeless, the Obama Administration adopted in 2010 the “Housing First” which was designed to result in housing people quickly and without barriers or preconditions. Similarly the United Nations Charter of Human Rights which mandates that all categories of homeless people residing in a city be housed without prioritizing one group over the other. The question arises then: Why, given the foregoing programs and expenditures, are we still inundated with chronic homelessness? Could it be that homelessness has become so institutionalized that we often fail to accept--with conviction--that it could be ended? We believe that with the right mindset, we can end the homelessness crisis.

We are aware that several of our proposals are being considered or implemented. Nevertheless, we want to reiterate that investing urgently in permanent housing (while implementing programs aimed at prevention) is the only answer to homelessness.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED None.

CITY MANAGER See companion report.

CONTACT PERSON Wing Wong, Secretary, HHCS, (510)981-5428

Attachments: 1: Resolution 2: Models and Possibilities: Bay Area Community Services (BACS) and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA)

Page 7 115 Page 8 of 24

Path to End Homelessness ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

3: Possible solutions For Mobile Shower Facilities.1 Comparable operation from City of Santa Rosa. “The program will cost the city of Santa Rosa $87,450,2 according to the City Council minutes from November 2015. These include 16’ and 24’ foot trailers 4: Berkeley’s homeless demographic and annual spending report. 5: HB 436 Housing and Homeless Reform Initiative - Utah Legislature The current bill on how Utah has been solving the Homeless Crisis.

1http://montondotrailer.com/mobile-shower-trailers?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3pm7pLbf2AIVyF5-Ch0- SQ_7EAAYASAAEgJR-PD_BwE 2 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-showers-trailer_us_56c5e4f2e4b0c3c55053f03a

Page 8 116 Page 9 of 24

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

PATHS TO DEFEAT HOMELESSNESS

WHEREAS, for a city in dire need of rental units, there are currently too many empty public units. As well, there are many private units that homeowners are often reluctant to rent. On a district by district level, each Councilmember can seek ways to help potential homeowners overcome the underlying causes of their worry or reluctance to rent. To increase supply, the City can also incentivize private citizens to create accessory units, using ‘tiny-homes’ for example. In addition to the ADU ordinance, City will provide low or interest-free loans to homeowners who commit to renting to qualified low income tenants. This move might produce hundreds of units as well as create much desired inclusionary living; and

WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley creates an assessment and identification of centers of homeless congregation. Select two to three locations to install a dome or a large tent, and begin to triage and support the homeless by delivering Critical First Lines: Medical triage, mental health assistance, porta potties, Mobile shower units, HUB connectors to direct service, emergency pallets and space blankets Dumpsters, trash receptacles, parking stations for personal belonging, classes for rehab, exercise, music and similar creative activities, and job training and similar opportunities for interacting with volunteers; and

WHEREAS, the City establishes and supports a Citizens’ Cafe, where the city supports and helps mitigate the costs for Food Trucks at the established locations; and

WHEREAS, the City provides Mobile shower units, porta potties, and dumpsters at specific locations to improve sanitary condition for all; and

WHEREAS, the City establishes a trailer park for RV/vans/buses, and ensures access to utility connections.

WHEREAS, the City asks each district to provide a specified number of units to low- income people; and

WHEREAS, the City elicits the participation of neighboring towns for properties or vacant lots to create more units (similar to the Berkeley Way plan); and

WHEREAS, the City expands its current relationship with YMCA to produce permanent, supportive housing; and

WHEREAS, the City directs the Ed Roberts Campus to create housing for the homeless or at-risk disabled persons; and

WHEREAS, the City retrofits and converts the Veteran Administration building for Veterans and struggling artists; and

117 Page 10 of 24

WHEREAS, the City compels the University to provide full accommodation for its students by using, among other resources, all safe vacant land on and around the Campus to build dormitories; and

WHEREAS, the City demands units, not ‘fees-in-lieu’ from Developers; and

WHEREAS, the City develops serious job training programs and other diversions to prevent former homeless people from returning to the street; and

WHEREAS, the City crafts a definitive policy addressing homelessness, complete with a maxim, and abides by it. The policy is to state clearly the number of supportive housing Berkeley can maximally provide. Once all units are filled, transients may be accommodated in SRO hotels or the YMCA for a defined period. Homeward Bound Busing or accommodations in a neighboring town can be offered.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this crisis needs to end. We need to start the process with the following Critical First Lines as we work on housing procurement.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the current homeless population needs sustainable, reliable and supportive housing as necessary. The current housing shortage can be resolved by converting all or most of the existing temporary shelters to permanent and supportive housing.

118 Page 11 of 24

Attachment 2

Models and Possibilities:

Bay Area Community Services (BASC)

Where there is a will, there is a way. BACS’ mission, namely, use direct outreach to find people where they are..., whether it is on the street [or] in encampments...to end homelessness permanently in our community can serve as a model for Berkeley City. www.bayareacs.org/tag/stair- berkeley

Satellite Affordable Housing Associates SAHA presents a similar model, namely ...the idea that every person deserves a home…; ….a belief that quality homes and empowering services should be in reach for all of the Bay Area’s community members and that despite the many obstacles to providing housing for people with low-incomes and special needs, this goal is possible…

119 Page 12 of 24

in operation.3

3 https://srcity.org/764/Homeless-Outreach-Services-Team-HOST http://projects.sfchronicle.com/sf-homeless/division-street/ ("Five of San Francisco's mayors discuss their attempts to solve the homelessness problem while in office”) file:///C:/Users/adabr/Downloads/2016-11- 01%20Item%2024%20Referral%20Response%20Comprehensi ve%20(5).pdf https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/homelessness/163ed9170f69aacd?compose=163c0efaae68aef 4%2C163d7c403a43b26e%2C163a9527626d108d%2C163d791a98bd8878%2C16397d1bff366bd8%2C 163d23126e5a79de%2C163a4fae1c438e7a

120 Page 13 of 24

121 Page 14 of 24

Attachment 4

Berkeley’s homeless demographic and annual spending report

122 Page 15 of 24

123 Page 16 of 24 Attachment 5

Enrolled Copy H.B. 436

1 HOUSING AND HOMELESS REFORM INITIATIVE 2 2016 GENERAL SESSION 3 STATE OF UTAH 4 Chief Sponsor: Francis D. Gibson 5 Senate Sponsor: Todd Weiler 6 7 LONG TITLE 8 General Description: 9 This bill modifies provisions related to housing and community development. 10 Highlighted Provisions: 11 This bill: 12 < creates a restricted account called the Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted 13 Account; 14 < describes the responsibilities of the Homeless Coordinating Committee and the 15 Housing and Community Development Division in awarding grants or contracts 16 using money from the account; 17 < adds members to the Homeless Coordinating Committee; and 18 < makes technical changes. 19 Money Appropriated in this Bill: 20 This bill appropriates: 21 < to the General Fund Restricted -- Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted Account, 22 as a one-time appropriation: 23 C from the General Fund, $2,500,000; and 24 C from Federal Funds, $2,250,000; 25 < to the General Fund Restricted -- Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted Account, 26 as an ongoing appropriation: 27 C from the General Fund, $4,500,000; 28 < to the Department of Workforce Services -- Housing and Community Development, 29 as a one-time appropriation:

124 Page 17 of 24 Attachment 5 H.B. 436 Enrolled Copy

30 C from the General Fund Restricted -- Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted 31 Account, $4,750,000; and 32 < to the Department of Workforce Services -- Housing and Community Development, 33 as an ongoing appropriation: 34 C from the General Fund Restricted -- Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted 35 Account, $4,500,000. 36 Other Special Clauses: 37 None 38 Utah Code Sections Affected: 39 AMENDS: 40 35A-8-601, as renumbered and amended by Laws of Utah 2012, Chapter 212 41 63I-2-235, as enacted by Laws of Utah 2015, Chapters 104 and 460 42 ENACTS: 43 35A-8-604, Utah Code Annotated 1953 44 35A-8-605, Utah Code Annotated 1953 45 46 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah: 47 Section 1. Section 35A-8-601 is amended to read: 48 35A-8-601. Creation. 49 (1) There is created within the division the Homeless Coordinating Committee. 50 (2) (a) The committee shall consist of the following members: 51 (i) the lieutenant governor or the lieutenant governor's designee; 52 (ii) the state planning coordinator or the coordinator's designee; 53 (iii) the state superintendent of public instruction or the superintendent's designee; 54 (iv) the chair of the board of trustees of the Utah Housing Corporation or the chair's 55 designee; [and] 56 (v) the executive [directors] director of the [Department of Human Services, the 57 Department of Corrections, the] Department of Workforce Services[, and the Department of

125 - 2 - Page 18 of 24 Attachment 5 Enrolled Copy H.B. 436

58 Health, or their designees.] or the executive director's designee; 59 (vi) the executive director of the Department of Corrections or the executive director's 60 designee; 61 (vii) the executive director of the Department of Health or the executive director's 62 designee; 63 (viii) the executive director of the Department of Human Services or the executive 64 director's designee; 65 (ix) the mayor of Salt Lake City; and 66 (x) the mayor of Salt Lake County. 67 (b) (i) The lieutenant governor shall serve as the chair of the committee. 68 (ii) The lieutenant governor may appoint a vice chair from among committee members, 69 who shall conduct committee meetings in the absence of the lieutenant governor. 70 (3) The governor may appoint as members of the committee: 71 (a) representatives of local governments, local housing authorities, local law 72 enforcement agencies[, and of]; 73 (b) representatives of federal and private agencies and organizations concerned with 74 the homeless, persons with a mental illness, the elderly, single-parent families, [substance 75 abusers] persons with a substance use disorder, and persons with a disability[.]; and 76 (c) a resident of Salt Lake County. 77 (4) (a) Except as required by Subsection (4)(b), as terms of current committee members 78 appointed under Subsection (3) expire, the governor shall appoint each new member or 79 reappointed member to a four-year term. 80 (b) Notwithstanding the requirements of Subsection (4)(a), the governor shall, at the 81 time of appointment or reappointment, adjust the length of terms to ensure that the terms of 82 committee members are staggered so that approximately half of the committee is appointed 83 every two years. 84 (c) A [person] member appointed under [this Subsection (4)] Subsection (3) may not 85 be appointed to serve more than three consecutive terms.

126 - 3 - Page 19 of 24 Attachment 5 H.B. 436 Enrolled Copy

86 (5) When a vacancy occurs in the membership for any reason, the replacement is 87 appointed for the unexpired term. 88 (6) A member may not receive compensation or benefits for the member's service, but 89 may receive per diem and travel expenses in accordance with: 90 (a) Section 63A-3-106; 91 (b) Section 63A-3-107; and 92 (c) rules made by the Division of Finance pursuant to Sections 63A-3-106 and 93 63A-3-107. 94 Section 2. Section 35A-8-604 is enacted to read: 95 35A-8-604. Uses of Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted Account. 96 (1) With the concurrence of the division and in accordance with this section, the 97 Homeless Coordinating Committee members designated in Subsection 35A-8-601(2) may 98 award ongoing or one-time grants or contracts funded from the Homeless to Housing Reform 99 Restricted Account created in Section 35A-8-605. 100 (2) Before final approval of a grant or contract awarded under this section, the 101 Homeless Coordinating Committee and the division shall provide information regarding the 102 grant or contract to, and shall consider the recommendations of, the Legislative Management 103 Committee and the Executive Appropriations Committee. 104 (3) As a condition of receiving money, including any ongoing money, from the 105 Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted Account, an entity awarded a grant or contract under 106 this section shall provide detailed and accurate reporting on at least an annual basis to the 107 division and the Homeless Coordinating Committee that describes: 108 (a) how money provided from the Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted Account 109 has been spent by the entity; and 110 (b) the progress towards measurable outcome-based benchmarks agreed to between the 111 entity and the Homeless Coordinating Committee before the awarding of the grant or contract. 112 (4) In determining the awarding of a grant or contract under this section, the Homeless 113 Coordinating Committee, with the concurrence of the division, shall:

127 - 4 - Page 20 of 24 Attachment 5 Enrolled Copy H.B. 436

114 (a) ensure that the services to be provided through the grant or contract will be 115 provided in a cost-effective manner; 116 (b) consider the advice of committee members designated in Subsection 35A-8-601(3); 117 (c) give priority to a project or contract that will include significant additional or 118 matching funds from a private organization or local government entity; 119 (d) ensure that the project or contract will target the distinct housing needs of one or 120 more at-risk or homeless subpopulations, which may include: 121 (i) families with children; 122 (ii) transitional-aged youth; 123 (iii) single men or single women; 124 (iv) veterans; 125 (v) victims of domestic violence; 126 (vi) individuals with behavioral health disorders, including mental health or substance 127 use disorders; 128 (vii) individuals who are medically frail or terminally ill; 129 (viii) individuals exiting prison or jail; or 130 (ix) individuals who are homeless without shelter; and 131 (e) consider whether the project will address one or more of the following goals: 132 (i) diverting homeless or imminently homeless individuals and families from 133 emergency shelters by providing better housing-based solutions; 134 (ii) meeting the basic needs of homeless individuals and families in crisis; 135 (iii) providing homeless individuals and families with needed stabilization services; 136 (iv) decreasing the state's homeless rate; 137 (v) implementing a coordinated entry system with consistent assessment tools to 138 provide appropriate and timely access to services for homeless individuals and families; 139 (vi) providing access to caseworkers or other individualized support for homeless 140 individuals and families; 141 (vii) encouraging employment and increased financial stability for individuals and

128 - 5 - Page 21 of 24 Attachment 5 H.B. 436 Enrolled Copy

142 families being diverted from or exiting homelessness; 143 (viii) creating additional affordable housing for state residents; 144 (ix) providing services and support to prevent homelessness among at-risk individuals 145 and adults; 146 (x) providing services and support to prevent homelessness among at-risk children, 147 adolescents, and young adults; and 148 (xi) preventing the reoccurrence of homelessness among individuals and families 149 exiting homelessness. 150 (5) In addition to the other provisions of this section, in determining the awarding of a 151 grant or contract under this section to design, build, create, or renovate a facility that will 152 provide shelter or other resources for the homeless, the Homeless Coordinating Committee, 153 with the concurrence of the division: 154 (a) may consider whether the facility will be: 155 (i) located near mass transit services; 156 (ii) located in an area that meets or will meet all zoning regulations before a final 157 dispersal of funds; 158 (iii) safe and welcoming both for individuals using the facility and for members of the 159 surrounding community; and 160 (iv) located in an area with access to employment, job training, and positive activities; 161 and 162 (b) may not award a grant or contract under this Subsection (5), unless the grant or 163 contract is endorsed by the county and, if applicable, the municipality where the facility will be 164 located. 165 (6) (a) As used in this Subsection (6), "homeless shelter" means a facility that: 166 (i) is located within a municipality; 167 (ii) provides temporary shelter to homeless individuals; 168 (iii) has capacity to provide temporary shelter to at least 200 individuals per night; 169 (iv) began operation on or before January 1, 2016;

129 - 6 - Page 22 of 24 Attachment 5 Enrolled Copy H.B. 436

170 (v) did not operate more than nine-months per year before January 1, 2016; and 171 (vi) currently operates year-round. 172 (b) In addition to the other provisions of this section, the Homeless Coordinating 173 Committee, with the concurrence of the division, may award a grant or contract: 174 (i) to a municipality to improve sidewalks, pathways, or roadways near a homeless 175 shelter to provide greater safety to homeless individuals; and 176 (ii) to a municipality to hire a peace officer to provide greater safety to homeless 177 individuals. 178 (7) The division may expend money from the Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted 179 Account to offset actual division and Homeless Coordinating Committee expenses related to 180 administering this section. 181 Section 3. Section 35A-8-605 is enacted to read: 182 35A-8-605. Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted Account. 183 (1) There is created a restricted account within the General Fund known as the 184 Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted Account. 185 (2) The restricted account shall be administered by the division for the purposes 186 described in Section 35A-8-604. 187 (3) The state treasurer shall invest the money in the restricted account according to the 188 procedures and requirements of Title 51, Chapter 7, State Money Management Act, except that 189 interest and other earnings derived from the restricted account shall be deposited in the 190 restricted account. 191 (4) The restricted account shall be funded by: 192 (a) appropriations made to the account by the Legislature; and 193 (b) private donations, grants, gifts, bequests, or money made available from any other 194 source to implement this section and Section 35A-8-604. 195 (5) Subject to appropriation, the director shall use account money as described in 196 Section 35A-8-604. 197 (6) The Homeless Coordinating Committee, in cooperation with the division, shall

130 - 7 - Page 23 of 24 Attachment 5 H.B. 436 Enrolled Copy

198 submit an annual written report to the department that gives a complete accounting of the use 199 of money from the account for inclusion in the annual report described in Section 35A-1-109. 200 Section 4. Section 63I-2-235 is amended to read: 201 63I-2-235. Repeal dates -- Title 35A. 202 (1) Subsection 35A-8-604(6) is repealed October 1, 2020. 203 [(1)] (2) Title 35A, Chapter 8, Part 11, Methamphetamine Housing Reconstruction and 204 Rehabilitation Account Act, is repealed July 1, 2015. 205 [(2)] (3) Section 35A-12-402 is repealed December 31, 2015. 206 Section 5. Appropriation. 207 Under the terms and conditions of Title 63J, Chapter 1, Budgetary Procedures Act, for 208 the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2017, the following sums of money 209 are appropriated from resources not otherwise appropriated, or reduced from amounts 210 previously appropriated, out of the funds or accounts indicated. These sums of money are in 211 addition to amounts previously appropriated for fiscal year 2017. 212 To Fund and Account Transfers -- General Fund Restricted -- 213 Homeless to Housing Reform Restricted Account 214 From General Fund, one-time $2,500,000 215 From Federal Funds, one-time $2,250,000 216 From General Fund $4,500,000 217 Schedule of Programs: 218 General Fund Restricted -- Homeless to Housing 219 Reform Restricted Account $9,250,000 220 To Department of Workforce Services -- Housing and 221 Community Development 222 From General Fund Restricted -- Homeless to Housing 223 Reform Restricted Account, one-time $4,750,000 224 From General Fund Restricted -- Homeless to Housing Reform 225 Restricted Account $4,500,000

131 - 8 - Page 24 of 24 Attachment 5 Enrolled Copy H.B. 436

226 Schedule of Programs: 227 Homeless to Housing Reform Program $9,250,000 228 The Legislature intends that: 229 (1) under Section 63J-1-603 appropriations provided under this section not lapse at the 230 close of fiscal year 2017; 231 (2) the one-time appropriation under this section be used by the Housing and 232 Community Development Division and the Homeless Coordinating Committee to award grants 233 or contracts related to designing, building, creating, or renovating a facility in accordance with 234 Subsection 35A-8-604(5), except that up to $500,000 of the appropriation may be used to 235 improve sidewalks, pathways, or roadways near a homeless shelter as described in Subsection 236 35A-8-604(6)(b)(i); and 237 (3) the ongoing appropriation under this section be used by the Housing and 238 Community Development Division and the Homeless Coordinating Committee to award grants 239 or contracts in accordance with Section 35A-8-604, except that up to $52,000 of the 240 appropriation may be used to hire a peace officer as described in Subsection 241 35A-8-604(6)(b)(ii).

132 - 9 - Page 1 of 5

Peace and Justice Commission ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Peace and Justice Commission Submitted by: Ezekiel Gorrocino, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission Subject: Resolution asking Peace and Justice Commission to develop a regional sanctuary-community working group

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution referring a request to the Peace and Justice Commission to develop a working group including representatives of Sanctuary communities throughout the Bay Area, including Sanctuary cities and counties. This working group would have the purpose of coordinating response to the activities of DHS units including ICE and Customs and Border Enforcement along with other federal agencies responsible for abusive treatment of immigrants.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS Sanctuary cities and counties, and other government entities, are a growing phenomenon, with Berkeley one of the oldest, dating back to 1971. The need for sanctuary is growing due to the anti-immigrant fervor emanating from the national government; the sanctuary movement itself is under direct attack from the same source.

The Commission identified a need for close coordination and information sharing among sanctuary communities, particularly in the Bay Area region. At its regular meeting July 9, 2018, the Peace and Justice Commission unanimously adopted the following recommendation: that the City Council refer to the Commission the request to work with other Berkeley commissions and the Office of the Mayor to coordinate response to ICE activities, share information about such activities, and bring back recommendations to the Mayor, City Council, and BUSD on coordinated actions against unfair and repressive enforcement against immigrants.

M/S/C Lippman/Meola

Ayes: Bohn, Gorrocino, Lippman, Maran, Meola, Pancoast, Rodriguez

Resolution to develop Sanctuary working group

Nays: None

Abstain: None

Absent: Chin, Hariri, Watson

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY There are no identifiable environmental impacts or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The national administration’s policy to break up immigrant families and imprison the children in cages has confirmed that its anti-immigrant nature has moved far beyond mere rhetoric.

The Mayor, City Council, and BUSD have responded to the attacks on the Sanctuary movement by redoubling legal, moral, and logistical support for immigrant communities. Other cities and counties and the State of California have joined this growing movement, which could be greatly strengthened by coordination and information- sharing.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED The Commission discussed alternative bodies that could be assigned to develop the working group: a Council subcommittee, the Mayor’s Office, or a joint subcommittee of commissions. Based on the Commission’s mandate for peace and social justice, and its history of advocating immigrant rights, the Commission opted to offer itself as the lead for this effort, with the stipulation that the work should be collaborative and inclusive.

CITY MANAGER See companion report

CONTACT PERSON Ezekiel Gorrocino, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission 415-298-7120 Shallon Allen, Commission Secretary, City Manager’s Office 510-981-7071

Attachments: 1: Draft Resolution

Page 2 134 Page 3 of 5

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

RESOLUTION ASKING PEACE AND JUSTICE COMMISSION TO DEVELOP A REGIONAL SANCTUARY COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP

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

WHEREAS, on February 18, 2018, the Council of the City of Berkeley unanimously resolved that “the City of Berkeley strongly opposes threatened enforcement actions by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] in the Bay Area and throughout California, and that the City of Berkeley reaffirms its commitment to protecting immigrants and all members of our community” (Resolution No. 68,328 N.S.); and

WHEREAS, the targeting of immigrant communities by the national administration has moved rapidly from rhetoric to reality, with the promulgation of the separation of families as ICE policy, the detention of immigrant children—including babies—in cages apart from their parents, and the upholding of the Muslim ban by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that the separation of immigrant children in particular is being called a “moral state of emergency”1 and a human rights crisis;2 and

WHEREAS, Berkeley has long led the way as a City of Refuge or Sanctuary City, pioneering resistance to “Secure Communities” and other forms of collaboration between local police and the federal immigration authorities, culminating in the declaration of California as a Sanctuary State in Senate Bill 54,3 which took effect in January 2018, while significant arenas of collaboration remain to be addressed, particularly within the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office; and

WHEREAS, Berkeley’s nearby neighbor, the City of Richmond, is the site of an immigrant detention center, a section of the West County Detention Center that is operated by the Contra Costa County Sheriff under a $6 million annual contract with ICE, and which has long been accused of abuses such as denial of access to bathrooms, medical care, educational materials, and of retribution against detainees for their advocacy;4 and

1 https://forward.com/news/national/403445/rabbis-protest-family-separation-as-moral-state-of- emergency/ 2 https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/human-rights-and-immigration 3 “California beats Trump in sanctuary state battle's first round;” Sacramento Bee, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article214374659.html

4 November 10, 2017, https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Conditions-worsen-for-some-ICE- detainees-at-12346066.php

135 Page 4 of 5

Resolution to develop Sanctuary working group

WHEREAS, local governments in northern California are taking actions in defense of immigrant rights: San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and Santa Clara County have allocated hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal services to “help residents with immediate immigration problems;”5 34 cities including Berkeley have sued the national administration over its threat to defund the cities over their sanctuary stance;6 and Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf warned the community about a likely ICE enforcement activity in her city;7 for which Mayor Schaaf was directly threatened with prosecution by the U.S. president and the attorney general;8 and

WHEREAS, early in his administration Mayor Jesse Arreguin created a Sanctuary City Task Force “as a way to develop policies and practices to protect our immigrant and undocumented community;”9 the Task Force convened a large group of public and community stakeholders that shared information, created resource materials, co- developed outreach and education efforts, and worked to strengthen emergency response networks within Berkeley and regionally, and continues to meet on a quarterly basis; and

WHEREAS, the need remains for a more formalized way for sanctuary communities to coordinate emergency or proactive action in defense of immigrant rights across jurisdictions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Berkeley refers a request to the Peace and Justice Commission to develop a working group of representatives of Sanctuary communities throughout the Bay Area, including Sanctuary Cities and Counties, for the purpose of coordinating response to the activities of DHS units including ICE and Customs and Border Enforcement along with other federal agencies responsible for abusive treatment of immigrants; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission shall work closely with the Office of the Mayor, and coordinate with relevant bodies including the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) and commissions such as the Commission on the Status of Women, Labor, and Human Welfare and Community Action; and

5 “Sacramento will pay to help immigrants ‘prepare for the worst’ from Trump,” May 4, 2017, https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article148768194.html,

6 “Sacramento joins federal lawsuit challenging Trump’s ‘sanctuary city’ threat.” March 23, 2017, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article140414868.html

7 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oakland-mayor-libby-schaaf-warns-ice- raids_us_5a926079e4b03b55731cdca1 8 https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/19/politics/oakland-mayor-donald-trump/index.html 9 https://www.jessearreguin.com/sanctuary-city/

Page 4 136 Page 5 of 5

Resolution to develop Sanctuary working group

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the working group shall share information about the current and imminent activities of immigration authorities in the Bay Area, including enforcement, strategies, and propaganda, so that a shared understanding can be created among Sanctuary communities regarding the repression against immigrant communities; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission shall bring back to the Mayor’s Office and to the City Council and the BUSD proposals for actions the City and the BUSD can take, in coordination with other Sanctuary communities, against unfair and repressive enforcement against immigrants in our region; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the Mayor to join mayors around the country in pledging to: warn the immigrant community in advance of ICE raids; end police department collaboration with ICE; and ban ICE from questioning people on public transit or any city property.10

10“Sign the Petition to US Mayors: Stop Cooperating with ICE!” Daily Kos, www.dailykos.com/campaigns/petitions/sign-the-petition-to-us-mayors-stop-cooperating-with- ice?detail=emailactionLL%3Fauto_submit

Page 5 137 138 Page 1 of 1

ACTION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Councilmember Maio

SUBJECT: Managing RV Parking Via Permit Process

RECOMMENDATION Refer to the City Manager to look into how other cities use permitting to manage RV parking and suggest a permit process that Council can consider to enable RV parking but place some sensible limits.

BACKGROUND The flatlands in Berkeley have become home to an increasing number of RVs parking for very long periods of time. District 1 residents, schools, and business have been reporting increasing numbers and also problems associated with long term parking. These concerns include taking up parking that is needed for residents and businesses. The most problematic of issues is public safety and health. Berkeley has no pump-out facilities and therefore reports of using garbage cans and storm drains for disposing of personal waste have come to our attention.

This Item asks the City Manager to look into what other cities have done to place reasonable limits on RVs. Here is a link to what Antioch as in place: http://www.antiochca.gov/police/rv-permit

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Positive impact on storm drain systems.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time for education and enforcement.

CONTACT Office of Councilmember Linda Maio, District 1 510.981.7110 | [email protected] | cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio

[email protected] · 510.981.7110 · cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio 139 140 Page 1 of 3

Commission on Labor INFORMATION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Commission on Labor Submitted by: Libby Sayre, Chairperson, Commission on Labor Subject: Commission on Labor 2018-2019 Work Plan

INTRODUCTION The Commission on Labor has updated its work plan, which outlines Commission objectives for the upcoming fiscal year. This work plan includes researching and gathering information; updating the Labor Bill of Rights; educating workers, children and young adults; and monitoring local labor disputes.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS At the regular meeting on May 9, 2018, the Commission on Labor unanimously approved a recommendation to accept the updated work plan, which is used to guide the Commission’s work throughout the year.

M/S/C (Wilkinson/Frankel) to accept work plan as submitted with revisions as proposed and authorizing Commissioner Schriner to prepare and submit Information Report to City Council.

Ayes: Wilkinson, Bloom, Fillingim, Schriner, McClintick, Sayre Noes: None Absent: Jones Leave of Absence: Castelli

BACKGROUND See attached Work Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY No environmental impacts or opportunities were identified as a result of this recommendation.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Based on Commission research and public hearings, new initiatives and recommendations to City Council may be submitted to City Council at such time deemed necessary.

Commission on Labor 2018-2019 Work Plan INFORMATION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION No fiscal impacts determined at this time.

CONTACT PERSON Delfina Geiken, Commission Secretary, Health, Housing and Community Services, (510) 981-7551 Libby Sayre, Chairperson, (916) 541-3765

Attachment: 1: Commission on Labor Work Plan

Page 2 142 Page 3 of 3

Attachment 1

Commission on Labor

Work Plan Approved May 9, 2018

Research and gather information to report to City Council and support Commission’s recommendations to City Council:

a. Invite speakers to present relevant and current information regarding labor issues. b. Develop policies for recommendation to City Council in formal coordination with other City of Berkeley commissions to maximize the availability of subject matter experts and identify connections between labor and other relevant issues including, but not limited to, economic development and human rights. c. Examine City’s policies and practices regarding workplace sexual harassment. d. Examine the University of California at Berkeley’s policies and practices regarding workplace sexual harassment. e. Examine City’s policies and practices regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Labor bill of rights:

Review and update the Labor Bill of Rights and submit recommended revisions to City Council.

Education a. Facilitate education of workers in Berkeley about their rights and the process for addressing workplace sexual harassment. b. Facilitate education of workers in Berkeley about the City’s policies and practices regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). c. Facilitate education of children and young adults in Berkeley about the benefits and opportunities of organized labor.

Local labor disputes

a. Monitor on-going and new labor disputes b. Hold public hearings on labor disputes as requested/required c. Submit recommendations to Council based on information gathered from both sides of disputing parties.

2180 Milvia Street, 2nd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510. 981.5100 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510. 981.5450 E-mail: [email protected] - http://www.cityofberkeley.info/housing/ 143 144 Page 1 of 11

Office of the City Manager INFORMATION CALENDAR September 25, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager Submitted by: Jessica Mar, Secretary, Open Government Commission Subject: Annual Report – Open Government Commission

INTRODUCTION The Open Government Ordinance (“OGO”), Berkeley Municipal Code (“BMC”) Chapter 2.06, requires that the City Manager prepare an annual report to the Open Government Commission that contains at least the following information:

1. The number of Public Records Act (“PRA”) requests received by the City; 2. The average length of time taken to respond to those requests; 3. The approximate number of pages produced in response to those requests; 4. The number and resolution of all written complaints received by the City concerning its compliance with the PRA with respect to such requests; 5. The number and resolution of all complaints received by the City concerning its compliance with the Brown Act; and 6. Any other information the City Manager deems appropriate that relates to the City’s compliance with this Ordinance, the Brown Act, the PRA, or open and effective government in Berkeley.

BMC §2.06.190.C.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS The annual report was presented to the Open Government Commission on July 19, 2018, at which time the Commission discussed the report and made some revisions. The Commission took the following action:

Motion to accept the 2017 Annual Report to the Open Government Commission and forward the report to the City Council. (M/S/C: Saver/Harper; Ayes: Smith, Metzger, Harper, O’Donnell, Saver, Soichet; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: Tsui (leave of absence); McLean (leave of absence).

The annual report, as accepted by the Commission, is provided to the Council for its information.

BACKGROUND This is the seventh report to the Commission. This report represents data from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.

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

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION None.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION None.

CONTACT PERSON Farimah Brown, City Attorney, (510) 981-6998 Jessica Mar, Deputy City Attorney, (510) 981-6998

Attachment: 1. Report to Open Government Commission Exhibit A: Data Summary

Page 2 146 Page 3 of 11

Office of the City Manager

DATE: July 19, 2018

TO: OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION

FROM: DEE WILLIAMS-RIDLEY, City Manager FARIMAH F. BROWN, City Attorney JESSICA MAR, Commission Secretary

SUBJECT: 2017 ANNUAL REPORT UNDER BMC SECTION 2.06.190.C ______

Introduction

The Open Government Ordinance (“OGO”) (Berkeley Municipal Code (“BMC”) Chapter 2.06) requires that the City Manager prepare an annual report to the Open Government Commission that contains at least the following information:

1. The number of Public Records Act requests received by the City; 2. The average length of time taken to respond to those requests; 3. The approximate number of pages produced in response to those requests; 4. The number and resolution of all written complaints received by the City concerning its compliance with the Public Records Act with respect to such requests; 5. The number and resolution of all complaints received by the City concerning its compliance with the Brown Act; and 6. Any other information the City Manager deems appropriate that relates to the City’s compliance with this Ordinance, the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, or open and effective government in Berkeley.

BMC §2.06.190.C. This is the seventh annual report and covers the 2017 calendar year. Each topic specified in Berkeley Municipal Code section 2.06.190.C is addressed below.

1. The Number of Public Records Act Requests Received by the City; the Average Length of Time Taken to Respond to Public Records Act Requests; and the Approximate Number of Pages Produced in Response to Public Records Act Requests

In order to enable staff to capture and record the information required by Section 2.06.190.C, staff continued to utilize the Customer Relations Management (“CRM”) module software. Currently, there are 54 designated staff in 17 departments that use CRM to track PRA requests. For each entry, staff must complete 15 data fields, and update the entry several times based on the status of the request, including the date of the initial response, any documents obtained and paid for, as well as uploading the request or response letter when appropriate. The IT Department and City Attorney staff conducted follow up training for designated staff in every department.

The City received 5,783 PRA requests from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

The 5,783 requests break down by department as follows: City Attorney (13), City Auditor (1), City Clerk (66), City Manager (16), Finance (50), Fire Department (63), Health, Housing & Community Services (8), Human Resources (22), Information Technology (4), Library (3), Parks (16), Planning (173), Police (4933), Police Review Commission (1), Public Works (278), Rent Board (51), Multi-Department (85).

Of the 5,783 requests received, approximately 98.73 percent were fulfilled within the required time period (either 10 days or, with an extension, 24 days). Seventy-three (73) requests, or 1.26% were fulfilled outside the required time frame. The primary recipient of PRA requests was the Police Department, which received 85.3% of the City’s PRA requests. Excluding the Police Department, all other City departments received 850 PRA requests in 2017, of which forty-six (46) requests, or 5.41% were fulfilled outside the required time frame. Attached to this report as Attachment A is a list of the past due responses.

As detailed in Attachment A, the late responses break down by department as follows: City Attorney (0), City Auditor (0), City Clerk (1), City Manager (1), Finance (10), Fire Department (6), Health, Housing & Community Services (2), Human Resources (1), Information Technology (0), Library (0), Parks (0), Planning (9), Police (27), Police Review Commission (0), Public Works (8), Rent Board (2), Multi-Department (6). The late responses were primarily due to staff error, underscoring the need for ongoing staff training. Other factors include the due date falling on a City Reduced Service Day, the complexity of the request, the need for data from multiple departments, and the staff member verbalizing a time extension to the requesting party but not noting it in the system. Other causes for late responses may be delays in processing, obtaining signatures, or key staff being out of the office.

The City received $17,984.50 in reimbursement during this period, primarily from charges of $0.10 per page. Approximately 54,301 pages of documents were produced

2 148 Page 5 of 11 2017 ANNUAL REPORT TO OGC July 19, 2018 Page 3 in paper and electronic form. The City does not receive reimbursement for the many responsive documents provided in electronic format, as well as documents made available for review for which copies were not requested. It also does not include the instances wherein the requester did not follow up to obtain the previously requested documents. The total number of reported staff hours spent on responding to PRA requests was 432, not including the time of the paralegal in the City Attorney’s Office who has been responsible for coordinating all multi-departmental PRA requests. The average length of time taken to respond to the requesting party was 1.39 days.

The PRA numbers from the prior year are provided as a point of reference. The City received 5,600 PRA requests from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016. The 5,600 requests break down by department as follows: City Attorney (17), City Auditor (4), City Clerk (87), City Manager (20), Finance (54), Fire Department (82), Health, Housing & Community Services (9), Human Resources (23), Information Technology (5), Library (11), Parks (1), Planning (166), Police (4891), Public Works (125), Rent Board (21), and Multi-Department (84).

Of the 5,600 requests received in 2016, approximately 99 percent were fulfilled within the required time period (either 10 days or, with an extension, 24 days). Sixty-one (61) requests, or 1.1%, were fulfilled outside the required time frame.

2. The Number and Resolution of all Written Complaints Received by the City Concerning its Compliance with the Public Records Act, the Brown Act, and the Open Government Ordinance

Pursuant to Section 2.06.190 of the Open Government Ordinance, the Commission hears complaints concerning alleged non-compliance with this Ordinance, the Brown Act or the Public Records Act, by the City or any of its legislative bodies, officers or employees. The Commission is charged with (1) considering ways to informally resolve those complaints and make recommendations to the Council regarding such complaints, (2) seeking advice from the City Attorney concerning those complaints; and (3) advising the City Council of its opinion, conclusion or recommendation as to any complaint.

The Commission received two written complaints during 2017, summarized below.

Kelly Hammargren, Complaint 17-033

Summary of Complaint: On September 21, 2017, Kelly Hammargren submitted a complaint alleging that the City violated the OGO. The focus of the complaint appeared to be that the Loan Administration Board did not post draft minutes from its January 23, 2017 meeting. The Complainant also stated that when the City Council was informed of this at the special session on July 18, 2017, it took no action.

3 149 Page 6 of 11 2017 ANNUAL REPORT TO OGC July 19, 2018 Page 4

Outcome: The Commission Secretary’s investigation found that: (i) the Loan Administration Board (“LAB”), had a meeting on January 23, 2017 and, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, had not had a subsequent meeting to approve the minutes from the January meeting; (ii) approval for the minutes for the January meeting had been agendized for the next LAB meeting and draft minutes were being included in the meeting packet; (iii) the LAB has a specific mandate under BMC § 3.72.070 and is responsible for review and approval of business loan applications submitted under the South Berkeley revolving land fund and any other business and commercial development loan program to which the City Council delegates review and approval responsibility; and (iii) the LAB, unlike many other City boards or commissions, meets on an as needed basis when there is a loan application to review.

The OGO has no requirement that commissions post draft or unapproved minutes. While legislative bodies may choose to post unapproved or draft minutes, the OGO does not require them to do so. Accordingly, the investigation concluded that the actions in the complaint did not violate the OGO. At the October 19, 2017 meeting, the Commission took the following action:

Motion to accept the staff report finding no violation of the Berkeley Open Government Ordinance (M/S/C: Callahan/Sridharan; Ayes: Smith, Callahan, Harper, McLean, O’Donnell, Soichet, Sridharan, Tsui; Noes: Metzger; Abstain: None; Absent: None)

Motion to request the Secretary to request additional information from other commissions and the City Clerk’s Office regarding how many days after a meeting has happened that it would be reasonable to post draft minutes on a commission’s website, and to request that if it is more than five business days to request additional explanation (M/S/C: Callahan/Sridharan; Ayes: Smith, Metzger, Callahan, Harper, McLean, O’Donnell, Soichet, Sridharan, Tsui; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: None)

The Commission Secretary provided the requested information to the Commission at its November 16, 2017 meeting. The Commission took the following action:

Motion to make recommendation to City Council that Council request that draft minutes by City boards and commissions be posted within two weeks of the board or commission meeting. (M/S/C: Metzger/ Callahan; Ayes: Metzger, Callahan, Harper, O’Donnell, Soichet, Sridharan; Noes: Smith; Abstain: O’Donnell; Absent: McLean (excused); Tsui (excused))

Commissioner Metzger to prepare a City Council item report and submit it to the Commission for review and approval.

On April 22, 2018 Chair Metzger submitted a copy of the City Council item to the Commission Secretary. The item has been submitted for the agenda for Council’s July 24, 2018 meeting.

4 150 Page 7 of 11 2017 ANNUAL REPORT TO OGC July 19, 2018 Page 5

Stephanie Allan, Complaint 17-034

Summary of Complaint: On December 22, 2017, Stephanie Allan submitted a complaint alleging that the City’s Planning Commission violated the OGO and Brown Act at its November 15, 2017 meeting, when the Chair Gene Poschman brought a memo to the meeting that he distributed to the other commissioners. The Complainant stated that a copy of the memo was made available to the public at the meeting.

Outcome: The Brown Act specifically addresses documents brought to meetings of legislative bodies in Government Code section 54957.5. The Brown Act requires that that a memo prepared by the Planning Commission Chair and distributed to a majority of the Commission during a meeting be available for public inspection at the meeting, but does not require that copies be made available for the public during the meeting or prior to the meeting. See Gov’t Code § 54957.5.

The Commission Secretary’s investigation determined that Planning Commission Chair Gene Poschman brought the memo to the meeting, distributed it to the other Planning Commissioners, and put a copy in the binder for public access during the meeting. The November 15, 2017 meeting minutes identify the Poschman memo as a late communication received and distributed at the meeting. The memo was made publically available after the meeting as a late communication on the Planning Commission’s website. The Commission Secretary investigation concluded that these actions complied with these requirements of the Brown Act.

The complaint alleged noncompliance with Berkeley’s Open Government Ordinance (“OGO”). The OGO does not have any additional requirements regarding writings distributed by a member of the legislative body at a meeting and the actions alleged did not implicate the OGC. At its January 18, 2018 meeting, the Commission took the following action:

Motion to accept staff recommendation to find no violation of the Brown Act or Open Government Ordinance. (M/S/C: Callahan/O’Donnell; Ayes: Smith, Callahan, McLean, O’Donnell, Soichet, Sridharan, Tsui; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: Metzger, Harper.) Motion to request Chair present recommendations at a future meeting on possible changes to City process to provide for more transparency around late submissions by Commissioners. (M/S/C: Soichet/O’Donnell; Ayes: Smith, Callahan, McLean, O’Donnell, Soichet, Sridharan, Tsui; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: Harper (excused), Metzger (excused).)

Former Chair Brad Smith submitted recommendations to the Commission at the February 15 and March 15, 2018 meetings.

5 151 Page 8 of 11 2017 ANNUAL REPORT TO OGC July 19, 2018 Page 6

3. Any Other Information the City Manager Deems Appropriate that Relates to the City’s Compliance with the OGO, the Brown Act or the Public Records Act

Agenda Process The agenda timelines required by the OGO have become standard procedure and they are fully implemented and effective.

The provisions of Section 2.06.070(E) allow for the submission of corrections or supplements to an item on the agenda in two specific circumstances. This practice has been used by both Council and staff as important information has come to light in the intervening 12 days between publication of the Agenda Packet and the Council meeting.

On December 19, 2017, the City Council adopted a revision to Section 2.06.070 of the OGO to move the deadline for submission of revisions and supplements to agenda material from 12:00 p.m. (noon) on the day of the meeting to 12:00 p.m. (noon) the day prior to the meeting. The intention of the amendment was to increase the time for review by the public and other Councilmembers. The change has been successfully implemented.

Council Meetings The City Council has scheduled enough meetings to meet the minimum number required in the OGO. Since the OGO became effective, no public hearing has been opened after 10:00 p.m. The City-owned presentation tools have been utilized by the public on a few occasions without any difficulty for staff or the public. Through an amendment to the Rules of Procedure, the City Council moved the start time for regular meetings from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The first meeting with the new start time was July 11, 2017. The earlier time has allowed the council to complete more business and start important public hearings earlier in the evening.

OGC Referrals

Reordering of Agenda Items. The Commission received a complaint regarding, among other issues, the reordering of the Council agenda at the April 5, 2016 Council meeting. After an investigation by the Commission Secretary, the Commission considered the Complaint at its January 19, 2017 meeting and determined that the reordering of the agenda at the April 5, 2016 Council meeting did not violate the Brown Act or OGO (M/S/C: S. Smith/O’Donnell; Ayes: B. Smith, Metzger, McLean, O’Donnell, S. Smith; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: None). The Commission also considered making a recommendation to Council regarding the issue of reordering the agenda. At its May 18, 2017 meeting, the Commission moved to recommend that Council revisit its agenda setting policies with the goal of limiting the reordering of agenda items (M/S/C: McLean/Soichet; Ayes: Smith, Metzger, Callahan, Harper, McLean, O’Donnell, Soichet, Sridharan, Tsui; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: None). At its October 3, 2017

6 152 Page 9 of 11 2017 ANNUAL REPORT TO OGC July 19, 2018 Page 7 meeting, Council moved the Commission’s item to consent and took no further action.

Lobbyist Registration and Revolving Door Ordinances. On May 30, 2017, the City Council made a referral to the Open Government Commission regarding proposed amendments to modify the existing Revolving Door Restrictions in BMC 2.07.020, 2.07.030, 2.07.040, and 2.07.050 and language to add a Lobbyist Registration and Regulation ordinance as BMC Chapter 2.09. The Commission formed a subcommittee to examine this issue and present a report to the full Commission. At the January 18, 2018 meeting, the subcommittee presented a report to the Commission and the Commission discussed additional changes. At the June 21, 2018 meeting, the subcommittee presented a revised report to the Commission, which adopted the report with additional revisions. The Commission’s report has been submitted for Council’s July 24, 2018 agenda.

Timely Posting of Minutes. At its September 21, 2017 meeting the OGC received a complaint that the Loan Administration Board had not posted draft meeting minutes after its January meeting. At its November 16, 2017 meeting the Commission took the moved to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the timely posting of minutes. On April 22, 2018 Chair Metzger submitted a copy of the City Council item to the Commission Secretary. The item has been submitted for the agenda for Council’s July 24, 2018 meeting.

Recommendation Regarding 2016 Annual Report. On July 20, 2017, the Commission accepted and forwarded the 2016 Annual Report to City Council (M/S/C: Metzger/Harper; Ayes: Smith, Metzger, Harper, Saver, Soichet, Sridharan; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: McLean (excused), O’Donnell). Council received and filed the report on October 3, 2017.

Public Records All information required to be posted to the web pursuant to 2.06.140 has been posted and is regularly updated. The OGO web page was created as a single source of information for all the records and information required to be posted to the web under the OGO. It contains links to all the items required to be posted, communications to outside agencies, and the OGC Complaint Form. The Large document index is posted on the OGO web page and all items in the index have been catalogued at the Main Library.

The City Attorney’s Office conducts regular trainings for City staff on the requirements of the California Public Records Act and how to properly respond to those requests. These trainings started in 2014 and are conducted on an as-needed basis. The trainings are very helpful for staff to properly identify a request for public records, fulfill the request in a legal and timely manner, and to track the requests in the City database.

Attachment A: Data Summary

7 153 Page 10 of 11 Attachment A

Department Receipt Date Due Date 14 Day Ext. Pri Fulfill Date Sec Fulfill Date Number of Days Late Comments

1 City Clerk 5/25/2017 6/5/2017 No 6/8/2017 3 Response sent 6/8/17. 2 City Manager 9/5/2017 9/15/2017 No 9/20/2017 5 Response sent 9/20/17. 3 Finance 10/6/2017 10/30/2017 Yes 1/4/2018 66 Response sent 1/4/18. 4 Finance 1/17/2017 1/27/2017 No 3/15/2017 47 Response sent 3/15/17. 5 Finance 3/13/2017 3/23/2017 No 3/29/2017 6 Response sent 3/29/17. 6 Finance 9/4/2017 9/15/2017 No 9/17/2017 2 Response sent 9/15/17. 7 Finance 9/21/2017 10/2/2017 No 157+ Case is still open as of 3/8/18. 8 Finance 9/27/2017 10/10/2017 No 149+ Case is still open as of 3/8/18. 9 Finance 11/9/2017 11/20/2017 No 11/22/2017 2 Response sent 11/22/17. 10 Finance 11/22/2017 12/18/2017 Yes 80+ Case is still open as of 3/8/18. 11 Finance 11/1/2017 11/11/2017 No 12/18/2017 37 Staff was delayed in entering case into system.

12 Finance 12/5/2017 12/15/2017 No 12/27/2018 377 Staff was delayed in entering case into system. 13 Fire Department 1/13/2017 1/23/2017 No 1/24/2017 1 Response sent 1/24/17. 14 Fire Department 2/3/2017 2/14/2017 No 2/15/2017 1 Response sent 2/15/17. 15 Fire Department 2/17/2017 2/27/2017 No 3/2/2017 3 Response sent 3/2/17.

16 Fire Department 4/25/2017 5/19/2017 Yes 7/10/2017 52 Response sent 5/19/17. 17 Fire Department 8/29/2017 9/8/2017 No 12/20/2017 103 Response sent 12/20/17. 18 Fire Department 10/4/2017 10/30/2017 Yes 10/31/2017 1 Response sent 10/31/17. Health, Housing & Staff incorrectly allocated request to the wrong 19 Community Services 3/16/2017 4/10/2017 Yes 4/16/2017 6 department queue. Health, Housing & 20 Community Services 3/21/2017 3/31/2017 No 4/3/2017 3 Response sent 4/3/17. Staff incorrectly allocated request to the wrong 21 Human Resources 6/28/2017 7/10/2017 No 7/24/2017 14 department queue.

22 Planning 1/5/2017 1/17/2017 No 1/18/2017 1/23/2017 1 Response sent 1/18/17. 23 Planning 3/6/2017 3/16/2017 No 3/20/2017 4 Response sent 3/20/17.

24 Planning 3/8/2017 3/20/2017 No 3/23/2017 4/5/2017 3 Response sent 3/23/17. 25 Planning 3/21/2017 3/31/2017 No 4/4/2017 4/17/2017 4 Response sent 4/4/17. 26 Planning 4/28/2017 5/8/2017 No 5/11/2017 3 Response sent 5/11/17.

27 Planning 6/8/2017 6/19/2017 No 11/13/2017 147 Staff was delayed in responding to requestor. 28 Planning 8/18/2017 8/28/2017 No 8/29/2017 1 Response sent 8/29/17.

29 Planning 11/21/2017 12/1/2017 No 12/4/2017 3 Response sent 12/4/17. 30 Planning 12/6/2017 12/18/2017 No 12/20/2017 2 Response sent 12/20/17. 31 Police 3/8/2017 3/20/2017 No 3/21/2017 1 Response sent 3/20/17. 32 Police 3/23/2017 4/3/2017 No 4/5/2017 2 Response sent 4/5/17. 33 Police 4/18/2017 4/28/2017 No 5/25/2017 27 Staff was delayed in entering case into system.

34 Police 4/18/2017 4/28/2017 No 5/9/2017 11 Staff was delayed in entering case into system. 35 Police 4/10/2017 4/20/2017 No 5/9/2017 19 Staff was delayed in entering case into system.

1 of 2 154 Page 11 of 11 Attachment A

Department Receipt Date Due Date 14 Day Ext. Pri Fulfill Date Sec Fulfill Date Number of Days Late Comments

36 Police 4/18/2017 4/28/2017 No 5/9/2017 11 Staff was delayed in entering case into system. 37 Police 5/16/2017 5/26/2017 No 5/31/2017 5 Response sent 5/31/17.

38 Police 5/17/2017 5/30/2017 No 5/31/2017 1 Response sent 5/31/17.

39 Police 5/15/2017 5/25/2017 No 6/1/2017 7 Response sent 6/1/17. 40 Police 6/30/2017 7/10/2017 No 7/28/2017 18 Response sent 7/28/17. 41 Police 7/3/2017 7/13/2017 No 11/9/2017 119 Staff was delayed in responding to requestor. 42 Police 7/13/2017 7/24/2017 No 11/9/2017 108 Staff was delayed in responding to requestor. 43 Police 7/21/2017 7/31/2017 No 8/1/2017 1 Response sent 8/1/17. 44 Police 8/2/2017 8/14/2017 No 11/9/2017 87 Staff was delayed in responding to requestor. 45 Police 8/11/2017 8/21/2017 No 9/8/2017 18 Response sent 9/8/17. 46 Police 8/15/2017 8/25/2017 No 9/13/2017 19 Response sent 9/13/17. 47 Police 8/17/2017 8/28/2017 No 8/31/2017 3 Response sent 8/31/17. 48 Police 8/23/2017 9/5/2017 No 9/8/2017 3 Response sent 9/8/17.

49 Police 8/29/2017 9/8/2017 No 11/1/2017 54 Staff was delayed in responding to requestor. 50 Police 8/29/2017 9/8/2017 No 9/13/2017 5 Response sent 9/8/17.

51 Police 8/31/2017 9/25/2017 Yes 2/21/2018 149 Staff was delayed in responding to requestor. 52 Police 9/7/2017 9/18/2017 No 9/20/2017 2 Response sent 9/20/17. 53 Police 10/25/2017 11/6/2017 No 11/9/2017 3 Response sent 11/9/17. 54 Police 11/13/2017 11/27/2017 No 11/29/2017 2 Response sent 11/29/17.

55 Police 11/15/2017 11/27/2017 No 11/30/2017 3 Response sent 11/30/17. 56 Police 11/15/2017 11/27/2017 No 11/29/2017 2 Response sent 11/29/17. 57 Police 11/20/2017 11/30/2017 No 12/20/2017 20 Response sent 12/20/17. 58 Public Works 4/14/2017 4/24/2017 No 4/25/2017 5/1/2017 1 Response sent 4/25/17.

59 Public Works 6/8/2017 6/19/2017 No 6/20/2017 1 Response sent 6/20/17. 60 Public Works 8/4/2017 8/14/2017 No 8/31/2017 17 Response sent 8/31/17. 61 Public Works 9/21/2017 10/2/2017 No 11/17/2017 46 Case closed 11/17/17. 62 Public Works 10/4/2017 10/16/2017 No 11/20/2017 35 Case closed 11/20/17. 63 Public Works 10/19/2017 10/30/2017 No 11/21/2017 22 Case closed 11/21/17. 64 Public Works 10/27/2017 11/6/2017 No 11/21/2017 15 Case closed 11/21/17. 65 Public Works 11/3/2017 11/13/2017 No 11/27/2017 14 Case closed 11/27/17. 66 Rent Board 1/5/2017 1/17/2017 No 1/23/2017 1/30/2017 6 Response sent 1/23/17. 67 Rent Board 1/17/2017 1/27/2017 No 1/30/2017 2/2/2017 3 Response sent 1/30/17. Staff incorrectly allocated request to the wrong 68 Multi-Department 3/24/2017 4/3/2017 Yes 4/5/2017 4/12/2017 2 department queue. 69 Multi-Department 1/26/2017 2/21/2017 No 2/22/2017 1 Response sent 2/22/17. 70 Multi-Department 1/26/2017 2/6/2017 No 4/17/2017 70 Staff was delayed in entering case into system. 71 Multi-Department 3/22/2017 4/3/2017 No 4/17/2017 14 Staff was delayed in entering case into system. 72 Multi-Department 7/13/2017 7/24/2017 No 8/29/2017 36 Staff was delayed in entering case into system. 73 Multi-Department 8/30/2017 9/11/2017 No 9/29/2017 18 Staff was delayed in entering case into system.

2 of 2 155 156

Upcoming Workshops – start time is 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise noted Scheduled Dates

Sep 25 1. 2020 Vision Update (5:00 p.m.)

1. Pathways/Homeless Services Update Oct 9 2. Planning Department Workplan and Service Improvements 3. Cannabis Regulations

Oct 16 1. Council Committees and Rules of Procedure (Special Meeting – 4:30 p.m.)

1. Pedestrian Master Plan Nov 15* 2. Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront CIP Update 3. Public Works CIP Update

1. Climate Action Plan Update Dec 6* 2. Measure T1 Update 3. Strategic Plan Update (tentative) *Thursday (Election Day is 11/6; Tuesday before Thanksgiving is 11/20) *Thursday (other Tuesdays in December are 12/18 and 12/25)

Unscheduled Workshops UC Berkeley Student Housing Plan

Unscheduled Presentations (City Manager) 1. Crime Report (October 30, 2018) 2. Digital Strategic Plan/erma Update (January 2019) 3. Recycling Program Update (September 25, 2018)

157

City Council Referrals to the Agenda Committee and Unfinished Business 1. 27. One-Way Car Share Pilot Program – Fee Changes (referred from the May 29, 2018 agenda) From: City Manager Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution approving an updated fee structure for the One-way Car Share Two-and-a-Half-Year Pilot Program for Fiscal Year 2019 that will increase residential parking permit fees by 20 percent and decrease parking meter deposits by 14 percent and amending Resolution No. 67,696-N.S. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

37. One-Way Car Share – Mid-Pilot Program Report (referred from the May 29, 2018 agenda) From: City Manager Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300 2. 28. Strengthening Provisions of Significant Community Benefits in the Downtown (referred from the March 13, 2018 agenda) From: Councilmember Harrison and Mayor Arreguin Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution establishing a more specific process and more precise standards for evaluating “Significant Community Benefit” packages for buildings exceeding 75 feet in the Downtown area, and rescinding Resolution No. 67,172-N.S. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, 981-7140 3. 61a. Use of U1 Funds for Property Acquisition at 1001, 1007, and 1011 University Avenue and 1925 Ninth Street, Berkeley (Referred from the July 24, 2018 agenda) From: Housing Advisory Commission Recommendation: That the City Council not use U1 funds to backfill the Workers’ Compensation Fund for the acquisition of the properties located at 1001, 1007, and 1011 University Avenue, and 1925 Ninth Street, City of Berkeley. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Amy Davidson, Commission Secretary, 981-5400

61b. Companion Report: Use of U1 Funds for Property Acquisition at 1001, 1007, and 1011 University Avenue and 1925 Ninth Street, Berkeley (Referred from the July 24, 2018 agenda) From: City Manager Recommendation: Accept staff's recommendation to use $4,730,815 of Measure U1 revenue over a 5 year period ($946,163 annually) to repay the Workers’ Compensation Fund for the acquisition of the properties located at 1001, 1007, and 1011 University Avenue and 1925 Ninth Street, Berkeley. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager, 981-7000 4. 68. Revisions to Ordinance No. 7,521--N.S. in the Berkeley Municipal Code to increase compliance with the city’s short-term rental ordinance (Referred from the July 24, 2018 agenda) From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: Refer the City Manager to look into adopting revisions to Ordinance No. 7,521--N.S by modeling after the Home-Sharing Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica and the Residential Unit Conversion Ordinance of the City of San Francisco in order to increase compliance with city regulations on short-term rentals of unlicensed properties. Financial Implications: Minimal Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

158 5. Resolution creating a ballot measure which establishes a 50-cents per ride tax on Transportation Network Companies (Referred from the July 31, 2018 agenda) From: Councilmember Worthington Recommendation: City Council submit to the voters of the City, at the November 6, 2018 election, the ordinance and ballot measure set forth in this item. This ordinance proposes to adopt a tax of up to 50 cents per ride on passengers of Transportation Network Company (TNCS) trips originating in the City of Berkeley, if a majority of all qualified voters voting on the ballot measure vote in favor thereof. Financial Implications: Minimal Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

159 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 2510 Channing Way (Use Permit Mod - State Density Bonus) ZAB 9/12/2018 811 University Ave (Fusion Academy) ZAB 9/12/2018 2120 Berkeley Way (UC Press Building) ZAB 9/13/2018 1155-73 Hearst Ave (Develop two parcels) ZAB 9/13/2018

Public Hearings Scheduled 749 Contra Costa Ave (addition to SFD) ZAB 9/20/2018 Campanile Way (UC Campus) LPC 9/20/2018 3000 Shattuck Ave (construct mixed-use building) ZAB 11/13/2018

Remanded to ZAB or LPC

Notes

Last Updated: 9/5/2018

160