Berkeley City Council Agenda Committee Special Meeting

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 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: November 19, 2018

4. Review and Approve draft agendas: a. 12/11/18 – 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 b. Council Referrals to Agenda Committee c. Land Use Calendar d. Council Policy Committees – Direction on Focus Areas of Committees e. Draft Guidelines for Developing & Writing Agenda Items

6. Adjournment – next meeting Monday, January 7, 2019

Monday, November 26, 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 November 21, 2018.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Monday, November 26, 2018 AGENDA Page 2 2 BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 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. All present.

2. Public Comment: 0 speakers.

3. M/S/C (Maio/Hahn) to approve the Minutes of November 13, 2018. All Ayes.

4. Review and Approve draft agendas: a. M/S/C (Maio/Hahn) to approve the agenda of the 12/4/18 – 6:00 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting with the revisions noted below.  Template revision for Councilmember names  Ceremonial Items: Recognition of outgoing elected officials  Item Added – Winter Shelter (Arreguin)  Item 1 Certification of the Election (City Manager) – moved to 12/11  Item 3 State Housing Funding (City Manager) – revised recommendation  Item 11 Vice-Mayor (Arreguin) – Councilmember Bartlett added as a co-sponsor  Item 12 Seating Arrangement (Arreguin) – moved to 12/11  Item 13 Civic Center Park Fountain (Arreguin) – Councilmember Hahn added as a co-sponsor 1. Selection of item for the Berkeley Considers online engagement portal - No item selected b. Adjournments in memory of: - Deanna Despain, Former City Clerk

5. Council Items: a. Council Worksessions - M/S/C (Arreguin/Maio) to grant authority to the City Manager to place rescheduled Worksession items of the December 4 agenda. All Ayes. b. Council Referrals to Agenda Committee – received and filed c. Land Use Calendar – received and filed d. Council Policy Committees – Direction on Focus Areas of Committees. Discussion held. Item carried over 11/26 meeting.

Monday, November 19, 2018 MINUTES Page 1 3

6. Adjournment. M/S/C (Maio/Arreguin) to adjourn the meeting. All Ayes.

Adjourned at 3:21 p.m.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Monday, November 19, 2018 MINUTES Page 2 4

DRAFT AGENDA

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, December 11, 2018 6:00 PM SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR Councilmembers: DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN DISTRICT 2 – CHERYL DAVILA DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON 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. 1. Swearing in of newly elected officials.

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.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 1 5 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.

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.

1. Certification of the November 6, 2018 General Municipal Election From: City Manager Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution: a) Confirming the results of the November 6, 2018 General Municipal Election; and b) Declaring the passage of Measure O – General Obligation Bond for Affordable Housing, Measure P – Transfer Tax Measure, Measure Q – Amendments to the Berkeley Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance, and Measure R – Advisory Measure - Vision 2050. 2. Adopt two Ordinances amending the Berkeley Municipal Code to incorporate the passage of Measure P – Transfer Tax Measure, and Measure Q - Amendments to the Berkeley Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance. 3. Adopt two Resolutions codifying the text of Measure O – General Obligation Bond for Affordable Housing, and Measure R – Advisory Measure - Vision 2050. Financial Implications: None Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900

2. Minutes for Approval From: City Manager Recommendation: Approve the minutes for the Council meeting of November 13, 2018 (regular). Financial Implications: None Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 2 6 Consent Calendar

3. Annual Commission Attendance and Meeting Frequency Report From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving a revised commission meeting frequency schedule, changing the reporting period for the annual attendance report, and accepting the annual attendance report. Financial Implications: None Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900

4. Contract: UC Berkeley Economic and Fiscal Impact Study From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract, for an amount not to exceed $150,000, and any amendments thereto, with a vendor to be determined, to study the economic and fiscal impacts of the University of California, Berkeley on the City of Berkeley. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Jordan Klein, Economic Development, 981-7530

5. Contract No. 9111E Amendment: City Data Services to add a Housing Trust Fund Monitoring and Inspection Module From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 9111E with City Data Services (CDS) for an online data management system through June 30, 2019 to add $4,900 for a new monitoring and inspection module, bringing the total contract amount to $167,670 and extending the contract for an additional two years, and execute any amendments with CDS for ongoing maintenance of the community agency online applications and reporting systems for an annual service fee of $30,960. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kelly Wallace, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

6. Contract: Wittman for Fire Inspection and Emergency Response Billing and Related Services From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Wittman Enterprises LLC (Contractor) to provide the following services for the Berkeley Fire Department (Department) from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023, in an amount of $3,655,677, with an option to extend for ten additional years in two five-year increments, for a total contract amount not to exceed $7,868,905: -Emergency response billing, and -Fire inspection billing, and - Related hardware, software, and program oversight. Financial Implications: See report Contact: David Brannigan, Fire, 981-3473

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 3 7 Consent Calendar

7. Contract: Hyphae Design Laboratory for Citywide Restroom Assessment From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute an expenditure contract, and any amendments or extensions with Hyphae Design Laboratory (“Hyphae”) to perform professional consulting services for the Citywide Restroom Assessment Project in an amount not to exceed $148,215 for the period January 1, 2019 to July 31, 2020. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, 981-6700

8. Memorandum of Understanding: Public Employees Union Local One From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt two Resolutions: 1. Approving a new twenty (20) month Memorandum of Understanding (hereafter referred to as “MOU”) with Public Employees Local One (hereafter referred to as the “Union”) with a term of October 20, 2018 through June 27, 2020 and authorizing the City Manager to execute and implement the terms and conditions of employment set forth in the new MOU; and 2. Approving a new salary resolution for Representation Units M, P1, and P2 that implement the new salary levels negotiated in the new labor agreement and rescinding Resolution No. 67,448-N.S. Also, authorize the City Manager to make non substantive edits to the format and language of the Memorandum of Understanding in alignment with Council Direction, the tentative agreement and conforming to legal requirements. Financial Implications: See report Contact: LaTanya Bellow, Human Resources, 981-6800

9. Contract: Disability Access Consultants for ADA Self Evaluation and Transition Plan From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract for with Disability Access Consultants to provide an updated and comprehensive Title II Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan for one year starting February 1, 2018, in an amount not to exceed $406,600. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 4 8 Consent Calendar

10. Contract No. 10552A Amendment: Revel Environmental Manufacturing, Inc. for on-call Storm Water Maintenance Services From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 10552A with Revel Environmental Manufacturing, Inc. for on-call storm water maintenance services, increasing the current contract by $150,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $425,000. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

11. Contract No. 9893B Amendment: ABM Industries for Continuing Electric Vehicle Charging Station Operations and Extended Maintenance Program From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a five-year contract amendment with AMB Industries to purchase Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, provide EV network operations and maintenance, plus extended warranty services, in an amount of $366,962 for a total Contract not to exceed $413,940 through June 30, 2023. Financial Implications: Various Funds - $366,962 Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

12. Contract: Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for FY 2018 Measure M Street Rehabilitation Project From: City Manager Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving plans and specifications for the FY 2018 Measure M Street Rehabilitation Project, Specification No. 18-11179-C (Re- Issued); accepting the bid of Gallagher & Burk, Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed $3,863,909. Financial Implications: Street Capital Improvement Program Fund - $3,863,909 Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

13. Letter of Support on Behalf of SB 3342 - Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Equity Act of 2018 From: Housing Advisory Commission Recommendation: Direct the City Manager to send a letter of support on behalf of proposed SB 3342, referred to as the HOME Act. Financial Implications: None Contact: Amy Davidson, Commission Secretary, 981-5400

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 5 9 Consent Calendar

14. Public Works Commission Recommendation for the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan From: Public Works Commission Recommendation: Adopt a resolution that recommends approval of the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY2019 to FY2023 as proposed by Staff. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Nisha Patel, Commission Secretary, 981-6300

Council Consent Items

15. Seating Arrangement for Councilmembers during City Council Meetings From: Mayor Arreguin Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution changing the seating placement of City Councilmembers as follows on the dais (From left to right, facing the dais): Kesarwani, Harrison, Bartlett, Hahn, Arreguin, Wengraf, Droste, Davila, Robinson. Financial Implications: None Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, 981-7100

16. Eighth Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration: City Sponsorship and Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Fund From: Mayor Arreguin Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution co-sponsoring the 8th Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration Breakfast on January 21, 2019. 2. Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember including $500 from Mayor Arreguin, to the Rotary Endowment, the fiscal sponsor of the 8th Annual Martin Luther King Jr. celebration, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Mayor Arreguin and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute. Financial Implications: Mayor's Discretionary Funds - $500 Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, 981-7100

17. Funding for United Against Hate Week Event From: Mayor Arreguin Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution retroactively sponsoring the November 11, 2018 United Against Hate Week Kick-Off, waiving city fees and costs associated with the event and authorizing reimbursement of $7,725 for the cost of stage and production for the event. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, 981-7100

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 6 10 Council Consent Items

18. Establishment of Traffic Circle Policy Task Force From: Mayor Arreguin Recommendation: Establish a Traffic Circle Policy Task Force comprised of representatives of the Parks and Waterfront Commission, Transportation Commission, community representatives from the neighborhoods where traffic circles are located, and city staff in the Parks and Public Works Departments as follows: City Staff, 1 representative from the Transportation Department and 1 representative from the Parks Department; Commissions, 1 representative from the Parks and Waterfront Commission and 1 representative from the Transportation Commission; Community, Several representatives from the neighborhoods currently maintaining traffic circles, chosen from geographically diverse parts of the city and 1 representative from Berkeley Partners for Parks. The charge of this Task Force is 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: -Determine appropriate characteristics and parameters for allowed plantings; -Develop policy that ensures lines of sight and other important safety considerations; -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. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, 981-7100

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 7 11 Council Consent Items

19. Send a Letter to Sutter Health Requesting a Plan to Retrofit/Rebuild Alta Bates Hospital or sell to another operator From: Mayor Arreguin Recommendation: Direct the City Manager to send a letter to, and follow-up with, Sutter Health requesting a plan to retrofit and rebuild Alta Bates to state regulations by 2030 or agree to sell Alta Bates hospital to an operator who will maintain a full- service, acute care hospital in Berkeley. The City of Berkeley expresses its strong desire to work in collaboration with Sutter Health to develop a plan to keep a full- service, acute care hospital in Berkeley. The letter shall reference the findings from the Health Impact Assessment completed by the University of California, Department of Public Health, dated September 2018 and state that the closure of Alta Bates would: -Create a harmful cascade effect on remaining hospitals and emergency services, exacerbating already overcrowded ERs; -Lengthen wait times for hospital beds; -Reduce the ability of first responders and emergency service vehicles to respond due to increased transport times through the East Bay’s congested roadways; -Disproportionally affect marginalized communities; -Impact acute care services in this region that need to be expanded, not consolidated. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, 981-7100

20. African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council (AATCL) 10th Year Gala Fundraiser: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds From: Councilmember Davila Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $250 per Councilmember including $150 from Councilmember Cheryl Davila, to African American Tobacco Leadership Council 10th Year Gala, December 2, 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: Councilmember's Discretionary Funds - $150 Contact: Cheryl Davila, Councilmember, District 2, 981-7120

21. Short-term referral to City Attorney and Health Housing and Community Service to amend Berkeley Municipal Code 7,441-N.S. to expand the control of flavored tobacco across the City of Berkeley toward preventing youth and young adult tobacco use From: Councilmember Davila Recommendation: Short-term referral to City Attorney and Health Housing and Community Service to amend Berkeley Municipal Code 7,441-N.S. according to the changes made in the attached amended ordinance to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products and require a minimum package size for cigars and little cigars across the City of Berkeley. The primary purpose of the amendment to the ordinance is to do more to prevent youth and young adult tobacco use. Financial Implications: None Contact: Cheryl Davila, Councilmember, District 2, 981-7120

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 8 12 Council Consent Items

22. Referral to City Manager to establish Recreational Vehicle Waste Discharge Facility on City Property and Referral to FY 2019/20 Budget Process From: Councilmembers Harrison and Davila Recommendation: 1. Refer to the City Manager to establish a recreational vehicle waste discharge facility on City property and equitable administrative fee program, and 2. Refer costs associated with the facility to the FY 2019/20 Budget Process. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, 981-7140

23. The Berkeley Public Library Foundation 17th Annual Authors Dinner: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds From: Councilmember Hahn Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember to the Berkeley Public Library Foundation’s 17th Annual Authors Dinner with funds relinquished to the City’s General Fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budget of any Councilmembers who would like to contribute. Financial Implications: Councilmember's Discretionary Funds - $500 Contact: Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, 981-7150

24. The Berkeley Public Library Foundation 17th Annual Authors Dinner: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds From: Councilmembers Droste and Wengraf Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember including $500 from Councilmembers Wengraf and Droste to the Berkeley Public Library Foundation’s 17th Annual Authors Dinner with funds relinquished to the City’s General Fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Councilmembers Wengraf, Droste and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute. The Berkeley Public Library Foundation raises funds to support and enhance the facilities, programs and services of the Berkeley Public Library. The proceeds from this event will subsidize library programs and would fulfill the municipal public purpose. Financial Implications: Councilmembers' Discretionary Funds - $500 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 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.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 9 13 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 – New Business

25a. Referral Response: Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance From: Zero Waste Commission Recommendation: Review the results of the Zero Waste Commission’s community outreach and analysis provided in response to Council’s referral and consider incorporating the Zero Waste Commission recommendations for improvements into the referred draft proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Heidi Obermeit, Commission Secretary, 981-6300

25b. Companion Report: Referral Response: Proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Companion Report From: City Manager Recommendation: Staff appreciates the Zero Waste Commission’s diligent and thoughtful work and requests that Council refer their recommendations for the proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance to the City Manager to review, to quantify the potential impacts, and to report back to Council with an analysis. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Phillip Harrington, Public Works, 981-6300

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 10 14 Council Action Items

26. Referral to Planning Department to Update the Housing Pipeline Report to Address Timeline between Planning Entitlements and Submission of Building Permit Applications and Consider Reasons for Delay From: Councilmember Harrison Recommendation: Referral to the Planning Department to include in the Housing Pipeline Report an analysis of the timeline between planning entitlements and building permit requests for all projects of five units or greater over the past five years. On an ongoing basis, refer to the Planning Department and Commission to propose changes to current Planning approval process to address any delays between entitlements and building permits for construction or substantial rehabilitation of five or more dwelling units. Financial Implications: Staff time Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, 981-7140

27. Single Use Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance From: Councilmember Hahn and Mayor Arreguin Recommendation: 1. Accept the Zero Waste Commission’s recommendations for the proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance, and convey the Council’s gratitude to the Foodware Subcommittee for conducting a thorough community process. 2. Adopt a first reading of the Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. 3. Refer to the City Manager to: a. Establish a mini-grant program to help Prepared Food Vendors with one-time costs associated with conversion to Reusable Foodware for eating on the premises (“eating-in”), to be launched by January 1, 2020 (six months before the date Reusable Foodware requirements become effective). b. Establish a program to provide technical assistance to Prepared Food Vendors implementing the Single Use Foodware Ordinance, provided on a free or sliding- scale fee basis, to be launched by July 1, 2019. c. Create a Reusable Takeout Foodware program for launch July 1, 2021, in collaboration with community partners such as the Ecology Center, Rethink Disposables and Stop Waste. d. Draft for approval amendments to the Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance to implement the Reusable Takeout Foodware program as an alternative to Compostable Takeout Foodware, and impose a charge, similar to or the same as the Disposable Cup charge, on Disposable Foodware. e. Create a program to expand and support composting, to ensure Single Use Disposable Foodware is actually composted. 4. Refer to the City Manager to determine funding needs and sources of funds for each program/phase, and submit funding allocations or requests to the budget process. Financial Implications: See report Contact: Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, 981-7150

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 11 15 Information Reports

28. Referral Response: Study Possible Scenarios of the Loss of Federal Funds From: City Manager Contact: Kelly Wallace, Housing and Community Services, 981-5400

29. Measure U1 Reporting From: Housing Advisory Commission Contact: Amy Davidson, Commission Secretary, 981-5400

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda

Adjournment

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

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

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

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

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

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION: This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 12 16

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.

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, December 11, 2018 DRAFT AGENDA Page 13 17 18 Page 1 of 5

Housing Advisory Commission CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Housing Advisory Commission Submitted by: Marian Wolfe, Acting Chair, Housing Advisory Commission Subject: Letter of Support on Behalf of SB 3342 - Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Equity Act of 2018

RECOMMENDATION Direct the City Manager to send a letter of support on behalf of proposed SB 3342, referred to as the HOME Act.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS The United States is currently facing an affordable housing crisis. The housing supply has failed to keep up with demand, while the cost of housing keeps rising. Nearly half of all renters in America struggle to pay their rent, devoting more than a third of their income to housing costs, yet only one out of four eligible families receive housing assistance.

The HAC supported sending this request to the City Council for a Letter in Support of the Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Equity (HOME) Act Senate Bill 3342 with the following vote:

Action: M/S/C (Owens/Kesarwani) to recommend to City Council to send a letter in support of the HOME Act also stating support for federal investment in the housing development, and asking Commissioner Wolfe to work with staff to identify the appropriate recipients.

Vote: Ayes: Kesarwani, Lewis, Owens, Wolfe, and Wright. Noes: Lord. Abstain: None. Absent: Johnson (recused), Amezcua (excused) and Tregub (excused).

Commissioner Johnson recused himself due to his employment with Representative Barbara Lee.

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 19 Page 2 of 5 Letter of Support on Behalf of SB 3342 Consent CALENDAR Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Equity Act of 2018 December 11, 2018

BACKGROUND The proposed HOME Act combats the affordable housing crisis by addressing the lack of units (the supply side) with inclusionary zoning and the fact that incomes have not risen to keep up with housing costs (the demand side) with a renters’ credit.

Furthermore, one strategy not included in the proposed HOME Bill would be to add to the supply of permanently affordable units. The HAC recommends that the City Council also include this strategy in its letter of support for the HOME Act.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY A significant portion of a city’s greenhouse emissions derive from automobiles, and recent studies have shown that building infill housing is the best way to minimize emissions and reduce housing costs.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION This proposed legislation is one approach to address our nation’s housing affordability crisis. All possible tools are needed to address this situation.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED None.

CONTACT PERSON Amy Davidson, Commission Secretary, HHCS, (510) 981-5406

Attachments: 1: HOME Act Letter of Support

20 Page 3 of 5

City Council City of Berkeley 2180 Milvia St. Berkeley, CA 94704

October 4, 2018

Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate One Post Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104

Honorable Kamala Harris United States Senate 333 Bush Street, Suite 3225 San Francisco, CA 94104

Honorable Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr., Senate Majority Leader United States Senate 601 W. Broadway Room 630 Louisville, KY 40402

Honorable Charles E. Schumer Senate Minority Leader United States Senate 780 Third Avenue, Suite 2301 New York, NY 10017

Subject: Letter of Support on Behalf of SB 3342 - Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Equity Act of 2018

The City Council of the City of Berkeley supports proposed SB 3342, the Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Equity (HOME) Act.

The United States is currently facing an affordable housing crisis. The housing supply has failed to keep up with demand, while the cost of housing keeps rising. Nearly half of all renters in America struggle to pay their rent, devoting more than a third of their income to housing costs, yet only one out of four eligible families receive housing assistance.

Due in part to this limited supply, rents have increased, but the ability of families to pay their rent has not. On average, to rent a two-bedroom apartment, you would need to earn $21.21 per hour full-time, which is almost three times the minimum wage. Because

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 21 Page 4 of 5

renters often devote the largest portion of their income to rent, high housing costs make it difficult for families to save and invest in their future.

An important driver of low housing supply and high housing cost is restrictive zoning regulations. The limitations on certain types of development – such as multifamily housing – depress the number of new units available and drive up the cost of existing units. Another contributor to high housing costs is the rents themselves. When there are so few units available – and even less of them are designated as affordable – the price per unit increases dramatically. Low-income families cannot afford rising prices, and are subsequently driven out of neighborhoods and into areas of limited resources, further away from their jobs. Supporting these families with the means to secure their rent would eliminate undue stress and improve their quality of life.

The HOME Act would do the following:

Require Inclusive Zoning Strategies

 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) recipients must create an inclusive zoning strategy in order to receive funding.

 These include, but are not limited to; authorizing high-density and multifamily zoning, eliminating off-street parking requirements, establishing density bonuses, streamlining or shortening permitting processes and timelines, and removing height limitations.

 The HOME Act would provide the locality with the flexibility to choose the best way to address its affordable housing challenges.

 Current restrictive zoning – such as arbitrary height limits – hamper the ability of developers to increase the affordable housing stock. This Act would require localities to take meaningful steps toward inclusive zoning.

Help Rent-Burdened Families

 One way to help rent-burdened families is to establish a refundable renters’ credit (administered through the tax code) to those that spend more than 30% of their income on rent.

 The credit is a reimbursement made of the difference between the total Small Area Fair Market Rent (SAFMR or 40% of median neighborhood rent), and 30% of the renter’s income.

 Over 13 million families could benefit from such a credit.

2 22 Page 5 of 5

The HOME Act combats the affordable housing crisis by addressing the lack of units (the supply side) with inclusionary zoning and the fact that incomes have not risen to keep up with housing costs (the demand side) with a renters’ credit.

Finally, one strategy not included in the proposed HOME Bill would be to add to the supply of permanently affordable units. The City Council also recommends that this strategy be included in the HOME Act.

Sincerely,

3 23 24 Page 1 of 20

Public Works Commission CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Public Works Commission

Submitted by: Ray Yep, Chair, Public Works Commission

Subject: Public Works Commission Recommendation for the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution that recommends approval of the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY2019 to FY2023 as proposed by Staff.

SUMMARY The City of Berkeley’s Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy (Street Policy) requires that a 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan (Rehabilitation Plan, otherwise referred to as the “Paving Plan”) be reviewed each year and adopted formally by the City Council, with advice from the Public Works Commission (PWC). The Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY2019 to FY2023 has been reviewed by the PWC and it is recommending adoption of all five years of the plan.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION This Rehabilitation Plan is based on the Adopted Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019, and on the following estimated available funding levels from all sources, including Gas Tax, Measure B, Measure BB, Measure F, Measure T1, grant funds, and the General Fund.

Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Program Funding Sources by Year, in $ Fund Description FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 State Transportation Tax 495,303 495,303 495,303 495,303 495,303 Measure B - Local Streets & 724,000 724,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 Roads Measure BB – Local Streets 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 & Roads Measure F Vehicle - N/A 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 Registration Fee Capital Improvement Fund 1,925,000 1,925,000 1,925,000 1,925,000 1,925,000

25 Page 2 of 20 PWC Recommendation for the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Program Funding Sources by Year, in $ Road Repair and 2,200,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Accountability Act of 2017 Measure T1 2,445,112 6,054,888 0 0 0 Grants (Shattuck reconfig.) 0 5,519,667 0 0 0 TOTAL 9,389,415 18,318,858 6,744,303 6,744,303 6,744,303

The City will receive approximately $2.2 million in FY2019 and is currently budgeting $2 million annually for FY2020 to FY2023 of Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) funding. Please note that Council has approved $8.5 million of funding for street improvements in Phase 1 of Measure T1.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS The PWC prepared a detailed analysis of Berkeley’s street condition in our report to Council in December 19, 2017. We expressed our concern that the city-wide average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was 57 and is far from the City’s PCI goal of 75. After some discussion, Council approved the recommended Rehabilitation Plan and directed Staff to coordinate with the PWC on the items outlined in their motion. This report addresses the following topics:

 Review of the new 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan for fiscal years 2019 – 2023.  Progress with the Council requested actions from their December 19, 2017 meeting.  Condition of Berkeley’s streets

Review of 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan On December 19, 2017, Council approved the first two years of the 5-year Rehabilitation Plan (FY2018 – 2022). Staff advertised for bids for the FY2018 projects and received no bids. This was due to the competitive construction market and late timing for the bidding. The FY2018 street rehabilitation projects were bid again in October 2018 for construction in 2019.

Staff prepared a list of street rehabilitation projects for the new 5-year planning period (FY2019 – 2023). This was prepared using guidance from Berkeley’s Street Policy, StreetSaver program analysis, knowledge of what has been accomplished in recent years, and available funding. The proposed plan is summarized as follows.

FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Total % of Total Miles Arterials, miles 0.55 0.26 0.00 0.41 0.04 1.25 7% Collectors, miles 0.45 1.77 0.73 0.88 0.56 4.40 22% Residential, miles 2.24 2.90 4.78 2.92 1.89 14.73 73% Total miles 3.24 4.92 5.51 4.21 2.49 20.37 100% Cost

26 Page 3 of 20 PWC Recommendation for the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

Arterials, $millions 2.81 5.52 0.00 0.70 0.07 9.10 21% Collectors, $millions 1.02 7.08 1.28 1.61 1.55 12.54 29% Residential, 1.93 5.28 5.53 4.25 4.21 21.19 50% $millions Total cost, $millions $5.75 $17.88 $6.81 $6.56 $5.83 42.83 100%

The above summary includes $2,445,112 in FY2019, $6,054,888 in FY2020 from Measure T1 funding. It also includes $5,519,667 in grant funding in FY2020.

The PWC Paving Subcommittee discussed the plan with Public Works Department staff and we have the following comments.

1. The PWC agrees with prioritizing more paving work to residential streets. The following is a breakdown as compared to the Street Rehabilitation Policy:

Cost Breakdown Cost Breakdown Per Street Rehabilitation Per 5-Year Street Policy Rehabilitation Plan (FY2019-2023) Arterial streets 10% 21% Collector streets 50% 29% Residential streets 25% 43% Discretionary 15% 7%

The proposed plan will help address the needs in our residential streets and will improve the city-wide average PCI.

2. The PWC agrees with including the streets that were approved under Phase 1 of Measure T1. However, the PWC recommends that bond funds be used only for work that will last for at least as long as the duration of the bond repayment period. This would include street reconstruction work. Maintenance work, such as slurry seals, should be paid with General Funds.

3. The PWC agrees that ancillary work to prepare a well - performing street should be included with the projects. This may include bike ways, pedestrian improvements, curbs, gutters, drain inlets, and other needs.

4. The PWC agrees that 15% of available funding be reserved for discretionary and/or demonstration projects. The plan preliminarily includes permeable pavement projects on Ward Street (between San Pablo Ave. and Acton St.) and Channing Way (between Milvia St. and Martin Luther King Jr. Way).

5. The PWC agrees that the proposed street rehabilitation plan spreads work equitably across all Council Districts of the City. Over the 5 year Street Rehabilitation Plan, the cost is distributed between 8 to 19% for each District.

27 Page 4 of 20 PWC Recommendation for the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

Progress with Council Requested Actions At their meeting on December 19, 2017, City Council directed Staff to coordinate with the PWC on the items outlined in their motion. A progress report on the action items was submitted to Council on July 24, 2018 (see Attachment 3). Progress continues to be made on the action items and we would like to highlight the following.

1. Use of 15% discretionary funds – A Permeable paver project on Channing Way between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Milvia Street has been included on a preliminary basis in FY2023 of the Plan. Pervious concrete in the parking lanes of Ward Street, between San Pablo Avenue and Acton Street is included in FY2020 of the Plan. The PWC and staff will identify grant funding opportunities that can match our discretionary spending on future demonstration projects, such as was done for the Allston Way project.

2. Use of life cycle cost analysis – The PWC contacted the U.C.Davis, Department of Civil Engineering to assist with this. The Department, led by Professor John Harvey, has done extensive research through its Pavement Research Center. He had organized a Permeable Pavement Workshop in November 2017. PWC members attended the workshop and came to understand the extent of his work. PWC members and City Staff met with Professor Harvey again in April 2018 to learn about “Best Practices in Pavement for Local Government”, with a special emphasis on Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). Professor Harvey’s team has developed a computerized LCCA model, and a copy was provided to the City to use. It includes the ability to evaluate the life cycle cost of different paving technologies and treatments, sequencing of street surface treatment, cost parameters, and planning period. Staff has started testing the model.

U.C. Davis is expanding its LCCA model so that it works in conjunction with the StreetSaver model as an enhancement in preparing paving plans with a planning horizon of five or more years. Berkeley will be one of four cities that will perform in a trial and will select streets for the new U.C. Davis comparative tool. Staff and PWC will be using the updated LCCA model to analyze street rehabilitation methods, durability, and life cycle costs.

In addition, Staff has retained AECOM to assess the performance of the Allston Way Permeable Pavement Pilot Project. The assessment will include conducting a topographic survey of the street surface and updating the Pavement Condition Monitoring Report. The project’s effectiveness at reducing stormwater runoff and removing pollutants from runoff will also be measured and assessed. The assessment will provide maintenance recommendations to address localized settlements and loss of sand and infill material. The data from this study will be used to inform a site-specific LCCA for permeable pavers. Results from this work and other permeable paver installation in Berkeley will be made available to the U.C. Davis Pavement Research Center.

28 Page 5 of 20 PWC Recommendation for the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

3. Work with consultants who have experience with long-lasting innovative technologies – In addition to continuing to work with AECOM, the designer of the Allston Way permeable pavement project, the City has retained several new on-call civil engineering consultants for upcoming projects. The consultants include Bellecci and Associates, Harrison Engineering Inc., Pavement Engineering Inc., and Mark Thomas Company. All of these firms have demonstrated experience with long- lasting innovative and green infrastructure.

Condition of Berkeley’s Streets To understand the long-term projections of city-wide PCI, the PWC asked what it would cost to attain and maintain a good PCI. City staff worked with Nichols Consulting Engineering (NCE) to conduct an analysis of city-wide PCI. An initial analysis (Table 1), done in 2018, looked at the city-wide PCI expected at the close of the 5-year budget to provide a baseline by Council District.

Table 1 PCI by Council District – Current 5-Year Plan Council District Overall Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PCI 2019 56 51 56 48 59 55 56 61 55 2020 55 51 55 46 58 54 54 60 55 2021 54 49 53 45 58 52 55 58 53 2022 52 48 52 46 57 51 54 58 52 2023 53 48 50 48 58 50 53 58 52

The PWC recommends that a long-term street rehabilitation plan be prepared to understand the funding and resources needed to improve Berkeley’s streets to citywide PCI in the 70 to 75 range. NCE Consultants had estimated that an addition $10 to 12 million per year of additional funding is needed to raise the PCI to 70 by the year 2028. This is more than they estimated in December 2017. This needs further study and we recommend that creating a long-term plan be put in the PWC’s 2019 work plan and that it also be evaluated by the Vision 2050 initiative.

The Public Works Commission, at its November 1, 2018 meeting, made a recommendation to approve the 5-year Street Rehabilitation Plan and to forward it to Council, and the vote was: Action: M/S/C (Schuler/McGrath, 7 Ayes/0 Noes/1 Absent/0 Abstain).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Permeable pavers provide a way of reducing the volume of storm water entering the City storm drain system; improving the quality of urban runoff from the roadway that is conveyed to local creeks and the Bay; and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by installing a durable product that may require less maintenance than traditional asphalt concrete.

29 Page 6 of 20 PWC Recommendation for the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

Full Depth Reclamation (FDR), a cost effective alternative to traditional street reconstruction methods, is planned for use in several of the streets selected for rehabilitation. It recycles much of the existing pavement on site, and incorporates it into the pavement subgrade, thereby reducing truck trips to and from construction sites.

In addition, the Rehabilitation Plan includes repair of the City’s deteriorating storm drain infrastructure that minimizes degradation of water quality in local creeks and the Bay. These repairs are consistent with the City of Berkeley’s 2011 Watershed Management Plan. Furthermore, the Rehabilitation Plan also proposes approximately $2.7 million of available funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvements adopted from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans. These steps result in lower emissions of greenhouse gases into the environment, which is consistent with the goals of the 2009 Berkeley Climate Action Plan.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION It is the policy of the City of Berkeley that there shall be a Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for the entire City to be adopted by the City Council. Further, the proposed plan provides for much needed street infrastructure improvements that are consistent with the City’s Street Policy.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED None

CITY MANAGER REPORT

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

Public Works Department staff is currently finalizing the design plans of the FY2019 Street Rehabilitation Projects and will advertise for construction bids in early 2019. The Rehabilitation Plan has also been updated to reflect streets previously approved as part of the T1 Phase 1 project list.

Staff is continuing to work with the Public Works Commission and UC Davis on further development of the life cycle cost analysis, and research and evaluation of sustainable pavement technologies.

CONTACT PERSON Ray Yep, Chair, Public Works Commission (510) 318-4894 Nisha Patel, Manager of Engineering (510) 981-6406 Joe Enke, Supervising Civil Engineer (510) 981-6411

Attachments: Resolution Exhibit A: Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY2019 to FY2023 1. Map of the 5 Year Street Rehabilitation Plan, FY2019-FY2023

30 Page 7 of 20 PWC Recommendation for the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

2. Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Update to City Council, July 24, 2018

31 Page 8 of 20

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

APPROVAL OF THE FIVE-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN FOR FY2019 TO FY2023

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

WHEREAS, the City Council requests advice from the Public Works Commission on the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan; and

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2018, the Public Works Commission voted to approve submitting the FY2019 to FY2023 Five-year Street Rehabilitation Plan to City Council, attached as Exhibit A;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the FY2019 to FY2023 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan attached as Exhibit A hereof, is hereby adopted.

Exhibit A: Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY2019 to FY2023

32 Page 9 of 20

EXHIBIT A Revised: 11/1/2018 5-YEAR STREET REHABILITION PLAN FOR FY 2019 TO FY 2023

Fiscal Current Street ID Section ID Street Name From To Class Treatment Total Cost District P Mileage Last Paved Year PCI Last M&R Date Last M&R

33 2019 320212 5TH ST HARRISON ST CAMELIA ST R Surface Seal $ 292,320 1 N 0.25 58 4/1/2001 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2019 932538 55 6TH ST ALLSTON WAY DWIGHT WAY C Overlay $ 857,533 2 N 0.37 45 10/1/1994 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2019 320538 30 6TH ST NORTH CITY LIMIT GILMAN ST R Surface Seal $ 90,440 1 2B 0.22 64 8/31/2004 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2019 933076 42 BURNETT ST MABEL ST ACTON ST R Surface Seal $ 47,872 2 N 0.13 53 7/1/1988 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2019 931077 50 BYRON ST ADDISON ST BANCROFT WAY R Surface Seal $ 89,760 2 N 0.25 68 7/1/1988 O - THIN OVERLAY w/FABRIC 2019 933095 40 CARLETON ST SAN PABLO AVE MATHEWS ST R Surface Seal $ 112,000 2 N 0.09 65 9/1/1991 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2019 213098 50 CATALINA AVE COLUSA AVE THE ALAMEDA R Reconstruct $ 235,200 1, 5 N 0.19 35 7/1/1993 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2019 423142 DELAWARE ST CALIFORNIA ST MARTIN LUTHER KING R Surface Seal $ 136,000 1 N 0.38 52 12/15/2004 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 55 JR WAY 2019 933146 40 DERBY ST SAN PABLO AVE MABEL ST R Overlay $ 259,372 2 N 0.20 56 10/1/1992 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2019 932153 55 DWIGHT CRESCENT 6TH ST 7TH ST C Overlay $ 168,000 2 N 0.08 47 7/1/1988 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2019 525278 42 HIGHLAND PL RIDGE RD HEARST AVE R Overlay $ 74,827 6 N 0.07 25 C - 2019 423352 50 LINCOLN ST SACRAMENTO ST GRANT ST R Surface Seal $ 433,440 1 N 0.37 54 10/1/1992 O - MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2019 525484 77 RIDGE RD LA LOMA AVE HIGHLAND PL R Overlay $ 82,960 6 N 0.06 0A - AC 2019 213553 10 STATION PL CATALINA AVE SOUTH DEAD END R Reconstruct $ 63,467 5 N 0.04 8O - 2019 735008 60 ADELINE ST DERBY ST STUART ST A Overlay $ 874,367 3 2A to 2B*, 0.14 37 2019 735008 64 ADELINE ST STUART ST ASHBY AVE A Overlay $ 1,639,867 3 2A to 2B*, 0.28 40 2019 524274 63 HEARST AVE MILVIA AVE SHATTUCK AVE A Overlay $ 295,311 4 2A 0.13 60 $ 5,752,735 3.24

Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; and N for none.

*Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 11.1.18 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2019-2023.xlsx 33 Page 10 of 20

EXHIBIT A Revised: 11/1/2018 5-YEAR STREET REHABILITION PLAN FOR FY 2019 TO FY 2023

Fiscal Current Street ID Section ID Street Name From To Class Treatment Total Cost District P Mileage Last Paved Year PCI Last M&R Date Last M&R

2020 940005 70 ACTON ST ASHBY ST 66TH ST R Surface Seal $ 83,640 2 N 0.23 60 8/29/2007 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2020 516020 30 ARCADE AVE GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD FAIRLAWN DR R Surface Seal $ 63,378 6 N 0.06 7 6/1/1995 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2020 321100 30 CEDAR ST 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE C Overlay $ 683,169 1 3C* 0.31 27 10/1/1994 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2020 829102 60 CENTER ST MARTIN LUTHER KING MILVIA ST R Overlay $ 315,644 40.1359 7/1/1991 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2020 729102 63 CENTER ST MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R Overlay $ 292,444 40.1372 7/1/1991 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2020 739141 70 DEAKIN ST ASHBY AVE PRINCE ST R Surface Seal $ 45,920 3 N 0.16 76 4/3/2008 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2020 736141 68 DEAKIN ST RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE R Surface Seal $ 35,700 3 N 0.10 57 7/1/1988 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2020 940148 70 DOHR ST ASHBY AVE PRINCE ST R Surface Seal $ 123,598 2 N 0.14 53 10/1/1992 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2020 320685 10 MARINA BLVD SPINNAKER WAY UNIVERSITY AVE C Overlay $ 675,000 1 N 0.43 58 9/1/1986 A - AC OVERLAY 2020 735382 60 MILVIA ST BLAKE ST RUSSELL ST R Reconstruct $ 770,800 3 3E 0.44 28 9/1/1993 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2020 830491 58 ROOSEVELT AVE CHANNING WAY DWIGHT WAY R Surface Seal $ 172,480 4 N 0.13 65 12/1/1989 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2020 516492 75 ROSE ST LE ROY AVE LA LOMA AVE R Reconstruct $ 100,000 6 N 0.14 0A - AC 2020 319525 35 SANTA FE AVE GILMAN ST CORNELL AVE & PAGE R Overlay $ 314,705 1 3C* 0.27 49 7/1/1995 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2020 319525 30 SANTA FE AVE NORTH CITY LIMIT GILMAN ST R Surface Seal $ 37,355 1 3C* 0.11 60 8/31/2004 O - MILL AND THIN OVERLAY 2020 115532 SHASTA RD GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD PARK GATE C Reconstruct $ 86,667 6 N 0.05 14 11/1/1988 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 77

2020 115532 79 SHASTA RD PARK GATE EAST CITY LIMIT (GOLF C Reconstruct $ 150,667 6 N 0.11 10 11/1/1988 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2020 320686 10 SPINNAKER WAY BREAKWATER DR MARINA BLVD R Reconstruct $ 1,333,333 1 N 0.28 24 8/1/1991 A - AC OVERLAY 2020 931657 55 WEST ST BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY R Surface Seal $ 263,822 2 N 0.25 65 10/1/1994 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2020 213386 22 MONTEREY AVE THE ALAMEDA HOPKINS ST C Overlay $ 1,960,667 5 2A 0.57 54 11/30/2011 A - AC MILL AND OVERLAY 2020 933653 40 WARD ST SAN PABLO AVE ACTON ST R Reconstruct $ 1,328,400 2 N 0.31 20 9/1/1991 A - AC MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2020 320620 15 UNIVERSITY AVE MARINA BLVD WEST FRONTAGE RD C Reconstruct $ 3,520,000 1, 2 N 0.30 0 12/1/1989 A - AC OVERLAY 2020 729533 55 SHATTUCK AVE CENTER ST ALLSTON WAY A Reconstruct $ 1,533,778 40.062 7/1/1994 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2020 729533 57 SHATTUCK AVE (SB) CENTER ST UNIVERSITY AVE A Reconstruct $ 2,552,000 40.1312 7/1/1994 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2020 729535 50 SHATTUCK SQUARE UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON A Reconstruct $ 1,433,889 40.0728 7/1/1994 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC $ 17,877,057 4.92

Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; and N for none.

*Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 11.1.18 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2019-2023.xlsx 34 Page 11 of 20

EXHIBIT A Revised: 11/1/2018 5-YEAR STREET REHABILITION PLAN FOR FY 2019 TO FY 2023

Fiscal Current Street ID Section ID Street Name From To Class Treatment Total Cost District P Mileage Last Paved Year PCI Last M&R Date Last M&R 2021 628042 78 BANCROFT WAY BOWDITCH ST COLLEGE AVE C Overlay $ 161,036 7 3C* 0.13 62 12/1/1990 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2021 627042 80 BANCROFT WAY COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE C Overlay $ 178,336 7 3C* 0.13 57 12/1/1990 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2021 111127 10 CRESTON RD GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD SUNSET LANE R Surface Seal $ 140,067 6 N 0.36 67 6/1/1995 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2021 115127 20 CRESTON RD SUNSET LANE GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD R Surface Seal $ 98,047 6 N 0.36 64 11/1/1988 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2021 728140 50 DANA ST BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY R Overlay $ 352,700 7 2A to 2B* 0.25 51 12/1/1989 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2021 728180 50 ELLSWORTH ST BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY R Reconstruct $ 422,400 70.2520 11/1/1992 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2021 736180 60 ELLSWORTH ST DWIGHT WAY WARD ST R Surface Seal $ 129,360 70.3883 5/11/2011 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2021 736180 65 ELLSWORTH ST WARD ST ASHBY AVE R Surface Seal $ 99,307 30.2987 5/11/2011 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2021 736227 60 FULTON ST DWIGHT WAY PARKER ST R Overlay $ 167,540 3 3E* 0.13 61 6/1/1993 O - MEDIUM AC OVERLAY (2 INCHES) 2021 736227 63 FULTON ST PARKER ST STUART ST R Overlay $ 334,092 3 3E* 0.25 61 2/1/1992 O - THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) 2021 115344 80 LATHAM LANE MILLER AVE GRIZZLY PEAK R Surface Seal $ 38,500 6 N 0.10 61 6/1/1994 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2021 423371 40 MC GEE AVE CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST R Surface Seal $ 144,480 1 N 0.12 52 6/1/1995 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2021 115380 70 MILLER AVE HILLDALE AVE SHASTA RD R Surface Seal $ 245,700 6 N 0.66 58 6/1/1994 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2021 835431 65 OTIS ST RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE R Surface Seal $ 156,800 3 N 0.13 61 4/1/2001 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2021 321440 35 PAGE ST 10TH ST SAN PABLO AVE R Surface Seal $ 62,533 1 N 0.06 56 12/1/1989 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 2021 319440 PAGE ST SAN PABLO AVE CORNELL AVE R Surface Seal $ 171,360 1 N 0.14 48 12/1/1989 A - AC RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 40

2021 517533 30 SHATTUCK AVE EUNICE ST ROSE ST R Surface Seal $ 169,100 5 N 0.25 61 5/17/2006 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2021 114533 SHATTUCK AVE LOS ANGELES AVE EUNICE ST R Surface Seal $ 111,300 5 N 0.30 67 11/6/2003 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 25

2021 736561 STUART ST FULTON ST HILLEGASS AVE R Surface Seal $ 588,000 7 N 0.46 54 11/13/1998 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 70

2021 728584 TELEGRAPH AVE BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY C Overlay $ 299,900 7 3C* 0.25 52 7/1/1988 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 50 AC/AC 2021 320528 47 2ND ST DELAWARE ST HEARST AVE R Reconstruct $ 775,833 1 N 0.09 2NA 2021 320528 48 2ND ST HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE R Overlay $ 762,222 1 N 0.09 46 NA 2021 920528 50 2ND ST UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST R Reconstruct $ 560,000 2 N 0.09 0 8/27/1997 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2021 729042 65 BANCROFT WAY SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST C Reconstruct $ 277,778 40.0932 8/7/1997 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2021 729042 60 BANCROFT WAY MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE C Reconstruct $ 359,836 4 N 0.13 28 12/1/1989 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC $ 6,806,227 5.51

Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; and N for none.

*Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 11.1.18 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2019-2023.xlsx 35 Page 12 of 20

EXHIBIT A Revised: 11/1/2018 5-YEAR STREET REHABILITION PLAN FOR FY 2019 TO FY 2023

Fiscal Current Street ID Section ID Street Name From To Class Treatment Total Cost District P Mileage Last Paved Year PCI Last M&R Date Last M&R

2022 213055 BEVERLY PL WEST CITY LIMIT HOPKINS ST R Surface Seal $ 124,440 5 N 0.35 58 12/1/1989 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 50 (MERCED) AC/AC 2022 931073 BROWNING ST ADDISON ST DWIGHT WAY R Reconstruct $ 911,600 2 N 0.50 63 10/1/1995 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 50 AC/AC 2022 729104 63 CHANNING WAY MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R Reconstruct $ 267,640 4 2A to 2B* 0.13 27 9/1/1991 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2022 830104 57 CHANNING WAY ROOSEVELT AVE MARTIN LUTHER KING R Reconstruct $ 353,500 4 3E 0.19 1 9/1/1991 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2022 830104 50 CHANNING WAY SACRAMENTO ST ROOSEVELT AVE R Reconstruct $ 572,780 4 3E 0.31 22 9/1/1991 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2022 638115 70 COLLEGE AVE ASHBY AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT A Overlay $ 698,220 8 N 0.41 51 8/23/2000 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 213119 COLUSA AVE MONTEREY AVE HOPKINS ST C Reconstruct 22 11/1/1990 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 25 $ 611,632 2022 50.34 AC/AC 2022 736140 65 DANA ST BLAKE ST WARD ST R Reconstruct $ 454,080 70.2545 7/30/2008 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 729152 DURANT AVE MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE C Reconstruct 0 11/1/1992 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2022 60 $ 318,869 40.13 AC/AC 729152 DURANT AVE SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST C Reconstruct 28 8/12/1997 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2022 64 $ 243,093 40.10 AC/AC 2022 739186 60 EMERSON ST ADELINE ST SHATTUCK AVE R Surface Seal $ 180,320 3 N 0.15 65 4/1/2001 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2022 839191 60 ESSEX ST ADELINE ST TREMONT ST R Surface Seal $ 76,160 3 N 0.06 76 4/1/2001 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2022 739191 62 ESSEX ST TREMONT ST SHATTUCK AVE R Surface Seal $ 129,920 3 N 0.11 62 4/1/2001 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2022 637217 80 FOREST AVE COLLEGE AVE CLAREMONT BLVD R Surface Seal $ 420,000 8 N 0.36 50 8/1/1996 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 516340 LA LOMA AVE ROSE ST BUENA VISTA WAY C Reconstruct 36 6/1/1995 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2022 36 $ 230,098 60.16 AC/AC 516340 LA LOMA AVE BUENA VISTA WAY CEDAR ST C Reconstruct 51 6/1/1995 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2022 38 $ 204,680 60.14 AC/AC 2022 834371 65 MC GEE AVE DERBY ST RUSSELL ST R Surface Seal $ 461,992 3 N 0.25 60 12/10/1998 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2022 834371 60 MC GEE AVE DWIGHT WAY DERBY ST R Surface Seal $ 302,400 3 N 0.26 59 7/1/1988 O - THIN OVERLAY w/FABRIC $ 6,561,424 4.21

Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; and N for none.

*Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 11.1.18 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2019-2023.xlsx 36 Page 13 of 20

EXHIBIT A Revised: 11/1/2018 5-YEAR STREET REHABILITION PLAN FOR FY 2019 TO FY 2023

Fiscal Current Street ID Section ID Street Name From To Class Treatment Total Cost District P Mileage Last Paved Year PCI Last M&R Date Last M&R

2023 729014 63 ALLSTON WAY MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE R Reconstruct $ 228,800 40.1419 11/1/1990 O - MILL AND THIN OVERLAY 2023 729014 65 ALLSTON WAY SHATTUCK AVE OXFORD ST R Reconstruct $ 167,822 40.1110 11/1/1992 O - MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 739285 70 HILLEGASS AVE ASHBY AVE CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY R Surface Seal $ 68,400 80.1683 7/28/2003 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 736285 60 HILLEGASS AVE DWIGHT WAY ASHBY AVE R Surface Seal $ 256,000 80.6183 5/31/2000 A - AC RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 213293 55 HOPKINS ST CARLOTTA AVE JOSEPHINE ST C Overlay $ 761,133 5 2A, C 0.35 60 12/1/1989 MILL AND OVERLAY 2023 319293 47 HOPKINS ST GILMAN ST SACRAMENTO ST R Reconstruct $ 203,942 5 3A, C 0.10 0 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 213293 50 HOPKINS ST HOPKINS CT MONTEREY AVE C Overlay $ 75,193 5 3A, C 0.05 54 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 213293 59 HOPKINS ST JOSEPHINE ST THE ALAMEDA C Overlay $ 488,333 5 2A, C 0.05 53 7/1/1991 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 213293 53 HOPKINS ST MC GEE AVE CARLOTTA AVE C Overlay $ 130,267 5 2A, C 0.06 47 12/1/1989 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 213293 52 HOPKINS ST MONTEREY AVE MC GEE AVE C Overlay $ 93,444 5 2A, C 0.05 71 12/1/1989 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2023 319293 45 HOPKINS ST NORTHSIDE AVE PERALTA AVE R Overlay $ 233,587 1 N 0.10 78 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 319293 46 HOPKINS ST PERALTA AVE GILMAN ST R Overlay $ 433,031 1, 5 N 0.27 64 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 319293 49 HOPKINS ST SACRAMENTO ST HOPKINS CT A Reconstruct $ 74,821 5 3A, C 0.04 30 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 319293 40 HOPKINS ST SAN PABLO AVE STANNAGE AVE R Overlay $ 181,126 1 N 0.09 73 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 319293 42 HOPKINS ST STANNAGE AVE NORTHSIDE AVE R Overlay $ 401,657 1 N 0.17 80 9/13/2002 MILL AND OVERLAY W/FABRIC 2023 829104 60 CHANNING WAY MARTIN LUTHER KING MILVIA ST R PAVER/Recon. $ 2,033,400 4 2A to 2B* 0.13 10 5/1/1995 O - THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $ 5,830,957 2.49

Note: Column P denotes presence of bike facility type (1 paved path, 2A 2B bike lane, 3A sign-only, 3C Sharrows, 3E bike blvd, 4 cycle track); C for bus route; and N for none.

*Proposed bike facilities from 2017 Bike Plan. Draft 11.1.18 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan FY 2019-2023.xlsx 37 Page 14 of 20

38 PagePage 15 1 of 620

Public Works Commission INFORMATION CALENDAR July 24, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager Submitted by: Phillip L. Harrington, Director, Department of Public Works Ray Yep, Chairperson, Public Works Commission

Subject: Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Update

INTRODUCTION Staff presented a Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan (Five-Year Street Plan) for approval by City Council on December 19, 2017. The Public Works Commission (PWC) and Public Works Staff (Staff) came to an agreement to recommend adoption of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 and FY 2019 Street Rehabilitation Plan (Street Plan) at the meeting. Council approved the recommended Street Plan, and directed Staff to coordinate with the Public Works Commission on the items outlined in their motion (Attachment 1). This report provides an update on the status of the efforts to date. The Public Works Commission, at its meeting on May 3, 2018, unanimously voted to approve the draft report with any subsequent revisions, if any, from its Paving Subcommittee, and to forward the report to Council.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS Below are the items the City Council requested that Staff coordinate with the PWC, including the Staff’s responses to date:

1. Address all elements of the City of Berkeley’s paving policy such that our Paving Plan clearly identifies and implements integrated solutions.

Such approaches would address the multiple demands on the street infrastructure that are designed for safety, environmentally sustainable and are economically efficient over the long run. Posited solutions would be consistent with:

a. the City’s General Plan policy of encouraging use of forms of transportation other than automobiles;

Staff reviews the Street Plan for consistency with the Bicycle and Pedestrians Plans and Bus Routes, and incorporates planned improvements. In addition, to the extent possible, sidewalk issues adjacent to street paving are addressed. The Street Plan for FY 2018-22 proposes approximately $2.5 million for bicycle and pedestrian improvements adopted from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Update INFORMATION CALENDAR July 24, 2018

b. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) goals regarding water quality, the Bay, flooding potential and particularly runoff control;

The Street Plan includes repair of the City’s deteriorating storm drain infrastructure that reduces the degradation of water quality in local creeks and the Bay. These repairs are consistent with the City of Berkeley Watershed Management Plan.

Additionally, working with the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) and consultants, the City is developing a Green Infrastructure (GI) prioritization modeling tool that will guide the City in identifying the most suitable sites for GI based on multi-benefit metrics. This tool is being developed as part of the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan (GI Plan), which will be completed in 2019, and will fulfill a Regional Water Quality Control Board requirement in the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. The GI Plan will include methodology for using the prioritization tool to review the City’s Street Plan on a regular basis to identify the best opportunities for integrating GI into the Street Plan. The prioritization tool will be used to assist in selecting for the future street improvements.

c. The City’s Measure G goal of an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. A broad scope would include consideration of reducing global warming (for example, dark vs. lighter paving materials).

Staff is researching the use of alternative paving materials, including pervious concrete. The possible use of concrete pavement may be further evaluated using life cycle cost analysis.

Projects will continue to incorporate pavement technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions over other conventional pavement rehabilitation methods, such as the incorporation of full depth reclamation (FDR).

FDR, a cost effective alternative to traditional street reconstruction methods, is planned for use in several of the street selected for rehabilitation in current projects. It recycles much of the existing pavement on site, and incorporates it into the pavement subgrade, thereby reducing truck trips to and from construction sites.

2. Return with a 2019-22 Plan that directs 15% of available funds to Discretionary and Demonstration Projects with specific projects that address life cycle costs, pavement longevity, watershed impacts.

Staff is working with the PWC to identify technologies and projects in the FY 2020–22 street rehabilitation plan to provide 15% funding to discretionary and demonstration projects. As mentioned, Staff is researching the use of pervious concrete as a future

40 PagePage 17 3 of 620

Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Update INFORMATION CALENDAR July 24, 2018

demonstration project. The PWC suggested Shattuck Avenue from University Avenue to Vine Street be analyzed as a candidate for permeable pavers. Staff is currently working with University of California at Davis (UC-Davis) on a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) of Shattuck.

UC-Davis is expanding its LCCA model so that it works in conjunction with the StreetSaver model as an enhancement in preparing paving plans with a planning horizon of five or more years. Berkeley will be one of four cities that will perform in a trial, and model selected streets in the new UC-Davis comparative tool. The model will take at least six months to enhance. Staff and PWC will be using the updated LCCA model to analyze street rehabilitation method life and durability, and selection of streets for the City’s FY 2020-22 Street Plan.

In addition, Staff has retained a consultant to assess the performance of the Allston Way Permeable Pavement Pilot Project. The assessment will include conducting a topographic survey of the street surface and updating the Pavement Condition Monitoring Report. The project’s effectiveness at reducing stormwater runoff and removing pollutants from runoff will also be measured and assessed. The assessment will provide maintenance recommendations to address localized settlements and loss of sand and infill material. The data from this study will be used to inform a site-specific LCCA for permeable pavers. Results from this work and other permeable paver installation in Berkeley will be made available to the UC-Davis Pavement Research Center.

The recently constructed permeable paver bus pad at the corner of Shattuck and University is also being evaluated after experiencing significant settlement. Staff and the contractor implemented a revised design. The performance of the pavers will continue to be monitored to evaluate the paver performance. b. Street rehabilitation shall be coordinated with utility, sewer and other activities associated with addressing water contamination runoff, and with other underground activities to minimize the cost and maximize the effectiveness of rehabilitation and improve the environment.

Staff will continue to coordinate the Street Plan with utility company work and City underground utility work in advance of street rehabilitation and reconstruction. Typically, utility companies require at least two-to-three years of advance notice to replace or relocate their facilities in advance of a street rehabilitation project. A multi-year Street Plan is necessary, and requested by Council annually.

41 PagePage 18 4 of 620

Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Update INFORMATION CALENDAR July 24, 2018

4. Identify and work with consultants who have accomplishments and a track record in long-lasting, innovative, watershed integrative paving technologies.

Staff issued a Request for Qualifications for On-Call Civil Engineering Services on April 9, 2018. Consultants which have demonstrated experience with incorporating green infrastructure in street projects are being recommended for contract award for upcoming projects.

5. Report back to Council with revisions that address the above and provide for multiple benefit, durable demonstration projects on at least 15% of available funding for the 2019-22 projects by June 2018.

Staff is working with the PWC to identify technologies and projects in the FY2020– 22 Street Rehabilitation Plan to provide 15% funding to discretionary and demonstration projects. The PWC has suggested Shattuck Avenue from University to Vine be analyzed as a candidate for permeable pavers. Staff and PWC are working with UC Davis on the analysis. Also, Staff is researching other technologies for example, pervious concrete, cold-in-place asphalt recycling, and pervious pavers.

6. Develop a process that incorporates life cycle cost analysis.

The PWC contacted the UC-Davis Department of Civil Engineering to assist with this. The Department, led by Professor John Harvey, has done extensive research through its Pavement Research Center. He had organized a Permeable Pavement Workshop in November 2017. PWC members attended the workshop and came to understand the extent of his work. PWC members and City Staff met with Professor Harvey again in April 2018 to learn about “Best Practices in Pavement for Local Government”, with a special emphasis on LCCA. Professor Harvey’s team has developed a computerized LCCA model, and a copy was provided to the City to use. It includes the ability to evaluate the life cycle cost of different paving technologies and treatments, sequencing of street surface treatment, cost parameters, and planning period. Staff has already started testing out the model. Also, as part of a pilot project, UC-Davis will apply the LCCA model to the reconstruction of Shattuck (between University and Vine).

As briefly discussed in item 3.a., Staff and the PWC are working with UC-Davis to expand the LCCA model so that it works in conjunction with the current StreetSaver model as an enhancement in preparing street rehabilitation plans with a planning horizon of five or more years. Berkeley will be one of the four cities that will participate in a trial and model selected streets with the new UC-Davis comparative LCCA tool. Enhancement of the model is expected to take at least six months.

BACKGROUND The Street Rehabilitation Policy (Policy), Resolution No. 55,384-N.S., was approved May 22, 1990. It requires a Five-Year Street Plan for the entire City be adopted by City

42 PagePage 19 5 of 620

Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Update INFORMATION CALENDAR July 24, 2018

Council. Annually, Staff prepares an updated Five-Year Plan, which is reviewed and approved by the City Council with advice of the Public Works Commission (PWC).

The primary purpose of the street rehabilitation program is to maintain a safe surface conveyance system in the public right-of-way for vehicles, bicycles, transit, and pedestrians. The right-of-way also provides ancillary functions of a water conveyance system and location of public utilities.

Per the Policy, the City strives to identify and implement integrated solutions that address the multiple demands on the street infrastructure that are designed for safety, environmentally sustainable and economically efficient over the long run.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Projects considered for the FY 2019-22 Street Plan are incorporating pavement technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and integrate water quality improvements, promote use of other modes of transportation, and provide durability.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Staff plans to come back to Council in November 2018 with an updated Five-Year Street Plan incorporating Council’s recommendations.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Management of the Street Plan development will be conducted by the PWC’s Paving Subcommittee and existing Staff. Consultant resources will be from on-call contracts for the planning and design of Berkeley’s street rehabilitation work. Staff will be working with the Pavement Research Center at UC-Davis on further development of LCCA and evaluation of sustainable technologies using Berkeley-specific data at no cost to the City.

CONTACT PERSON Ray Yep, Chairperson, Public Works Commission Phillip L. Harrington, Director, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6303 Nisha Patel, Manager of Engineering & Public Works Commission Secretary, Public Works (510) 981-6406 Joe Enke, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works (510) 981-6411

Attachments: 1. December 19, 2017 Council Action on Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan

43 PagePage 20 6 of 620

Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Update INFORMATION CALENDAR July 24, 2018

Attachment 1

Council Action at the December 19, 2017 Meeting Regarding the Five Year Street Rehabilitation Plan

Action: 0 speakers. M/S/C (Maio/Worthington) to 1) adopt Resolution No. 68, 279–N.S. amended to include the projects in FY 2018 and FY 2019; and 2) Request that staff coordinate with the Public Works Commission on the items listed below.

1. Address all elements of the City of Berkeley’s paving policy such that our Paving Plan clearly identifies and implements integrated solutions. Such approaches would address the multiple demands on the street infrastructure that are designed for safety, environmentally sustainable and are economically efficient over the long run. Posited solutions would be consistent with: a. the City’s General Plan policy of encouraging use of forms of transportation other than automobiles; b. the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) goals regarding water quality, the Bay, flooding potential and particularly runoff control; c. the City’s Measure G goal of an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. A broad scope would include consideration of reducing global warming (for example, dark vs. lighter paving materials).

3. The 2019-22 Plan would reflect the following policies: a. Long-term cost effectiveness, long-term street pavement durability and aesthetics are important for priority setting and repair methodology selection; b. Street rehabilitation shall be coordinated with utility, sewer and other activities associated with addressing water contamination runoff, and with other underground activities to minimize the cost and maximize the effectiveness of rehabilitation and improve the environment. 4. Identify and work with consultants who have accomplishments and a track record in long- lasting, innovative, watershed integrative paving technologies.

6. Develop a process that incorporates life cycle cost analysis.

Vote: Ayes – Maio, Davila, Bartlett, Harrison, Wengraf Worthington, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Hahn.

44 Page 1 of 2

Office of the Mayor CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Members of the City Council From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín Subject: Seating Arrangement for Councilmembers during City Council Meetings

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution changing the seating placement of City Councilmembers as follows on the dais (From left to right, facing the dais): Kesarwani, Harrison, Bartlett, Hahn, Arreguin, Wengraf, Droste, Davila, Robinson.

BACKGROUND The Mayor makes recommendations on the seating arrangement of the Berkeley City Councilmembers. The City Council changed the order of the dais in 2016 to accommodate the newly-elected councilmembers. Mayor Arreguín is recommending a change to the current seating arrangement (from left to right, facing the dais) as follows: Kesarwani, Harrison, Bartlett, Hahn, Arreguin, Wengraf, Droste, Davila, Robinson.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Not applicable.

CONTACT PERSON Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100

Attachments: 1: Resolution

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected] 45 Page 2 of 2

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

CITY COUNCIL SEATING ARRANGEMENT ON THE DAIS

WHEREAS, the Mayor makes recommendations on the seating arrangement of the Berkeley City Councilmembers; and

WHEREAS, in 2016, the City Council changed the seating arrangement to accommodate the newly-elected councilmembers; and

WHEREAS, Mayor Arreguín is recommending a change to the current seating arrangement (from left to right, facing the dais) as follows: Kesarwani, Harrison, Bartlett, Hahn, Arreguin, Wengraf, Droste, Davila, Robinson.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council does hereby set the seating order on the dais for City Council Meetings as follows (from left to right, facing the dais): Kesarwani, Harrison, Bartlett, Hahn, Arreguin, Wengraf, Droste, Davila, Robinson.

46 Page 1 of 4

Office of the Mayor CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Members of the City Council From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín Subject: Eighth Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration: City Sponsorship and Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Fund

RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a Resolution co-sponsoring the 8th Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration Breakfast on January 21, 2019.

2. Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember including $500 from Mayor Arreguin, to the Rotary Endowment, the fiscal sponsor of the 8th Annual Martin Luther King Jr. celebration, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Mayor Arreguin and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND The annual Martin Luther King Jr Celebration, which first started in 2012, strives to bring together a diverse group of East Bay residents to celebrate and continue the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The purpose of this event is to bring the faith based, business, university, youth and civic communities together to celebrate the life and dreams of Dr. King and to honor adult and youth leaders in our community.

We are proposing that City Councilmembers make individual grants of up to $500 to the Rotary Endowment to commemorate and honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The event is being held on January 21, 2018 at the Berkeley Adult School.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS No General Fund impact; $500 is available from Mayor Arreguin’s Office Budget discretionary accounts.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY No adverse effects to the environment

CONTACT PERSON Jesse Arreguin, Mayor 510-981-7100

Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Building ● 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 Fax: (510) 981-7199 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● E-Mail: [email protected] ● Web: www.jessearreguin.com 47 Page 2 of 4

8th Annual MLK Jr. Celebration CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

Attachments: 1: Resolution for City Sponsorship 2: Resolution for Council Expenditures

Page 2 48 Page 3 of 4

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

CITY SPONSORSHIP OF THE 8TH ANNUAL DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. CELEBRATION

WHEREAS, the Eighth Annual Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration will take place on January 21, 2019; and

WHEREAS, the purpose of this event is to bring the faith based, business, university, youth and civic communities together to celebrate the life and dreams of Dr. King and to honor adult and youth leaders in our community; and

WHEREAS, historically the Berkeley City Council has generously provided sponsorship for this event.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley hereby co-sponsors the 8th Annual Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration, has permission to use the City’s name and logo in the event’s promotional materials and signage naming the City of Berkeley as a co-sponsor solely for the purpose of the City indicating its endorsement of the event.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this co-sponsorship does not: (1) authorize financial support, whether in the form of fee waivers, a grant or provision of City services for free; (2) constitute the acceptance of any liability, management, or control on the part of the City for or over the MLK Jr Celebration; or (3) constitute regulatory approval of the event.

49 Page 4 of 4

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, Mayor Jesse Arreguin has surplus funds in his office expenditure account; and

WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax exempt corporation, the Rotary Endowment, seeks funds in the amount of $500 to provide the following public services to publicly commemorate and honor the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; and

WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the following municipal public purpose of bringing the communities across the City, including, but not limited to faith based, business, university, youth and civic communities, together to celebrate the life and dreams of Dr. King and to honor adult and youth leaders in our community.

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 $500 per office shall be granted to the Rotary Endowment to fund the following services of bringing the communities across the City, including, but not limited to faith based, business, university, youth and civic communities, together to celebrate the life and dreams of Dr. King and to honor adult and youth leaders in our community.

50 Page 1 of 5

Office of the Mayor CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Members of the City Council From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín Subject: Funding for United Against Hate Week Event

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution retroactively sponsoring the November 11, 2018 United Against Hate Week Kick-Off, waiving city fees and costs associated with the event and authorizing reimbursement of $7,725 for the cost of stage and production for the event.

BACKGROUND In response to white nationalist rallies taking place in cities across the country in 2017, the Berkeley Stands United Against Hate campaign was launched. The purpose of this was to counter the hateful rhetoric with a peaceful message of diversity, sanctuary, and inclusion. The popular demand of this campaign lead to other cities throughout the Bay Area creating their own versions. A year later, cities throughout the region collaborated to create the first of what will be a recurring weeklong event focused on combatting hate and creating inclusive communities.

On July 10, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution No. 68,508-N.S., In Support of No Hate Week. It called for the week of November 11-18, 2018 to be recognized as No Hate Week (late changed to United Against Hate Week). Over 23 jurisdictions from throughout the region joined the movement in this inaugural year. An event took place at Civic Center Park on November 11th to kick off the week. Due to the costs associated with hosting the kickoff event, the United Against Hate committee through its fiduciary, Not In Our Town a 501c3 organization, are requesting that city fees and costs associated with hosting the event be waived, and seek reimbursement of $7,725 for the cost of stage and production.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS  Waiving of City fees: $1,576.80 o Permit fee: $550 o Debris: $172.80 o Sound Permit:$44 o Portable restrooms/sinks: $810  Reimbursement for stage and production costs: $7,725  Total: $9,301.80

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected] 51 Page 2 of 5

Funding for United Against Hate Week Event CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Not applicable

CONTACT PERSON Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100

Attachments: 1: Resolution 2: Resolution #68,508 - In Support of Declaring a “No Hate Week”

Page 2 52 Page 3 of 5

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

CITY SPONSORSHIP OF THE UNITED AGAINST HATE WEEK KICK-OFF EVENT

WHEREAS, in 2017, white nationalist groups held rallies in cities across the nation with the intent to create fear in diverse communities;

WHEREAS, in response to these rallies, the Berkeley community created the Berkeley Stands United Against Hate campaign to counter the hateful rhetoric and espouse our values of diversity, sanctuary, and inclusivity; and

WHEREAS, on November 11, 2018, the United Against Hate Week had a kick-off event at Civic Center Park; and

WHEREAS, the event marked the beginning of a week of festivities relating to the promotion of local civic action to stop hate, bullying, and bias; and

WHEREAS, on July 10, 2018, the City Council passed Resolution No. 68,508-N.S., In Support of No Hate Week, which declared November 11-18, 2018 as No Hate Week (later renamed to United Against Hate Week to match the 2017 campaign of the same name that was the inspiration for this regional collaboration).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley hereby retroactively sponsors the United Against Hate Week kick-off event, has permission to use the City’s name and logo in the event’s promotional materials and signage naming the City of Berkeley as a co-sponsor solely for the purpose of the City indicating its endorsement of the event.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that fees associated with the event totaling $1,576.80 are hereby waived, in addition to the City reimbursing the event $7,725 for costs associated with hosting the event.

53 Page 4 of 5

54 Page 5 of 5

55 56 Page 1 of 2

CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018 To: Members of the City Council

From: Mayor Jesse Arreguin

Subject: Establishment of Traffic Circle Policy Task Force

RECOMMENDATION Establish a Traffic Circle Policy Task Force comprised of representatives of the Parks and Waterfront Commission, Transportation Commission, community representatives from the neighborhoods where traffic circles are located, and city staff in the Parks and Public Works Departments as follows:

 City Staff o 1 representative from the Transportation Department o 1 representative from the Parks Department  Commissions o 1 representative from the Parks and Waterfront Commission o 1 representative from the Transportation Commission  Community o Several representatives from the neighborhoods currently maintaining traffic circles, chosen from geographically diverse parts of the city o 1 representative from Berkeley Partners for Parks

The charge of this Task Force is 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:

 Determine appropriate characteristics and parameters for allowed plantings;  Develop policy that ensures lines of sight and other important safety considerations;  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.

57 Page 2 of 2

BACKGROUND In the summer of 2018 in response to a legal settlement agreement, the Public Works Department provided notice to all neighbors responsible for the maintenance of traffic circle vegetation, informing them that the City will be removing trees and other large vegetation that obscures line of sight and poses a safety risk.

This communication elicited significant concern in the community and there was a desire for more outreach and engagement of neighborhood traffic circle volunteers in decisions on removing vegetation and on updates to the policy. The current 2012 policy prohibits vegetation over 2 feet in height, yet there are many trees that exceed 2 feet in traffic circles. There is a need to update the existing Traffic Circle planting and maintenance policy to reflect current conditions and to ensure ongoing maintenance to improve safety at these intersections.

On August 8, 2018, the Mayor, Councilmembers and City staff held a well-attended meeting where many of the traffic circle volunteers attended along with Berkeley Partners for Parks. There was a strong desire for a more formal process to engage neighborhood volunteers and other stakeholders in updating the current Traffic Circle policy.

On September 25, 2018, the City Council unanimously referred to the Parks and Transportation Commissions to create a city/community task force on Traffic Circle vegetation maintenance. Since the Council’s referral, the Parks Commission was informed that they do not have the authority to establish a Task Force, and that Council action is required. This item would authorize the creation of a city/community task force.

A stakeholder task force would be the most strategic, effective, and appropriate approach to respect and respond to the community’s substantial interest in, and continuing care for the circles. The City has partnered with its citizens for their stewardship for almost two decades. Now is the ideal time to revisit, enhance and formalize that partnership, to support community involvement and work together to address important safety concerns. To help meet the spirit and desired follow up of the August 8th community meeting, it is important for community members to have representatives actively participating in and contributing to discussions about the traffic circles.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Costs associated with staffing the Traffic Circle Task Force, hosting community meetings and developing a new Traffic Circle Planting Policy.

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

CONTACT PERSON Mayor Jesse Arreguin (510) 981-7100

58 Page 1 of 82

Office of the Mayor

CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

TO: Members of the City Council

FROM: Mayor Jesse Arreguín

SUBJECT: Send a Letter to Sutter Health Requesting a Plan to Retrofit/Rebuild Alta Bates Hospital or sell to another operator

RECOMMENDATION Direct the City Manager to send a letter to, and follow-up with, Sutter Health requesting a plan to retrofit and rebuild Alta Bates to state regulations by 2030 or agree to sell Alta Bates hospital to an operator who will maintain a full-service, acute care hospital in Berkeley. The City of Berkeley expresses its strong desire to work in collaboration with Sutter Health to develop a plan to keep a full-service, acute care hospital in Berkeley. The letter shall reference the findings from the Health Impact Assessment completed by the University of California, Department of Public Health, dated September 2018 and state that the closure of Alta Bates would:  Create a harmful cascade effect on remaining hospitals and emergency services, exacerbating already overcrowded ERs  Lengthen wait times for hospital beds  Reduce the ability of first responders and emergency service vehicles to respond due to increased transport times through the East Bay’s congested roadways  Disproportionally affect marginalized communities  Impact acute care services in this region that need to be expanded, not consolidated.

BACKGROUND Alta Bates, originally Alta Bates Sanitarium, was founded as an eight-bed hospital for women and their infants in 1905 by Nurse Alta Alice Miner Bates. Alta Bates has always cared for its community in times of crisis: the 1906 and 1989 major earthquakes, the devastating flu epidemic of 1918, and two catastrophic urban fires in 1923 and 1991.

59 Page 2 of 82 Alta Bates – Retrofit/Rebuild or Sell CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

It has been providing “full service - acute care’ hospital services in Berkeley, providing care to communities of the greater East Bay and along the Interstate 80 corridor since 1955. In 2017, Alta Bates had 5863 births and 45,336 ER patient visits, and as the only non-Kaiser hospital serving the I-80 corridor between Vallejo and Oakland, plays a critical role providing services to women and infants.

The number of hospitals in California has declined by almost 20% since 2001 while population, especially in urban centers has increased by over 13%. Additionally, with people are living longer, Berkeley’s aging population is increasing. This demonstrate a steadily rising demand for inpatient hospital services in the region.

Sutter stated in 1999, when bidding for public approval of a hospital merger between Sutter Medical Center and Alta Bates Hospital, that healthcare services would be “enhanced” by having two locations. However since the completion of the merger, Alta Bates has lost many services including the pulmonary sub-acute unit, cardiac catheterization lab, and the inpatient oncology unit.

Sutter announced that it would be closing Alta Bates by 2030, due to seismic retrofit requirements and stated that “Operating two full service hospitals less than 3 miles apart is inefficient and inhibits our ability to be most affordable to patients;” (Attachment A: internal memo from Sutter Health to employees and medical staff)

Sutter Health’s decision to cease operating Alta Bates Hospital as a full service acute care hospital is a complete reversal of their “Ten Community Commitments” submitted to the City of Berkeley on April 20, 1999, when bidding for support for their merger of Alta Bates Hospital and Summit Medical Center. These Commitments stated, in part: “1. Summit and Alta Bates will continue to operate as full-service community hospitals,” and “7. The hospitals will remain modern and safe, and the [Sutter, Summit and Alta Bates] partnership will cover operating losses while we are recovering and rebuilding and working our way out of this crisis”, (Attachment B- Ten Community Commitments).

While continuing to claim that the closure of Alta Bates Medical Center is a result of exorbitant cost of retrofitting, Sutter has not provided any evidence of the cost estimate to the City of Berkeley, despite on-going requests. Additionally, Sutter Health secured $1.2 billion in bonds through the California Health Facilities Financing Authority in 2016 for building improvements at its facilities, yet none of that public money has been used to comply with required seismic upgrades at Alta Bates. Spokespersons have stated that Alta Bates’ neighbors prevent them from retrofitting the hospital as required by state law; yet a public letter from the immediately adjacent Bateman Neighborhood Association in October 2016 affirms “the neighborhood is overwhelmingly opposed to

60 Page 3 of 82 Alta Bates – Retrofit/Rebuild or Sell CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018 the closure of Alta Bates, and wants it to remain open as a full service acute care hospital”. Many California hospitals have either successfully complied or have demonstrated their commitment to comply with seismic requirements by 2030. Furthermore, Sutter Health, is a staggeringly profitable Not-for-Profit corporation that ended the year 2016 with over $15.7 billion in assets.

Recent waves of extremely costly fires in the North Bay and other California communities have resulted in evacuated or destroyed hospitals, raising an alarming scenario in the East Bay where we have experienced earthquakes severe enough to collapse a freeway; explosions, fires and toxic vapors released at the Chevron oil refinery; and a wildfire in the hills of Berkeley and Oakland in 1991 that killed 25 and injured 150. An OSHPOD report highlighted the critical role hospitals occupy when disaster strikes, stating: Hospitals occupy a unique place in society’s survival capability; and additionally finding: “Without functioning hospitals, it takes much longer for a community to recover from an earthquake. This prolonged recovery seriously retards the area’s economic and social renewal”. Berkeley Fire Chief Dave Brannigan confirmed at a Forum on February 3, 2018 the closure of Alta Bates would have a significant impact on Berkeley’s Emergency response services and a real threat to lives including increased transport times of 24 minutes longer and the passing on to the public the cost of ambulance services.

The public outcry demanding that Sutter keep their commitments to the City of Berkeley and this community by maintaining Alta Bates as a full service acute care hospital in Berkeley has been loud and steadily growing since July 2016. On March 14, 2017, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to adopt an ordinance requiring hospital operators to provide additional notification and information to the public on community impacts before closing a hospital or reducing acute healthcare services. Since that date, hundreds of Berkeley and East Bay community members and nurses have turned out repeatedly to City Council meetings, community forums, town halls and public protests to draw attention and to take a stand against the serious threat posed to our community by a closure of Alta Bates.

Resolutions have been passed unanimously by numerous East Bay cities including Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville, Albany, El Cerrito, Richmond and San Pablo documenting substantial community use of Alta Bates Medical Center and the ongoing need for the hospital to serve the health and well-being of East Bay residents and those living along the I-80.

On March, 16, 2017 an Alta Bates Regional Task Force was convened that included East Bay cities, public health officials, UC Berkeley and EMS providers. Through that

61 Page 4 of 82 Alta Bates – Retrofit/Rebuild or Sell CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018 group the City of Berkeley Health Commission was tasked with completing a community Health Impacts Assessment that would study the impacts of the closure of Alta Bates Medical Center. UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health has completed the study dated September 2018 (Attachment C) and validates serious concerns for the safety and healthcare needs of Berkeley and East Bay residents who depend on Alta Bates in emergencies. It includes the following and other significant findings: - California patients displaced due to a closer hospital closure are 5% more likely to die, 10% more likely to die if they are seniors over 65; and have a 15% higher risk of heart attack, stroke and sepsis - A minute increase in response times increases the risk of death by between 8 and 17 percent based on when the initial incident occurred - A heightened risk of infant mortality and adverse birth outcomes corresponds to increased travel times of greater than 20 minutes - Acute Myocardial Infarctions (heart attacks) cause ¼ of U.S. deaths and the chance of death increases with an increased driving time of 10 minutes; with one study showing 6.5 % more deaths occurring with a 1 mile increased distance

The Berkeley City Council has heard compelling testimony from nurses relating their frontline experiences as caregivers for our community – seeing firsthand the many barriers already hindering this community from accessing healthcare that should be a human right. Additionally, in various community forums community members shared their experiences of life saving interventions performed at Alta Bates and are raising the alarm about adding the potentially devastating impact that would result if it was closed. The Council and City have been called on to intervene on behalf of this community and their right to maintain healthcare services in the community, with Alta Bates serving as its full service acute care hospital.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time to write a letter and follow-up for a response.

CONTACT PERSON Mayor Jesse Arreguin 510-981-7100

ATTACHMENTS A. Internal Sutter Memo from CEO, Chuck Prosper, to Employees, Medical Staff and Volunteers, dated October 6, 2015 B. Sutter Health – Ten Community Commitments C. Health Impact Assessment dated September 2018, prepared by Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California Berkeley 2018

62 Page 5 of 82

63 Page 6 of 82

64 Page 7 of 82

WITH THE MERGER OF ALTA BATES Text the letters AND SUMMIT, SUTTER PROMISED “SAVE AB” to number 69866 to send an THE CITY OF BERKELEY online message to THE FOLLOWING Alta Bates Summit CEO, Dr. Gerald “Jerry” Kozai, to tell him to do the right «« 10 COMMUNITY thing: Keep Alta Bates open as a full-service, COMMITMENTS »» acute-care hospital in Berkeley!

Summit and Alta The partnership Bates will continue will assume to operate as full- and pay all service community of Summit’s hospitals. $100 million 1 5 in outstanding debt.

Both Summit and The partnership Alta Bates will guarantees a provide emergency, minimum of $450 critical care, medical million in capital The partnership surgical, and over ten years to will ensure 2 maternity services. 6 replace facilities and that we have a equipment and meet board of more seismic and other than 80% local improvements. 9 community representatives with the None of these The hospitals will experience, services can remain modern knowledge, be shut down and safe, and the expertise, and without approval partnership will commitment of a 40-person cover operating to fulfill our 3 community 7 losses while we are mission. representative body recovering and appointed by the re-building and board, medical staff, working our way and foundation. out of this crisis.

Existing union Our community contracts at Summit service mission 10 and Alta Bates will be will be continued The partnership of Summit recognized as part of along with our and Alta Bates will operate the partnership. commitment as a not-for-profit hospital 4 8 to charity care, and continue to be publicly Samuel Merritt accountable and regulated College, and other by all the federal, state, and vital community local government agencies. programs.

«« Turn the page for SUTTER’S BROKEN PROMISES »»

#SaveAltaBates | www.KeepAltaBatesOpen.org

09071865 Page 8 of 82 SUTTER’SBROKEN PROMISES

2018 »» Closure of pre-op testing at Alta Bates. Consolidated with Summit. 2016 »» Full closure of Alta Bates announced.

2014 »» Loss of inpatient oncology unit at Alta Bates. Consolidated with Summit.

2014 »» Loss of acute rehab at Herrick. Moved to Summit.

2012 »» Closure of the pulmonary subacute unit at Herrick.

2012 »» Closure of electro-physiology at Berkeley.

2012 »» Consolidation of antepartum testing.

2011 »» Ending breast cancer screenings for women with disabilities at Alta Bates.

2011 »» Ending bone marrow transplant services for cancer patients.

2010 »» Ending outpatient infusion therapy services at Herrick.

2010 »» Loss of the cardiac cath lab at Alta Bates.

Text the letters “SAVE AB” to number 69866 to send an online message to Alta Bates Summit CEO, Dr. Gerald “Jerry” Kozai, to tell him to do the right thing: Keep Alta Bates open as a full-service, acute-care hospital in Berkeley!

#SaveAltaBates | www.KeepAltaBatesOpen.org

66 Page 9 of 82

RAPID HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Proposed Closure of Alta Bates Campus Berkeley, CA

ALTA BATES HOSPITAL

EMERGENCY

Final Report September 2018

67 Page 10 of 82

2 Table of Contents

Page 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RAPID HEALTH IMPACT 8 INTRODUCTION ASSESSMENT 8 Proposed Closing of Sutter Alta Bates Campus, Berkeley, CA 9 Overview Of Potential Health Issues from an Urban Hospital Closing Proposed Closure of Alta Bates 11 What is Health Impact Assessment (HIA)? 12 Scope of this Rapid HIA (RHIA) Campus, Berkeley, CA 12 Key RHIA Focal Areas 13 Hypothesized Impact Pathways 17 Rapid HIA Methodology 18 OVERVIEW OF ALTA BATES HOSPITAL 19 Alta Bates Campus Patient Utilization 20 Emergency Department 20 Hospital Service Area 26 SUMMIT CAMPUS IMPACTS 26 Campus Utilization & Capacity to Absorb Alta Bates Campus Patients 28 Sutter Health Plans for Summit Campus expansion 30 IMPACT ON VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 31 Pregnant Women & Newborn Babies Authors: 32 People of Color Jason Corburn, PhD 34 People with Disabilities Amanda Fukutome 34 Uninsured & Publicly Insured Patients Marisa Ruiz Asari 35 The Aging and Elderly Jennifer Jarin 36 Mental Health & Suicide Prevention Vaughn Villaverde 36 Homeless People 37 Adverse Impacts on Vulnerable Communities in the Alta Bates Hospital Service Area Research Assistants: Laura Atukunda 42 IMPACTS ON UC BERKELEY STUDENT HEALTH CARE Riya Desai 46 IMPACT ON EMERGENCY SERVICES Cindy Ochieng 47 Alta Bates Emergency Department (ED) Utilization 47 Analyses of Travel Times to Alta Bates vs Summit Campus Emergency Departments 50 Impacts on Ambulance Travel Times Report design: Marisa Ruiz Asari 53 Ambulance Diversion 53 Regional Emergency Department impacts 56 DISASTER EVENT IMPACTS Institute of Urban and 58 Potential Impact from Chevron Refinery Fire Regional Development University of California Berkeley 60 ECONOMIC IMPACTS 2018 61 Alta Bates Campus as an Economic Base Multiplier 63 APPENDIX 66 REFERENCES 68 Page 11 of 82

3 Figures

Page 5 Figure 1. HIA Key Findings Overview 7 Figure 2: Likely Health Impacts from the Closing of Alta Bates Medical Center, Berkeley, CA 10 Figure 3. Alta Bates Closure key milestones time line 11 Figure 4. Health Impact Assessment process 12 Figure 5. Rapid Health Impact Assessment guiding research questions 14 Figure 6. Hypothesized Impacts from Alta Bates Campus birthing center closing 14 Figure 7. Hypothesized Impacts from Alta Bates Campus Emergency Department (ED) closing 15 Figure 8. Hypothesized Impacts of Alta Bates Campus ED closing on Emergency Medical Services 15 Figure 9. Hypothesized Impacts of a Regional Disaster on ED access without Alta Bates Campus 16 Figure 10. Hypothesized Impacts from Alta Bates Closing on Local & Regional Economy 17 Figure 11. Examples of inputs to Rapid HIA 19 Figure 12. Alta Bates Campus ED patient discharges (2016) from cities impacted by the DMC hospital closure 19 Figure 11. Alta Bates Campus utilization overview 2016 22 Figure 13. Increased Alta Bates Campus discharges from Contra Costa County & regional zip-codes 22 Figure 14. Alta Bates Campus Hospital Service Areas: RHIA & CHNA defined 24 Figure 15. ED Visits by Cause: Comparing the RHIA Defined Alta Bates Campus HSA to State and County Rates 31 Figure 16. Outcomes for largest birthing centers in Alameda & Contra Costa Counties, 2016 32 Figure 17. Number of live births across regional birthing centers 2016 33 Figure 18. Percent race/ethnicity in the HSA compared to county and state rates 34 Figure 19. Alta Bates Campus expected payer source 2016 37 Figure 20. Total Homeless patients at select East Bay hospitals 2016 - 20176 38 Figure 21. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center CHNA Communities of Concern 40 Figure 22. High Health Care Need Communities in the RHIA defined HSA 41 Figure 23. Heart Disease ED visits per 10,000 residents for all ZIP Codes in the RHIA defined Alta Bates Campus HSA 41 Figure 24. Select ZIP Codes - Asthma and Diabetes ED visits per 10,000 residents 43 Figure 25. Student vs Alta Bates Campus mental health care utilization 48 Figure 26. Travel times to Alta Bates & Summit Campuses from ZIP Codes in the HSA 52 Figure 27. Emergency response time line 54 Figure 28. Additional ED visits/year hospitals can absorb before exceeding (ACEP) standard 55 Figure 29. Alta Bates & Summit ED utilization & American College of Emergency Physicians’ recommended capacity 59 Figure 30. Emergency Department patient surge volume after Chevron refinery fire, Richmond, CA, 2012 62 Figure 31. How hospitals contribute to regional economies

69 Page 12 of 82

Maps

Page 9 Map 1. Alta Bates Campus & Regional Hospital Network 18 Map 2. Alta Bates Campus and affected buildings 21 Map 3. Rapid Health Impact Assessment defined Hospital Service Area (HSA) 23 Map 4. Large volume increases in Alta Bates Campus ED discharges from West Contra Costa County 2013 - 2016 25 Map 5. Comparing RHIA & CHNA defined Hospital Service Areas 27 Map 6. Summit Campus and affected buildings 38 Map 7: 2016 CHNA defined service area CHVI scores 39 Map 8: Percent Uninsured across Census Tracts in the RHIA defined Service Area 39 Map 9: Percent of Families (with Children) in Poverty across Census Tracts in the RHIA defined Service Area 44 Map 10. Population density in ZIP Codes surrounding UC Berkeley, Alta Bates Campus, and Summit Campus 49 Map 11. Projected Heart Disease ED Visits & Travel Times to Summit Campus for ZIP Codes North of Alta Bates Campus 50 Map 12. Travel times to Alta Bates vs. Summit Campus at 5:30pm from select ZIP Codes in the Alta Bates HSA 57 Map 13. Surge event: Earthquake along the Hayward Fault

ALTA BATES HOSPITAL

70 EMERGENCY Page 13 of 82

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sutter Health has proposed to close Alta state-mandated earthquake safety upgrades Bates Campus in Berkeley, California, by 2030. would be too costly to keep the major functions Alta Bates Hospital serves the City of Berkeley of the hospital open. Sutter Health stated in 2016 and the entire East Bay with 347 beds, 22 that they plan to relocate most inpatient care and Emergency Department treatment stations, emergency services from the Alta Bates Campus about 50,000 Emergency Department (ED) site in Berkeley to an expanded Summit Medical patients, and over 5,000 births in 2017. In 2016, Campus in Oakland approximately three miles the hospital billed almost $2 Billion in patient from the Berkeley campus. revenue.2-4 Sutter Health has determined that

Figure 1. HIA Key Findings Overview

Proposed closure of Alta Bates Summit Medical Center - Alta Bates Campus

Select Key Findings HIA FOCUS AREA • Likely decreased access to urgent and chronic care for vulnerable populations. People with disabilities • Likely increase in Bay Area elderly population will increase Uninsured hospital care needs. People of color • Uncertainty regarding replication of high-performing Vulnerable Elderly birthing center and related maternal & newborn care populations Pregnant Women currently at Alta Bates. Homeless • Increase in homeless patients at East Bay hospitals & this population will likely delay or avoid care. • Increase in private vehicle travel times to hospital Wait times & capacity emergency department for West Contra Costa County Travel times patients. Emergency On call times for EMS • Likely increased burden on regional emergency medical Department services, including emergency department over-crowding Capacity for surge event access & an increase in ambulance diversions. • Lack of a coordinated disaster preparedness plan for Bay Area regional health care providers that includes UC Berkeley. Wages • Likely loss of living-wage jobs for entry-level hospital Employment workers & some skilled positions, such as nurses. Regional • Limited information on proposed Sutter relocation & Municipal costs economy construction plans made some projections difficult.

71 Page 14 of 82

This Rapid Health Impact Assessment (RHIA) was commissioned by the City of Berkeley’s, Alta Overall, we found that the closing of Alta Bates Bates Regional Task Force and highlights some Campus will have potentially significant adverse of the likely health impacts from the closure of health impacts related to: birthing/obstetrics; Alta Bates hospital. More specifically, the Rapid ED care for the elderly, uninsured, homeless and HIA focuses on the health impacts to: (1) already people of color; private vehicle travel times for vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, the certain areas of the East Bay, particularly Western uninsured, and people of color; (2) University Contra Costa County; disaster response capacity, of California, Berkeley, students; (3) emergency and; some UC Berkeley student health care medical services, including travel times to the needs. We also found that the closing of the Alta emergency room and regional emergency room Bates campus will adversely impact employment capacity in the case of a disaster, and; (4) the local for low-wage workers, reduce spending in the economy. local economy and potentially reduce community- based health promotion investments. Alta Bates Campus has served as a regional community health asset since its founding in 1905 A summary of the likely impacts appears in by nurse Alta Alice Miner Bates. Alta Bates has Figure 2. We describe the key impact, the likely the greatest number of hospital-births out of all magnitude of impact on a scale of 1-3 stars, with 3 hospitals in the East Bay. Further, Sutter Health’s being the greatest impact, and offer examples of own 2016 Community Health Needs Assessment key data for each impact. (CHNA) report noted that the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center Service Area currently serves This RHIA utilized a detailed review of the a large percentage of the region’s vulnerable scientific literature, existing provider data, and communities with high chronic health care needs. interviews with select professionals to estimate likely impacts. However, the projected impact Alta Bates Campus also has one of the highest analyses and some conclusions were limited volume emergency departments (ED) in the East due to the fact that Sutter Health did not provide Bay. The ED has experienced a sharp increase detailed relocation and re-construction plans for in patients from West Contra Costa County, either the Summit or Alta Bates campuses. The many of whom were likely served by Doctors findings here are based on available hospital Medical Center (DMC) in San Pablo, which closed and public health data. Despite these limits, we in 2015. In 2017 the Alta Bates Campus ED find that the closing of the Alta Bates hospital was operating at about 6,000 visits above the campus in Berkeley, CA, will likely have significant capacity recommended by the American College adverse public health impacts on populations of Emergency Physicians.4 along the corridor from Berkeley to San Pablo unless specific actions are taken to increase ER Research from across California and the United and inpatient care access for already vulnerable States has found that hospital closures in urban populations, increase existing hospital emergency areas can displace patients, particularly those department capacities and increase 24-hour already vulnerable, from familiar and usual urgent care facilities, especially those serving sources of care, and overburden the hospitals West Contra Costa County. that remain open. More specifically, Emergency Department (ED) closures can adversely impact regional morbidity and mortality.

72 Page 15 of 82

Figure 2: Likely Health Impacts from the Closing of Alta Bates Medical Center, Berkeley, CA (Magnitude: 1 = less likely to 3 = highly likely)

Magnitude Key Issue Likely Health Impact Examples of Supportive Data of impact

Birthing/ Reduced access to high quality *** Over 5,000 births per year at Alta Bates - highest in the region obstetrics prenatal, birthing & neonatal care Current birthing center has excellent maternal & infant outcomes

Delayed care, increased severity Already high % Medicare serving facility; senior population increasing Elderly care of disease & likely avoidable * Hospital closures have resulted in delayed care & increased mortality hospitalizations for elderly Delayed care, increased unnecessary About 41% of patients in 2016 were Medi-Cal or uninsured Uninsured & hospitalizations, increased care costs ** 600% increase in homeless patients at Alta Bates between 2016 - homeless & potential spread of infections 2017 Delayed care, increased unnecessary Over 63% of patients at Alta Bates were people of color (PoC) in 2016 People of hospitalizations, increased care costs *** West Contra Costa County has high % PoC utilizing Alta Bates & will color & some increase in unnecessary experience greatest increased travel times to reach Summit campus deaths Accessibility barriers due to People with 12% of the population in the HSA are living with a disability, of which increased distance and unfamiliarity ** Disabilities at least 61% are racial/ethnic minorities with relocated services Loss of familiar ED & in-patient care; Estimated 4,000 UCB student visits to Alta Bates ED per year UC Berkeley loss of some emergency mental ** About 2 ambulance transfer per day from Tang Health Ctr. to Alta Bates Students health & suicide prevention Loss of familiarity & proximity of care may adversely impact students Loss of 22 ED treatment stations at Alta Bates Increase private vehicle travel times to Summit hospital during PM Increased crowding at EDs across peak rush hour, with some areas needing over 50 minutes to reach ED. the region, increasing wait times; Emergency Summit will need to double current ED capacity to accommodate all Increase travel times to ED for some; *** Department Alta Bates patients Increased ‘time-on-task’ for many Berkeley EMS reports 10-12 min. increase in transport times to regional EMS providers. Summit compared to Alta Bates, which would add on average 2 extra hours of EMS ‘time-on-task’ per day if Alta Bates closes Est. 900 people needing ED care in first days of HayWired scenario Loss of ED capacity to treat earthquake & 1,000-1,200 from a major fire at Chevron in Richmond earthquake & fire victims, potential w/out Alta Bates. Disaster increase in avoidable deaths & Regional ED capacity in an emergency/disaster will be significantly preparedness *** hospitalizations; likely increased compromised without Alta Bates cost of long-term care. Concentrating ED capacity in fewer locations may limit access during a disaster if roadway network to those facilities is compromised.

Local government EMS spending Potential increased cost to local governments to provide additional increase; low wage workers EMS services due to longer time on task Economics disproportionately lose jobs; Nurses * Potential loss of nurses out of region, increasing shortage of skilled may also be adversely impacted; practitioners local service economy suffers Potential loss of $1.5B in local economic activity

73 Page 16 of 82

8 INTRODUCTION

Proposed Closing of Sutter Alta Bates Campus, Berkeley, CA

Sutter Health announced in 2016 that it will 18-25 miles east, such as Contra Costa Regional close its Alta Bates Campus in Berkeley and Medical Center and John Muir Hospital (Alta consolidate its current inpatient and emergency Bates averages 9 miles from most West Contra services approximately three miles away at its Costa County origins). Summit Campus in Oakland, CA. Sutter Health has stated that the closure of the Berkeley In response to the announcement of the hospital campus is expected to occur gradually, proposed closure of the Alta Bates Campus, the with full closure occurring by 2030 (Sutter Mayor’s Office of the City of Berkeley convened Health, 2018). Some services have already been the Alta Bates Regional Task Force to explore relocated from Alta Bates Campus to Summit ways to prevent this closure and keep Berkeley’s Campus, such as the cardiac catheterization lab, only acute and emergency care hospital open. which began to close as early as 2010. The Berkeley City Council voted in 2016 to work to keep the hospital open, and the Task Force Alta Bates Campus was established in 1905 by is one venue where information and policy a nurse named Alta Alice Miner Bates. In 1906 alternatives are being explored. The Task Force the facility became the emergency hospital for is comprised of officials from Alameda and many in the East Bay, especially as hundreds Contra Costa Counties, and the cities of Alameda, of San Franciscans fled to Berkeley after the Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Oakland, Earthquake and Fire of 1906. Between 1910 and San Pablo, and Richmond, California. The task 1912, the hospital built two wings and had about force also includes stakeholders from labor 40 beds. In 1928 a new hospital was opened on unions, non-profit organizations, the University of the same site with 112 beds. In 1985, the 1928 California Berkeley, and members of the public. building was replaced with a 300 bed, three story The Task Force commissioned this Rapid Health structure, that exists today (Sutter Health, 2018). Impact Assessment (RHIA) in the Spring of 2018, to better understand the potential impacts of the Alta Bates Campus currently serves the City hospital closure on health care utilization and of Berkeley and the entire East Bay with 347 access to emergency medical services (EMS). beds and 22 Emergency Department stations, generating approximately $1.89 billion in total Research on hospital closures suggests that the patient revenue in 2016.1,4 Alta Bates Campus events can displace patients from usual sources is one of the only hospitals serving the East Bay of care and force them to access facilities that corridor from approximately San Pablo in Contra may lack their prior medical records. Emergency Costa County to Berkeley in Alameda County (see Department (ED) closures can adversely impact regional hospital network Map 1). Without access morbidity and mortality in a region. The closure to Alta Bates Campus, West Contra Costa County of an ED can have a significant impact on a residents will likely rely on Kaiser-Richmond, region as patients may have to travel farther which has limited capacity, and hospitals located to obtain care and the remaining EDs have to 74 Page 17 of 82

Map 1. Alta Bates Campus & Regional Hospital Network bear the extra patient volume, especially for Overview of Potential Health Issues from an patients experiencing time-sensitive illnesses Urban Hospital Closing requiring prompt intervention. EDs provide care not only for the critically ill, but also for those Research in the public health, medical and health unable to access care by other means, and are care services literatures suggests that urban seeing a rising trend in patient volume in both hospital closures can have adverse impacts on the US and California. Significant increases in ED population health, access to care and patient volume create a strain on existing emergency outcomes. However, research also suggests that care capacity and emergency medical service whether or not a hospital closure will adversely providers, and can adversely impact patient impact access and/or patient outcomes can health outcomes. 75 Page 18 of 82

Alta Bates Hospital Sutter Health Systematic Campus Seismic Safety Extensions Doctor’s Medical Announces Transfer of Proposed Law Updated granted Center Closes Closure Service Lines Closure 1994 2008 2015 2016 2016-’30 2030

Figure 3. Alta Bates Closure key milestones time line

depend on a host of factors, such as if there rate of patients with acute coronary syndrome are other high-performing institutions in close (ACS) as a function of crowded versus non- proximity, if these institutions are accessible to crowded EDs, and found a significant increase in the poor, and if these same institutions can serve serious complications (approximately 6% vs. 3% additional patients, particularly in the ED (Hsia incidence of death, cardiac arrest, heart failure, & Shen 2011; Joynt et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2014). late myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, stroke, or Urban hospital closures have seen an increase hypotension) in those patients presenting during in both California and the US. Most recently and overcrowded EDs. related to this trend, Doctors Medical Center (DMC) in San Pablo, California, closed in April ED overcrowding may also reduce the quality 2015. Since that time, as we will highlight in of care and increases medical errors, as the more detail below, residents living in Northwest emergency staff may have to continually focus Alameda County and West Contra Costa County on new patients. ED closure can also eliminate have become increasingly reliant on the Alta hospital capacity for accommodating critical Bates campus for emergency and inpatient care. incidents such as infectious disease epidemics and disasters, another issue we explore in more Hospital closures can have a significant impact detail below. on emergency department (ED) access. A 2015 national survey by the American College The locations of urban hospital closures do not of Emergency Physicians titled “Review of seem to be randomly patterned, as Sager (2013) the Evidence on the Use of the Emergency and Ko et al. (2014) found that racially segregated Department by Medicaid Patients and the communities and especially predominantly Evolving Role of Emergency Medicine Physicians,” African-American neighborhoods are more revealed that patients in crowded EDs have a likely to experience a hospital closing than greater likelihood of experiencing long wait predominantly white, Latino or Asian-American times, leaving without being seen by a physician, majority neighborhoods. Nationally, one in three feeling unsatisfied with their care, and having urban African-Americans receive their primary worse medical outcomes including delays in and other care at a hospital while for whites this in diagnosing myocardial infarction and increased about one in six. mortality rates. Horwitz, et al., (2010) reported that only 67% of acutely ill ED patients were seen A 2014 investigation by the Pittsburgh Post- within the recommended times in the US. In Gazette/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed 2009, Pines, et al., reported on the complication that people in poor, urban neighborhoods are 76 Page 19 of 82

11 less healthy than their more affluent neighbors, understanding of the potential health impacts of but more likely to live in areas with physician a proposed project, and makes recommendations shortages and closed hospitals (Thomas, 2014). that could reduce adverse impacts. Importantly, HIA does not endorse or oppose a project or A more detailed review of the medical literature is policy; rather, the purpose of conducting an HIA included in each section below, and suggests that is to inform stakeholders and decision-makers urban hospital closings can have adverse impacts about the population health implications of that disproportionately impact already vulnerable proposed actions, to identify and examine trade- populations - such as the elderly, people of offs, and to encourage the exploration of health color, and the homeless - emergency department promoting alternatives. access, regional emergency management systems, and the local economy. A Rapid or sometimes called a “desktop HIA”, does not include the extensive community and What is Health Impact Assessment (HIA)? stakeholder input of a typical HIA or original data collection, such as surveys. Instead, the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) uses a Rapid HIA (RHIA) utilizes existing data and combination of procedures, methods and tools to limited stakeholder engagement to generate analyze the potential, and sometimes unintended, analyses that can inform ongoing policy debates effects of a policy, plan, program or project on and identify areas for additional study. The the health of a population and the distribution of key stages of the HIA process are highlighted those effects across population groups. HIA is a in Figure 4, and this RHIA includes the first process that aims to create healthier communities three major steps of screening, scoping and by providing decision-makers with an assessment. While there is no single best approach to HIA, each HIA process should reflect the Screening needs of its particular context. This Rapid HIA aims to extend Determining if and why the HIA is necessary the knowledge and awareness Monitoring for communities and decision- Scoping & Evaluation makers about select health Identifying the health equity issues raised by the Measuring and proposed closing of Alta Bates evaluating progress on impacts and scope of the HIA hospital in Berkeley, California. HIA recommendations Health Impact Assessment Reporting Assessment Sharing results and recommendations with Evaluating the health decision makers Recommendations effects and impacts Figure 4. Health Impact Identifying actions and Assessment process risk mitigation strategies to improve health *Figure adapted from Mecklenburg County

77 Page 20 of 82

Scope of this Rapid HIA Since a detailed closing plan, including specific time frames and services, was not provided by On July 27, 2017, the City of Berkeley, California’s Sutter Health, this RHIA was not able to offer Community Health Commission voted to detailed analyses of potential impacts from the authorize a scope of work for a Health Impact removal and/or relocation of inpatient services. Assessment analyzing select impacts from the The RHIA analyses are based on the best and proposed closing of Alta Bates Campus. After most up-to-date information we were able to reviewing this preliminary scope, a revised scope obtain from Sutter Health on the closing and of work was developed by Professor Jason relocation of services from Sutter’s website Corburn and University of California, Berkeley and the Sutter Vision for 2030: https://rebuild. (UCB) researchers at the Institute of Urban and altabatessummit.org. Regional Development (IURD), in consultation with the Health Commission and other City of Key RHIA Focal Areas Berkeley stakeholders. A Rapid HIA screening and scoping document was produced by Based on consultation with the Alta Bates UCB in December 2017. City of Berkeley staff Regional Task Force and key stakeholders, we commented on and suggested revisions to the refined this RHIA to focus on the following areas: initial draft scope of work (SOW). A final SOW was developed by Professor Corburn based on 1. Impacts on vulnerable populations, including feedback and a preliminary review of availability but not limited to low-income, under and data. uninsured populations, people of color, elderly, pregnant women, and those with

Rapid HIA research questions:

Vulnerable How might the proposed closure impact already vulnerable populations populations such as those who are low-income, people of color, the elderly, the uninsured, UC Berkeley students, and expecting mothers?

Emergency How might the proposed closure influence access to emergency Department department care for Bay Area residents, particularly travel times & in the Access event of a major disaster, such as an earthquake or fire?

Regional How might the proposed closure impact local jobs and the regional economy economy, such as from reduced hospital spending?

Figure 5. Rapid Health Impact Assessment guiding research questions

78 Page 21 of 82

limited transportation options; Scenario A: Birthing center closes (Figure 6) 2. Impacts on health care and emergency In this scenario, we hypothesized that the Alta department services for University of Bates Campus birthing center & related prenatal California, Berkeley students; and postpartum care, including the NICU, close 3. Impacts on Emergency Department access and there is some replication of these exact and regional ED capacity; services in any one location in the region. 4. Impacts on Emergency Medical Services (EMS), specifically to paramedic ‘time-on-task;’ Scenario B: Emergency Department closes 5. Impacts on regional hospitals’ disaster (Figure 7) response ED capacity, particularly in the case In this scenario, the Alta Bates Campus ED closes of an earthquake and fire, and; and some additional capacity is provided for at 6. Impacts on local employment and the regional Summit in Oakland. economy. Scenario C: ED closes & regional ED patients Hypothesized Impact Pathways increase (Figure 8) In this scenario, we hypothesized the Alta Based on the six agreed upon focal areas Bates Campus ED closes & the remaining open described above and the three key RHIA hospitals in the region experience increased ED research questions (Figure 5), the research team patients. performed a preliminary review of the scientific literature on hospital closures, ED closures in Scenario D: Disaster & ED access (Figure 9) urban areas and previous studies of the impacts In this scenario, we hypothesized potential of hospital closures, specifically the report on impacts to ED access during a disaster in the the closure of Doctors Medical Center. The absence of Alta Bates Campus. authors of this RHIA hypothesize at least five potential pathways between the closure of Alta Scenario E: Economic Impacts (Figure 10) In this scenario, we hypothesized potential Bates Campus and population health outcomes, economic impacts to jobs and the local economy informed by a preliminary research review. These hypothetical scenarios are highlighted in from the closure of Alta Bates Campus. the Figures 6-10 and described below. In each pathway diagram, a up arrow indicates a likely increase while a down arrow indicates a likely decrease. The hypothetical scenarios helped to further refine our review of the literature and data analysis. The hypothesized pathways of potential impacts from the closing of Alta Bates hospital included:

79 Page 22 of 82

Figure 6. Hypothesized Impacts from Alta Bates Campus birthing center closing

Scenario A:

Birthing High-level expert Center Prenatal care and access Closure birthing care Maternal health within hospital for low income women of color Low birth weight & preterm babies Emergency NICU capacity and newborn care Maternal morbidity, Multi-service services (55 beds and approx. especially for women of labor & deliver 1,000 patients/yr.) color unit closes Knowledge (approx. 6,000 about birth plan & High risk C-sections & births/yr.) Crowding at regional postpartum options episiotomy procedures birth centers

VBAC and exclusive Multi cultural & multi- Access to options breast feeding before lingual labor & delivery care for midwifery & doula discharge services

Figure 7. Hypothesized Impacts from Alta Bates Campus Emergency Department (ED) closing Scenario B:

Emergency Department Delayed treatment Immune function & Urgent and non-urgent + Closure for some infectious & other stress-related physical/ care access for people of chronic diseases mental health outcomes color Severity of illness Familiarity with new due to delayed or lack of Urgent and non-urgent urgent care locations treatment Alta Bates ED closes care for uninsured, (Loss of 22 ED elderly, homeless & other Cost of future disease treatment stations frequent users of ED Stress about where management & mental & redistribute to go & decreased health services approx. 50,000 Urgent and non-urgent quality of urgent care Avoidable patients /yr. care access for UCB students hospitalizations

Emergency room Referrals for mental Infectious disease screening for mental health & health care, esp. for contagion suicide prevention services homeless & students Mental illness & suicides 80 Page 23 of 82

Figure 8. Hypothesized Impacts of Alta Bates Campus ED closing on Emergency Medical Services

Scenario C: Stress for already ED Closure: Immune function & Access to urgent & vulnerable Regional other stress-related health Impacts chronic care for vulnerable populations regarding outcomes + populations across region where to get care Delayed care EMS time-on-task Ambulance travel Severity of illness times Alta Bates Morbidity Emergency Wait times for Patient volume at other Department urgent & non-urgent Avoidable EDs closes care within ED hospitalizations

Ambulance diversions Travel times by private Crowding at all vehicle & transit to regional EDs regional EDs, especially for Cost to local Contra Costa County residents government to Need for costly air provide more EMS services ambulance services

Figure 9. Hypothesized Impacts of a Regional Disaster on ED access without Alta Bates Campus Scenario D:

Disaster Est. 14,000 people Est. 700 Delayed care Events require out-of-home patients medical care in would have Severity of Alameda & Contra used Alta unattended injuries Costa Counties Earthquake along Bates ED in Overcrowding Access to EMS Hayward Fault (i.e., first day & long wait & chronic care HayWired scenario) times at physicians Estimated 1,460 remaining patients to ED @Kaiser regional EDs Mortality Richmond from West Contra Costa County Avoidable Est. 1,400 hospitalizations patients Costs of treatment Fire at Chevron Est. 3,800 patients to would have from delayed care Richmond Refinery ED within the first 3 used Alta days Bates ED

81 Page 24 of 82

Figure 10. Hypothesized Impacts from Alta Bates Closing on Local & Regional Economy

Scenario E:

ED Closure: Regional Impacts $ Some Drs. and nurses go Physicians Clinical staff to other hospitals in region Poverty

Economic inequality Nurses Some Drs. and nurses leave the region Nursing shortage Alta Bates Low wage service Campus Low-wage worker workers closes displacement due to Layoffs - nurses and low unemployment & reduced Local purchases & wage workers incomes spending Local tax base $ to local economy

Hospital visitors to Regional economy local area Spending on food, Local business closures flowers, transit, lodging, etc.

82 Page 25 of 82

Rapid HIA Methodology

A mixed set of methods were used to complete complete OSHPD datasets from 2016. Five year this RHIA. As mentioned above, a detailed estimates from the 2016 US Census, American review of the scientific literature related to Community Survey data were gathered to define hospital closing was conduced to develop the ZIP Code populations and other community-scale hypothesized pathway diagrams and support data demographics in the region. collection. We analyzed hospital and patient data using the California Office of Statewide Health Previously published health outcome data from Planning and Development (OSHPD). The RHIA the Alameda and Contra Costa County Health also includes detailed reviews of reports by local Departments were summarized by ZIP Code. hospital systems, emergency medical providers, In addition, ZIP Code level hospitalization data and county health departments, which helped (2011) was accessed through the Sutter Health us obtain existing utilization information. Key “Health Needs Maps” website (http://www. findings from existing reports and analyses were healthneedsmap.com). All these data are publicly summarized and incorporated into our analyses. available and as such this assessment was exempt from review by the human subjects’ protection Data for multiple years and for multiple hospitals office of the University of California, Berkeley. in the region, including Alta Bates Campus, were obtained from OSHPD. OSHPD conducts Meetings with Sutter Health, City of Berkeley and an annual, standardized survey required of all UC Berkeley’s Tang Health Care providers also hospitals and health services in the state. Each informed the analyses and provided qualitative facility is required to report data on patient data. A list of interviewees & reviewers of a first capacity, inpatient utilization, ED utilization, and draft of this report appears in the appendix. expenditures. We generated summary statistics on hospital and patient utilization for Alta Bates A summary of the inputs used appear in Figure and Summit Campuses, as well as select hospitals 11. A full list of references appears at the end of in the East Bay region. Where possible, we this document. utilized data from 2017, and otherwise reference

Figure 11. Examples of inputs to Rapid HIA

Scientific Literature Reports Existing data Interviews

• PubMed & Google • Alta Bates CHNA • CA Health Inter- • Regional stake- Scholar • Haywired view Survey (CHIS) holders • Ovid, Proquest & • Doctors Medical • OSHPD • UC Tang center Ebscohost Center Closure • City of Berkeley & providers • Web of Science & • County Health De- County EMS • Sutter Health Science Direct partment Surveil- • US Census • UCB students lance Reports

83 Page 26 of 82

18 OVERVIEW OF ALTA BATES

Alta Bates Campus is one of the most utilized hospitals and birthing centers in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, with a total of 66,268 patients in 2016. The hospital service area, in which 75% of patients reside, encompasses 9 cities across the East Bay. The hospital has recently seen a large increase in patients from West ALTA BATES HOSPITAL Contra Costa County after the closure of Doctor’s Medical Center in 2015.

The Alta Bates campus of Alta Bates Summit emergency, acute and specialty care services, Alta Medical Center is a 347-bed acute care hospital, Bates campus is also a major regional birthing located in the city of Berkeley, in North Alameda center. EMERGENCY County, California. Alta Bates was purchased by Sutter Health Corporation and integrated with The Alta Bates Campus currently has 5 buildings Summit Medical Center in Oakland and Herrick that are out of compliance with the Hospital Hospital in Berkeley to form Alta Bates Medical Seismic Safety Law, and must be retrofitted Center in the year 2000. Aside from providing by 2030 or stop providing all inpatient and emergency services.10 These buildings, depicted in Map 2 below, include parts of the general hospital and all of the emergency department.

Map 2. Alta Bates campus and affected buildings

Source: OSHPD, 2018

*map is not drawn to scale 84 Page 27 of 82

347 beds 66,268 patient 16,494 45,900 61% of ER visits 7% of ER visits 19 3rd largest discharges, 2nd highest discharges from ER visits were Medi-Cal were uninsured general acute of non-Kaiser hospitals Contra Costa 5,863 live in 2016 - 7% and Medicare in patients in 2016 in 2016 care facility in in Alameda County County in 2016 births increase since 2016 - highest in the the region 2016 - 31% increase 2013 region since 2013

ALTA BATES HOSPITAL

Figure 11. AB utilization overview 2016

EMERGENCY

We detail Sutter’s response to the seismic the third highest patient diagnosis was infection- upgrade on page 28 below. related, which made up only 6% of hospital admissions.8 Alta Bates Patient Utilization Alta Bates also operates an ambulatory surgery Alta Bates Campus is one of the most utilized center, which conducted 6,975 surgeries and hospitals in Alameda County, and is the 3rd medical procedures in 2016. The most common largest general acute facility in the region. Of its principal diagnoses from the ambulatory surgery 347 beds, the facility currently has 146 general center were: eye disorders (22%), other reasons acute beds, 16 in intensive care, 116 perinatal, 55 in intensive newborn nursery, and 14 15000 coronary care beds.4 12000 In 2016, Alta Bates Campus discharged 66,268 patients, more than any other non-Kaiser 9000 hospital in Alameda County except Highland

Hospital at 81,500. Of the 66,268 patients that 6000 were seen at Alta Bates Berkeley, 19,887 were Patient discharges Patient hospitalized, including 5,930 patients admitted 3000 from the emergency department. Of the 19,887 hospitalized patients, 30% were admitted for a 0 birth-related diagnosis and 33% were admitted Berkeley Albany El Cerrito Richmond San Pablo with a pregnancy-related diagnosis, for a total City of 63% of all hospitalized patients. In 2016, Alta Bates Berkeley delivered 5,863 babies, more than Figure 12. Alta Bates Campus ED patient discharges (2016) any hospital in Contra Costa County or Alameda from cities impacted by the DMC hospital closure County, making it the region’s largest birthing center. After birthing and pregnancy patients, Source: OSHPD, 2016 85 Page 28 of 82

(15%), digestive system (14%), cancer (12%), below on EMS. and genitourinary system (11%). Of the 6,699 surgeries that were performed at the ambulatory Hospital Service Area surgery center in 2016, 60% were related to either eye and ocular surgeries (25%) or digestive For this RHIA, we calculated the Alta Bates surgeries (35%).8 Campus hospital service area (HSA) using the latest available OSHPD (2016) patient origin data. Emergency Department This HSA best reflects the geographic area from which patients are coming from to receive care The Alta Bates Campus has one of the largest at Alta Bates Campus. As we describe below, emergency department (ED) patient volumes the RHIA defined HSA is slightly larger than the in the region, operating over capacity by area Sutter Health defines as the HSA for Alta approximately 6,000 visits per year in 2017. That Bates Summit Medical Center (which includes year the ED had 22 emergency treatment stations, Alta Bates, Summit, and Herrick campuses) in down 3 stations from 2016.3,4 their 2016 Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) report, since we aimed to capture the In 2017 Alta Bates Campus documented 50,414 recent increase in patients coming from West emergency department visits, an additional Contra Costa County. 4,524 visits than 2016, despite having three less treatment stations. 63% of emergency Using all 2016 inpatient and ED origin data, department visits not resulting in admission this RHIA defines the Alta Bates campus HSA to were classified as severe, with 27% being life- include the 32 ZIP Codes in the region where threateningly severe and 36% being non-life- approximately 75% of patients lived. The HSA threateningly severe. Of the remaining visits, spans across 9 cities in Alameda and Contra 27% classified as moderate, 9% were classified as Costa Counties: Oakland, Alameda, Emeryville, low/moderate, and 1% were classified as minor.4 Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Richmond, San Based on our review of the literature it is unlikely Pablo, and El Sobrante (Map 3). While 75% of that the ‘severe’ visits – comprising over 60% of patients in 2016 came from these 32 ZIP Codes, total visits – could be treated in an urgent care 66% of all patients that year came from Alameda facility or primary care setting. County, and 25% from Contra Costa County, for a total of 91% of all patients.6 Given the high volume of ED patient traffic, Alta Bates Campus reported 57 hours of ambulance According to the US Census, the RHIA HSA diversion in 2016, and 13 in 2017.3,4 During these includes 839,299 residents, 44% of which are hours the hospital closed its ED to incoming people of color and 18% of which lived below the ambulances, resulting in those ambulances being poverty line in 2016 (ACS 2012-2016). Roughly diverted to other hospitals. High ambulance 18% of the population in the service area are diversion rates can be an indicator of ED African American and 25% are Hispanic/Latinx. overcrowding, and is associated with poorer In the HSA 25% of the population receives health outcomes for patients as well as lost Medicaid coverage and 11% are uninsured. revenue for hospitals. A more detailed discussion Since people with Medicaid and the uninsured on ED access and impact of an Alta Bates Campus may utilize a hospital for primary care more than closure on the regional emergency medical those with other health insurance, there are services network can be found in the section approximately 301,146 people in the HSA that

86 Page 29 of 82

Map 3. Rapid Health Impact Assessment defined Hospital Service Area (HSA) 32 ZIP Codes from which 75% of all Alta Bates Campus patients came from in 2016

Source: OSHPD POMS, 2016

ZIP Code Community 94806 San Pablo

94803 El Sobrante

Richmond 94805 East Richmond 94804 South Richmond 94801 Richmond - North, Iron Triangle, Point Richmond

94530 El Cerrito

94706 Albany

Berkeley Oakland 94720 UC Berkeley Campus 94621 East Oakland / Coliseum 94710 West Berkeley / Marina 94619 Oakland Hills / Laurel 94709 Northside Berkeley 94618 Rockridge 94708 Tilden/Berkeley Hills 94613 Mills Campus 94707 North Berkeley / Kensington 94612 Downtown Oakland 94705 Claremont / Elmwood 94611 Piedmont / Oakland Montclair 94605 Oakand Hills / Eastmont 94704 Berkeley Downtown / South 94610 Oakland Grand Lake / 94603 East Oakland / Brookefield of Campus Lakeshore 94602 Oakland / Glenview 94703 Northwest Berkeley 94609 Oakland MLK 94601 East Oakland / Fruitvale 94702 Northwest Berkeley 94607 West Oakland / Jack London 94501 Alameda 94606 Oakand / Cleveland Heights 94608 Emeryville

87 Page 30 of 82

RHIA defined 839,299 18% of population below 36% of population Alta Bates residents 100% of the federal poverty level below 200% of the Campus federal poverty level hospital service area 32 ZIP codes 44% People of Color

may seek non-urgent care at Alta Bates Campus. differences in the Sutter CHNA defined service area and the RHIA defined service area in Figure Health outcome data also suggests that residents 14 and Map 5. Rather than include patients from in the Alta Bates Campus HSA experience health all three campuses in the Alta Bates Summit inequities and disproportionate rates of illness Medical Center, the RHIA defines the HSA solely and injury including asthma, diabetes, assault, for the Alta Bates Campus, in order to identify unintentional injury, and substance abuse specific needs of the Alta Bates Campus patient compared to the State of California and both population and evaluate impacts of the proposed Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (Figure 15) campus closure. (Sutter Health, 2013).

According to Sutter Health’s 2016 Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) report, the Figure 14. Alta Bates Hospital Service Areas: HSA defined for all three campuses (Alta Bates, RHIA & CHNA defined Herrick, and Summit) included 24 ZIP codes in Source: ACS 2012-2016 estimates Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville, what they call their “core market.” Approximately 20% of RHIA defined CHNA defined this population lives below the poverty line and service area service area We highlight the about 59% are People of Color. Population 839,299 557,296

Number of Cities 9 3

Figure 13. Increased Alta Bates discharges from Number of Zip 32 24 Contra Costa County & regional zip-codes Codes

2016 20000 2013

10000 Patient discharges Patient

0 Contra Costa County 94530, 94801, 94803, 94804, 94805 and 94806 Source: OSHPD, 2013 & 2016 Area

88 Page 31 of 82

We determined that the larger number of (94530, 94801, 94803, 94804, 94805 and 94806) residents from West Contra Costa County located in West Contra Costa County (Map utilizing Alta Bates Campus in recent years 4). From 2013 through 2016, there was a 24% demanded that we expand the HSA to include increase in patients visiting Alta Bates Campus these communities in our analyses (Figure 13). from Contra Costa County and a 39% increase in The increase in patients from West Contra Costa patients visiting Alta Bates Campus from the six County can be partly attributed to the closure zip codes above.5,6 of Doctor’s Medical Center (DMC) in the city of San Pablo, California in 2015. Of the 66,268 Since these communities are in close proximity patients that visited Alta Bates Campus in 2016, to Kaiser Richmond (which has limited ED approximately 18% were from 6 zip codes in capacity and primarily serves Kaiser members) Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, and El Sobrante the closure of Alta Bates Campus is likely to

Map 4. Large volume increases in Alta Bates ED discharges from West Contra Costa County 2013 - 2016 Source: OSHPD, 2013 & 2016

H Alta Bates campus

West Contra Costa County in the RHIA defined service area Additional Cities in the HSA

89 Page 32 of 82

24 have a significant adverse impact on access had the highest health risks and death rates to ED and hospital care for residents of West (particularly for African American men) from Contra Costa County. These same communities heart disease, all cancers, diabetes, stroke and are also some of the most vulnerable in terms of homicides. having the largest African-American populations, • African Americans in Richmond had 254 having preexisting health conditions and being asthma hospitalizations and ED visits per uninsured. 10,000 people, compared to 105 for all racial/ ethnic groups. For example, according to Contra Costa Health • The rates of sexually transmitted infections Services 2010 Community Health Indicators and people living with HIV/AIDS are Report: significantly higher in Richmond than in Contra Costa County. • African Americans in Contra Costa had a • A larger percentage of Hispanic students shorter life expectancy (73 years) than any in Richmond high schools reported other racial/ethnic group in the county. contemplating suicide than other students, • African Americans also experienced higher according to the 2011 California Healthy Kids rates of new cases of colorectal, lung and Survey, Grades 9-11. prostate cancer, new cases of HIV and AIDS, hospitalization for non-fatal assault and self- The RHIA addresses potential impacts of the inflicted injuries, low birth weight infants and proposed hospital closure on vulnerable teen births, and a higher percent overweight populations served by Alta Bates on page 30 of and obese fifth-graders. this report. • The communities of Richmond and San Pablo

Figure 15. ED Visits by Cause: Comparing the RHIA defined Alta Bates Campus HSA to State and County Rates Source: Sutter Health Needs Maps, 2013

1000 HSA 75% 800 State of CA Alameda County Contra Costa County 600

400 ED visits per 10,000 residents

200

0 Asthma Type II Diabetes Assault Unintentional Substance Injury Abuse Cause for visit

90 Page 33 of 82

Map 5. Comparing RHIA & CHNA defined 2016 CHNA defined Alta RHIA defined Alta Bates H Alta Bates Hospital Service Areas Bates Summit Medical Campus HSA Campus Center HSA Source: OSHPD POMS, 2016 & Alta Bates Summit Medical Center CHNA, 2016 91 Page 34 of 82

26 SUMMIT CAMPUS IMPACTS

Campus Utilization & Capacity to Absorb Alta Bates Patients

The Summit Campus includes an emergency room and hospital with 403 licensed beds in 2017. Sutter has indicated that all inpatient and emergency care capacity at Alta Bates Campus will be relocated to the Summit Campus by 2030. However key details about the expansion as well as the capacity for the Summit Campus to absorb an additional 40,000 ED patients remains in question.

The Summit Campus hospital on Hawthorne Of the approximate 47,000 ED patients in 2017 Avenue in Oakland includes an emergency (including those later admitted to the hospital), department (ED) and a new patient pavilion 35% were classified as severe and life threatening, that was renovated in 2014. Despite the recent 33% were classified as severe but not life renovation and a current emergency department threatening, 25% were moderate, 6% were low/ expansion underway, 9 buildings at the Summit moderate, and 1% was minor.4 Campus do not currently meet seismic standards, and must be retrofitted or stop all inpatient and Since the closure of the Alta Bates Campus ED services by 2030 (Map 6).10 catheterization lab, the Summit campus has become the central heart attack and ST- In 2017, Summit Campus saw a total of 60,038 Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patient patients, both hospitalized and from the ED. receiving location. The hospital performed 345 47,117 patients were seen in the ED, of which cardiovascular surgery operations in 2016, and 25% were admitted to the same hospital. In 2017, saw 2,531 cardiac catheterization patients (1,106 Summit had 25 ED treatment stations, down from diagnostic 1,425 therapeutic), which resulted in 32 stations the year prior.4 3,426 catheterization procedures in total.8

92 Page 35 of 82

27 Summit Campus at a glance in 2017

47,117 25 403 147,095 60,038 29 0 Total Total Emergency EMS Treatment Licensed Licensed Bed Days Total patients Diversion Live Department Patients Stations Beds per year Hours Births

The Summit Campus does not currently have the In the case of a relocation of all ED services from capacity to serve the volume of patients seen at Alta Bates Campus to Summit, the total patient the Alta Bates Campus, particularly for birthing volume at Summit Campus would exceed any and emergency care. Emergency Department in the East Bay or San Francisco, including SF General, the highest traffic Summit currently does not operate a birthing ED in the broader region which had 72,716 ED center, and relocating services to Summit would encounters in 2016.8 require that a new birthing facility be built at the Oakland campus, with the capacity to deliver nearly 6,000 babies per year.

To replace Alta Bates Campus emergency department, Summit Campus would need to expand its capacity by an additional 50,000 emergency department visits per year (the number of ED patients seen at Alta Bates campus in 2017), for an approximate total of 100,000 visits annually.

Map 6. Summit Campus and affected buildings *map is not drawn to scale

Source: OSHPD, 2018

93 Page 36 of 82

Sutter Health Plans for Summit Campus Expansion

Sutter Health is proposing to relocate all East Will the new facility in Oakland be able to Bay inpatient and emergency services to its provide enough emergency care? Summit Campus in Oakland. The Sutter website dedicated to the proposed closure of Alta Sutter response: Bates Campus (https://rebuild.altabatessummit. org), indicates that Sutter plans to build a new We plan to enlarge, upgrade and strengthen the acute care medical center and ED at the Summit current Summit Emergency Room so that we have location by the year 2030. the capacity to handle more than 90,000 ER visits a year. By the year 2030, we plan to completely The following section outlines select Frequently rebuild our ER within a second critical care tower Asked Questions (FAQs) and responses from to be constructed at the Summit Campus. Sutter regarding the hospital closure, along with the RHIA’s relevant key findings. RHIA analysis:

We detail the ED impacts throughout this report. What services will Sutter Health continue to A key finding is that the new Summit Campus ED provide in Berkeley? will need a capacity of approximately 100,000 visits per year, but plans to serve 90,000.4 This Sutter response: exceeds the number of visits seen by any ED in the East Bay or San Francisco. We are committed to making future investments in Berkeley and see it as a primary location to Oakland is farther away than Berkeley from provide outpatient care. Our Herrick Campus on where I live. What if I’m having a heart attack or a Dwight Way has been identified by the city as a stroke and need to call 9-1-1? prime location to deliver medical services. We plan to expand Herrick’s services, which include Sutter response: our Comprehensive Cancer Center and Behavioral Health program. In addition, we currently have Any non-Kaiser patient in the Alta Bates Summit three large care centers, including our newest one service area calling 9-1-1 today for a heart attack near the Herrick Campus on Milvia Street, where or stroke is already transported to our Oakland people can also visit our urgent care center. campus, where we have one of the most advanced heart centers in California. Additionally, the RHIA analysis: Summit Campus ER is located next to two major freeways (I-580 and I-980) in Oakland. It’s actually Since we did not have details from Sutter on what faster for most patients in the East Bay – including services will remain at Alta Bates Campus, we those from West Contra Costa County – to get focused on impacts to the birthing center and ED. to our Oakland campus than it is for them to get to our Berkeley campus, especially during an emergency.

94 Page 37 of 82

RHIA analysis: with more capacity, many are choosing to utilize the Alta Bates Campus ED which was operating We offer a detailed travel time analyses in the above capacity by over 6,000 visits in 2017. Emergency Services section, on page 43. We found that private vehicle and transit travel times What happens next? will increase for some communities. Where travel time increases exceed 30 minutes, the literature Sutter response: suggest patients will experience adverse health outcomes. Planning a project of this scale takes years and must be thoroughly vetted and collaboratively What will happen to the Summit Campus? developed. We will keep our community informed with accurate and timely information. Sutter response: This transition must be planned far in advance to ensure the community’s ongoing health needs are In August 2014, the new 238-bed patient care met without interruption. Please visit this site for tower opened at the Summit Campus in Oakland. updates or use the information on the Contact Us This new tower meets the state’s 2030 seismic page to reach out to us. regulations and is equipped with the latest technology, ensuring the highest level of medical RHIA analysis: care and patient safety. We plan to create a modern footprint at this campus that will allow us Our review of the literature suggests that the to build another building – a second pavilion – that timing of events is crucial to prevent adverse will include new operating rooms, intensive care impacts to those seeking both chronic and urgent units, a modern, expanded Emergency Room and care. A more detailed plan would be necessary, space for our Women and Infants Birthing Center including public awareness and engagement, and Newborn Intensive Care Unit. It is our plan to ensure treatment options are clearly to relocate inpatient and emergency hospital communicated to current Alta Bates patients and services, including all staff and doctors, from those seeking urgent care in the region. Berkeley to Oakland by 2030.

RHIA analysis: *All Sutter Health website text referenced reflects updates As noted above, needs at an expanded Summit as of June 7th 2018 Campus would include a comprehensive birthing center and significantly increased capacity in the ED. The Summit Campus is located less than 3 blocks away from the Kaiser Oakland ED. Although Kaiser Oakland is not accessible to all patients, its ED has the capacity to see 96,000 visits per year, and was operating 32,313 visits below capacity in 2017. Summit currently has the capacity to see 50,000 ED visits per year, but was operating under capacity by 2,883 visits in 2017.4 This suggests that while patients currently have the option to utilize Summit Campus or other EDs ALTA BATES HOSPIT95 AL

EMERGENCY Page 38 of 82

30 IMPACT ON VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

Vulnerable populations are more likely to be impacted by the proposed closure of Alta Bates Campus, this includes low-income and people of color, Medi-Cal and Medicare patients, pregnant women, and the homeless.

Uninsured Excess burden on already vulnerable people People of color Increased health inequities Vulnerable Elderly Increased morbidity populations Pregnant women Increased mortality Homeless Delayed critical care

The Alta Bates Campus and ED provide key ALTA BATES PATIENT medical services to a high volume of patients from DEMOGRAPHICS 2016 vulnerable populations in the Bay Area region which include but are not limited to: pregnant women, People of Color, low-income, uninsured and Medi- of ED patients and of Cal patients, the elderly, and people living with 56% 63% disabilities. While people of color make up 44% of hospitalized patients were people of color the Alta Bates campus Hospital Service Area (HSA), they represented 63% of hospitalized patients and 56% of ED patients in 2016. An additional 41% of 41% of patients are uninsured/self patients in 2016 were Medi-Cal recipients or self pay or are Medi-Cal recipients pay/uninsured, and 23% of hospitalized patients were over 60.8

A wealth of evidence suggests that vulnerable 23% of hospitalized patients are elderly populations may be more severely impacted by hospital closures, and should be taken into special consideration in the context of Alta Bates and the capacity of the East Bay regional of inpatient discharges were 68% healthcare network. Chen et al (2015) found women that vulnerable populations, particularly African American and Medicaid patients, have higher measures of non-urgent ED scores, and are more 96 Page 39 of 82

frequent users of the ED for both non-urgent Pregnant Women & Newborn Babies and urgent reasons. A 2011 study looking at major medical services such as outpatient care, As noted above, Alta Bates Campus is one of the specialty care, marker conditions, births, and region’s premier birthing centers. The age and mental health and substance abuse services gender distribution of hospitalized Alta Bates found that urban hospital closures led to Campus patients reflects the high utilization of disproportionate disruptions in accessing care, its birthing and pregnancy-related services: in especially for uninsured African-Americans and 2016, 68% (13,564) of inpatient discharges were Latinx populations, and all women on Medicaid female, and 32% (6,322) of inpatient discharges hospitalized for births (Hsia & Shen, 2011). were male. 30% (6,018) of inpatient discharges were for patients under 1 year old, reflecting high The ED visit rate to Alta Bates Campus for utilization of birthing and the NICU.8 In 2016, Alta patients living in low-income ZIP Codes (i.e., Bates Campus had 2,145 more births than Kaiser the lowest quartile), increased 23% from 2006 San Leandro, the second largest birthing center in to 2014. There was no change in ED visits for the region that year (Figure 17).3 patients living in higher-median-income ZIP Codes over this same period. This is not a surprise While being one of the most highly utilized finding, but it does suggest that the Alta Bates birthing centers in the region, Alta Bates Campus Campus ED currently serves an increasingly has some of the best health outcomes for birthing number of low-income residents in the Bay Area. services when compared to other regional birthing centers and CA state averages (Cal Hospital Compare, 2018). As depicted in Figure

Figure 16. Outcomes for Largest birthing centers in Alameda & Contra Costa Counties, 2016

Lower is better Higher is better % C-Section in Low-risk Exclusive breastfeeding % Vaginal birth after % Episiotomy pregnancies before discharge % C-Section (VBAC)

Alta Bates Campus 19.4 2.8 86.5 33.2

John Muir - Walnut 23 7.2 73.7 20.8 Creek

Kaiser - San 20.2 6.9 80.7 21.8 Leandro

State of CA Average 25 9.1 68.5 12.3

*numbers are reported as percentages (Adapted from CA Health Care Foundation & CHART 2014) 97 Page 40 of 82

16, Alta Bates Campus reports the 6000 lowest regional rates for C-Section 5000 in low-risk pregnancies and

episiotomy procedures, which 4000 can put mothers at risk for post surgical complications. Alta Bates 3000 Campus also has the highest rates Live Births for exclusive breastfeeding before 2000 discharge and vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC) which are both 1000 positive birth indicators for mothers 0 and newborns. Alta Bates Kaiser San Kaiser Kaiser John Muir Contra Costa Berkeley Leandro Walnut Creek Oakland Walnut Regional Alta Bates Campus also has an (not open in Creek Medical Center active 55-bed, level III newborn 2013) Hospital/Birthing Center intensive care unit, operated by a 200-person healthcare team (Sutter Figure 17. Number of live births across regional birthing centers 2016 Health, 2018). Compared to other Source: OSHPD, 2016 birthing centers in the region, the Alta Bates Campus NICU has experienced a region, particularly in the short term. While Sutter consistently high occupancy rate and discharged plans to open a new regional birthing center at a high volume of newborns. In 2016, the NICU the Summit campus in Oakland, the timing and was at nearly 60% occupancy and discharged 964 specific services that will be offered have not been patients, 350 more than John Muir Walnut Creek, disclosed. which had the second highest number of live births for a non-Kaiser hospital. That year, John People of Color Muir Walnut Creek had a NICU occupancy rate of 27% with 614 patient discharges.3 Alta Bates Campus serves diverse communities in terms of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, Lorch et al (2013) found that when hospital and hospital and emergency department patients obstetric units in Philadelphia closed, neonatal have consistently included a high proportion of and fetal mortality increased almost 50% in the low-income and people of color. first three years after the closure compare to surrounding counties where hospitals did not In 2016, 63% of inpatient discharges and 56% close. This study also found that low income of emergency department discharges were for women tended to receive their prenatal care at people of color (African American, Hispanic/ the hospital, not a doctor’s office, and this may Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander or Native American). have also had an impact on birth outcomes. Of the 63% of inpatient discharges for people of color, 22% were African American, 25% Given the comprehensive prenatal, labor and were Hispanic/Latino, 16% were Asian/Pacific delivery, postpartum and specialty newborn care Islander. White patients made up 32% of all 2016 provided at the Alta Bates Campus as well as discharges. For the ED, 56% of discharges were the high volume of births, we determined that people of color, including 38% African American, the hospital closure will likely have an adverse 14% Hispanic/Latino, and 10% Asian/Pacific impact on maternal and newborn health in the Islander. White patients made up 38% of 2016 ED 98 Page 41 of 82

discharges.8 African American people in particular portion of preventable ED use can be addressed were overrepresented in both inpatient and ED by improved access to primary care, EDs still serve discharges from Alta Bates in 2016, making up as an essential care provider for those unable to only 18% of the population in the RHIA defined access care by other means. Chen et al. (2015) Alta Bates Hospital Service Area (HSA). found that lower-income vulnerable populations, particularly African Americans and Medicaid Within the Alta Bates HSA, an estimated 20% of patients, more frequently utilized the ED for both the population has limited English proficiency; non-urgent and urgent reasons, and these same this figure is higher than both Alameda (18%) and populations tended to utilize the hospital ED for Contra Costa Counties (14%) (ACS 2012-2016). medical conditions that could be addressed in a Limited English proficiency can create language primary care setting. barriers between patients and providers, but can also contribute to decreased healthcare With high rates of ED and hospital service utilization particularly when a patient must access utilization, and representing large percentage a relocated or unfamiliar facility. of the population in the HSA, people of color will be disproportionately burdened by the Fishman et al (2018) studied ED and clinic usage closure of Alta Bates Campus. We are especially in Chicago and found that patients living in concerned with access for both urgent and non- medically under-served areas (MUAs) and areas urgent conditions, and the continuity of care with lower spatial access to primary care clinics for people of color that are already relying on had higher odds of preventable ED use. Analyzing Alta Bates’ ED for regular care. Related to the data from the National Hospital Ambulatory closure of Alta Bates Campus, we would expect Care Survey, Johnson et al. (2012) observed short term (first 1-3 years) delays in seeking higher preventable ED use among those who treatment, increased severity of some diseases, were female, non-Hispanic black or Hispanic, increased hospitalizations due to delays in older, or publicly insured, and that areas with seeking care, increased costs of treatment (i.e., large concentrations of ethnic and racial minority medications, doctor visits, etc.) and potentially populations have been shown to have high rates increased morbidity and mortality (especially from of preventable use of EDs. While a significant conditions already disproportionately burdening

60 Figure 18. Percent race/ ethnicity in the HSA 50 compared to county and

40 state rates

Source: ACS 2012-2016 30 Percent

20 HSA 75%

10 Alameda County Contra Costa County 0 African American Hispanic/Latinx Asian White Race/Ethnicity 99 Page 42 of 82

34 people of color such as diabetes, heart disease and asthma) for people of color in the region. The high utilization of the ED for both urgent Uninsured & Publicly Insured Patients and non-urgent conditions raises an opportunity in the Bay Area for increased coordination and As discussed above, Alta Bates Campus serves communication between primary, urgent, and a large number of low-income patients. In the emergency care providers. While the region HSA, over 18% of the population lives below the has a network of urgent care facilities that may federal poverty level, and 36% of the population be able to absorb some of the preventable ED live below 200% of the federal poverty level. This patient traffic, urgent care hours of operation and has a large impact on children and young people, insurance plans accepted may still pose barriers as 61% of public school students are eligible for to low-income and people of color. free/reduced price lunch, compared to 44% in Alameda County and 40% in Contra Costa County. People with Disabilities This is consistent with the high rate of Medi-Cal covered patients (25%) and uninsured patients According to the US Census, 95,840 people or (11%) in the hospital service area (ACS 2012- 11% of the population in the HSA are living with 2016). a disability, of which at least 61% are racial/ ethnic minorities. White people represent 44% Alta Bates Campus’ 2016 expected payer sources of the population in the HSA, however they make (Figure 19) for emergency department patients up only 9% of people living with disabilities. highlights that a large percentage of Alta Bates Conversely, the Native American and Pacific patients are from vulnerable populations, as Islander populations, which combined constitute 68% of Alta Bates ED patients were expected to less than 2% of the total HSA population, pay via either Medicare, Medi-Cal or were self- represent 31% of people living with disabilities in pay/uninsured.8 Medicare serves populations the area. over 65 and also serves people with disabilities. People utilizing Medicare represent vulnerable While this RHIA does not frame disability as a populations, such as the aging/elderly, medical condition, we recognize that people socioeconomically vulnerable and people with living with disabilities may be adversely impacted disabilities. Medi-Cal serves socioeconomically by the closure of Alta Bates Campus due to vulnerable populations, by qualifying people/ transportation barriers and increased distance, families that are at 138% of the federal poverty unfamiliarity with relocated services, and other level or below (i.e. $28,677 annually for a family accessibility challenges. of 3), which is very low-income for California and especially the Bay Area (DHCS, 2018). Figure 19. Alta Bates 2% Campus expected payer 7% Uninsured patients are also extremely vulnerable, source 2016 as uninsured patients can include patients that Source: OSHPD, 2016 are low-income, homeless and/or undocumented immigrants. Hsia et al (2013), found that between 34% 26% Unknown 2005-2010 in California, ED visits by Medicaid Self-pay/uninsured beneficiaries increased by 14%, significantly Medicare higher than privately insured patients. According to the 2006 California Health Care Foundation 31% Private insurance Medi-cal 100 Page 43 of 82

report, Overuse of Emergency Departments “I know seniors that don’t drive and used to regularly use Among Insured DMC (Doctor’s Medical Center, San Pablo) for speciality and Californians, even insured emergency situations. Now that DMC is closed, some have to patients can be more travel 2 hours by public transportation to see speciality doctors. frequent ED users than That has a huge impact on whether or not they receive care.” uninsured patients, particularly those with - Local government official, Bay Area Medicaid coverage, which still leaves them with difficulties in accessing primary care. and inpatient care. The California Health Care Foundation noted that due to seniors’ high rate The Aging & Elderly of hospitalizations, acute care hospital days are projected to increase by 76% from 2000-2030, and by 2030, the 65+ group is projected to use Aging people and the elderly (60+ years old) over half of the state’s acute care days, despite account for a disproportionately high percentage representing only 18% of the population. of inpatient discharges and emergency department visits at both Alta Bates and Summit The CA Health Care Foundation suggests that Campuses. Despite representing only 18% of by 2030 there will be an insufficient number of the population in the RHIA defined HSA In 2016, acute care beds in the SF Bay Area due to the the 60+ year old population accounted for increasing numbers of hospitalized elderly. And, approximately 23% of inpatient discharges and considering the high utilization of the emergency over 30% of emergency department visits at the department by the 60+ year old population and Alta Bates Campus. That same year, the 60+ year the quick growth rate of that demographic, it is old population accounted for approximately unlikely that a new emergency facility designed 65% of inpatient visits and 39% of emergency to meet current capacity would be able to department visits at the Summit Campus. 8 accommodate the combined growth of the elderly and regional population, which could impact The aging and elderly population is expected to timely care for all patients needing to access increase in the coming decades. According to emergency treatment. the Public Policy Institute of California, the 65+ year old population is expected to grow 87% A study that included focus groups with seniors from 2012 to 2030, and the California Health two years after the closing of a Pittsburgh hospital Care Foundation has similar findings, noting that (Countouris et al 2014) found that seniors’ health California’s 65+ year old population is projected was adversely impacted from a combination of to more than double from 2000 to 2030, growing feelings of sadness and loss, fear of finding a new, to 8.8 million. unfamiliar facility, and powerlessness. Elderly in this study also expressed concerns about having In 2012, the RHIA defined HSA had a 65+ year to navigate a new facility/location, uncertainty old population of 93,537, and with an 87% about transportation that resulted in canceled growth projection, will reach 174,914 in 2030 doctor’s appointments, and higher parking (ACS 2008 - 2012). This growing population is costs at the new facility. Bindman et al (1990) critical to consider because this age group is found that hospital closures resulted in delayed among the highest users of both emergency treatment for the uninsured and elderly because 101 Page 44 of 82

36 of inconveniences and difficulties in finding new 2016, almost 4% of ED patients were transferred providers. to psychiatric care.8 Since the hospital ED is often associated with traumatic events, it is the ideal Buchmueller et al (2006) revealed that hospital environment to perform suicide risk assessments. closures in the Los Angeles area increased travel Individuals in a suicidal crisis often seek help at distances to ED and ancillary care and contributed a hospital ED. EDs also frequently provide care to an increase in heart attack deaths, most notably for people with other risk factors for suicide, for the region’s elderly population. such as serious mental illness, substance use disorders and chronic pain. The ED visit is an This RHIA suggests that the elderly and uninsured important window of opportunity, however brief, will be adversely impacted from the closure of to intervene and save lives (Ahmedani et al 2014). Alta Bates Campus, both due to ED and chronic care needs. The elderly living in the HSA may be EDs can reduce suicide attempts among high- most adversely impacted if an adequate number risk patients by delivering a combination of of beds are not provided (such as at the Summit interventions that includes suicide risk screening, campus), due to their increasing numbers and discharge resources, and other interventions (Betz inpatient needs. The uninsured and publicly et al 2016; Larkin & Beautrais, 2010). A multi-site insured will be adversely impacted from the lack study found that when compared to treatment as of access to a familiar ED for both chronic and usual, a combined set of interventions starting in urgent medical needs. We expect, especially the ED resulted in a 5% decrease in the proportion in the short term, interruptions and delays in of patients who attempted suicide in the 52 weeks seeking care, increased severity of disease, after their initial ED visit and an overall 30% drop potential greater spread of infections, increased in the total suicide attempts (Miller et al 2017). need for costly future care and potentially increased hospitalizations. We are less confident The presence of the Herrick Campus, with its in the possibility of increased mortality, but this is comprehensive mental health services, may be a possibility especially for the elderly. able to accommodate any potential delays in care for those currently utilizing Alta Bates Campus. Mental health & Suicide Prevention Significant impacts on mental health for the population in the HSA from the closing of Alta While the Sutter Herrick Campus in Berkeley Bates Campus may be difficult to quantify. is a designated site for mental health care, the Alta Bates Campus ED plays a significant role in Homeless People treating and identifying mental health patients that may first be seen through emergency care. In Homeless people and families, some with mental 2018, the Lancet Public Health journal published, health care needs, tend to rely on the ED for “Suicide in the USA: A Public Health Emergency” care (Karaca et al 2013). Nearly three out of four noting that the rate of mental health/ substance inpatient stays by homeless individuals began abuse-related ED visits increased 44% from 2006 in the ED, compared with half of stays for non- to 2014, with suicidal ideation growing 415% over homeless patients. Due to multiple barriers in this period. accessing care, including lack of insurance and transportation as well as poor continuity of care, The Alta Bates Campus ED acts as a first- homeless people frequently use EDs as their responder to screen for, intervene and refer for primary or only source of health care. mental health care and suicide prevention. In 102 Page 45 of 82

A 2002 study by Kushel et al. examined the recent quicknotes memo published by OSHPD factors associated with emergency room visits suggests that the number of homeless patients among 2,578 homeless and marginally housed has been historically underreported (OSHPD, persons. They found that 40.4% of the 2,578 2018). visited an emergency room one time or more during the previous year, and that less-stable We find that the loss of Alta Bates Campus and housing, chronic illness and victimization were its critical emergency and mental health care associated with emergency department use services may have an impact on the surrounding among homeless and marginally housed persons. area’s homeless population, particularly if the The study also suggests that emergency care is increasing trends in homeless patients seeking a primary option for homeless and marginally emergency care continue. housed persons due to convenience and 24-hour operation, and because they face challenges Adverse Impacts on Vulnerable Communities in in addressing medical needs outside of an the Alta Bates Health Service Area emergency setting. Alta Bates Campus currently serves some of the In 2017, many Bay Area hospitals reported most vulnerable communities in the Bay Area, increases in homeless patients from the prior year. such as those mentioned above in West Contra Figure 20 shows the total number of homeless Costa County as well as many communities in patients that visited the Alta Bates Campus and 5 other major East Bay regional hospitals in 2017, and the volume increase in patients Figure 20. Total Homeless patients at select East Bay hospitals from 2016. Kaiser Richmond and Kaiser 2016 - 20176 Oakland combine hospital data, and are represented as one site in the analysis. The figure highlights that all six hospitals saw a significant increase in the number of patients from 2016 to 2017, with the Alta Bates Campus seeing nearly a 600% increase in homeless patients, rising from 60 to 409. Highland Hospital had the smallest percentage increase in homeless patients but served 1,118 homeless patients in 2017. Importantly, aside from Highland and the Herrick Campus, at least 89% of homeless patients seen were either emergency department patients or inpatient from the emergency department, underscoring how essential emergency room care is for the homeless and marginally housed. 6

While the cause behind the increases Alta Bates Kaiser Herrick Contra Costa Summit Highland in annual reported homeless patients Campus Oakland/ Campus Regional Campus across Bay Area hospitals is unclear, a Richmond Medical Center 103 Page 46 of 82

Oakland and other parts of Alameda County. developed what the report calls the ‘Community Community vulnerability includes not just current- Health Vulnerability Index’ (CHVI), which day utilization of hospital care, but the likelihood combines the following indicators of community of future needs based on health-influencing vulnerability into one CHVI index value (Map 7): risks, such as poverty, low education, housing displacement, exposure to pollution and violence. • Percent Minority These same communities are also vulnerable • Population 5 Years or Older Who Speak since a large percentage of the populations living Limited English there have preexisting health conditions that • Percent 25 or Older Without a High School require chronic care. Diploma • Percent Unemployed The 2016 Alta Bates Summit Medical Center • Percent Families with Children in Poverty Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) • Percent Households 65 years or Older in recognized these vulnerable communities as Poverty the medical center’s “communities of concern.” • Percent Single Female-Headed Households in The 2016 CHNA identified 13 ‘vulnerable Poverty community’ ZIP Codes that represented 65% of • Percent Renter-Occupied Households the population served by all three campuses in • Percent Uninsured the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center. For this report we were not able to calculate CHVI Figure 21. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center CHNA scores for the additional ZIP Codes included in Communities of Concern the RHIA defined HSA using the 2016 CHNA Source: Alta Bates Summit Medical Center CHNA, 2016 ZIP Code Community Map 7: 2016 CHNA defined service area CHVI scores 94601 East Oakland/Fruitvale 94602 Oakland/Glenview Source: Alta Bates Summit Medical 94603 East Oakland/Brookefield Center CHNA, 2016 Berkeley 94605 East Hills/Oakland Zoo 94606 Oakland/Cleveland Heights Emeryville 94607 West Oakland/Jack London 94608 Emeryville Oakland 94609 Oakland/MLK 94612 Downtown Oakland 94621 East Oakland 94702 Northwest Berkeley 94703 Northwest Berkeley 94710 West Berkeley/Marina

To identify communities of concern in the 2016 CHNA defined hospital service area, the CHNA authors identified significant health needs and

104 Page 47 of 82

39 methodology. However, we reviewed each of rates to those in Oakland, Emeryville, and parts the CHVI indicators to assess the vulnerability of of Berkeley, in Alameda County. In addition to the additional ZIP Codes (primarily communities the review of CHVI indicators, we reviewed data in West Contra Costa County) using ACS 2012- compiled by Sutter Health on their interactive 2016 estimates. This review indicated that many Health Needs Maps website. The website communities in West Contra County likely meet provides 2011 data on hospitalization and ED visit the same standard of vulnerability as the 13 rates by condition, reported per 10,000 residents communities of concern in the 2016 CHNA, which and aggregated by ZIP Code. We compared did not include any ZIP Codes outside of Alameda the following 11 available reported causes County. The vulnerable communities from West (conditions) for ED visits and hospitalizations Contra Costa County include ZIP Codes within across all ZIP Codes in the RHIA defined hospital Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, and El Sobrante; service area (HSA): cities for which Alta Bates Campus saw a 39% increase in discharges between 2014-2016. 1. Asthma 2. COPD Maps 8 & 9 highlight select CHVI indicators for 3. Diabetes communities in the RHIA defined HSA. As both 4. Heart disease maps indicate, communities in West Contra Costa 5. Hypertension show high levels of vulnerability at comparable 6. Mental health

Map 9: Percent of Families (with Children) in Poverty across Map 8: Percent Uninsured across Census Tracts in the RHIA Census Tracts in the RHIA defined Service Area defined Service Area

Source: Community Commons, 2018 Source: Community Commons, 2018 105 Page 48 of 82

7. Assault and is 1st for stroke, 2nd for diabetes and heart 8. Self-inflicted injury disease, 3rd for asthma and 4th for injury-assault. 9. Unintentional injury 10. Stroke The 94804 South Richmond ZIP Code ranked 11. Substance abuse 1st in heart disease-related ED visits, and the 94806 San Pablo and 94804 Richmond Iron From this data, we identified high need ZIP Codes Triangle ZIP Codes were ranked 3rd and 4th for that fell within the top quartile relative to all zip highest incidence of diabetes-related inpatient codes in the HSA for each condition. We then hospitalization. As highlighted in Figures 23 and ranked the top10 ZIP Codes in order of highest 24, many of the high health care need ZIP Codes need (those that fell within the top quartile most experienced ED visit rates greatly exceeding often for the 11 conditions). those of both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties as well as the state of California in 2011. Figure 22. High Health Care Need Communities in the RHIA defined HSA While there are many vulnerable communities in the RHIA defined HSA that fall outside of West ZIP Code Community Contra Costa County (primarily in Oakland and Emeryville), these communities are currently 94801 Richmond/Iron Triangle served by existing services at the Summit 94804 South Richmond Campus, as well as Highland Hospital and Kaiser 94806 San Pablo Oakland, and are likely to be less adversely impacted by a closure of Alta Bates Campus. 94621 East Oakland 94612 Downtown Oakland As noted above, we predict a disproportionate 94609 Oakland/MLK adverse impact on access to chronic and urgent care for the communities of West Contra Costa 94608 Emeryville County, particularly Central and North Richmond, 94607 West Oakland/Jack London from a closure of Alta Bates Campus. Access 94605 East Hills/Oakland Zoo to care in these communities has already been 94603 East Oakland/Brookefield adversely impacted by the closure of Doctors Medical Center and the limited capacity of Kaiser Figure 22 lists the top 10 high health care need Richmond. ZIP Codes in the RHIA defined HSA from highest to lowest need. ZIP Codes that overlap with the 2016 CHNA communities of concern (listed in Figure 20) are highlighted in yellow.

Consistent with our review of CHVI indicators in the RHIA defined HSA, we found that West Contra Costa County ZIP Codes are particularly vulnerable. Zip Code 94801 in Richmond, which includes unincorporated North Richmond, the Iron Triangle neighborhood, and relatively wealthy Point Richmond, ranks first out of all zip codes in the HSA for ED visits for all 11 conditions, 106 Page 49 of 82

Figure 23. Heart Disease ED visits per 10,000 residents for all ZIP Codes in the RHIA defined Alta Bates HSA

South Richmond - 94804 North Richmond, Iron Triangle, Point Richmond - 94801 East Oakland / Elmhurst - 94603 Emeryville - 94608 San Pablo - 94806 Oakand Hills / Eastmont - 94605 East Oakland / Coliseum - 94621 Oakland Uptown - 94612 West Oakland - 94607 Oakland Temesal / Bushrod / Pill Hill - 94609 Oakland Fruitvale - 94601 East Richmond - 94805 Berkeley San Pablo Cooridor - 94702 West Berkeley - 94710 Berkeley Sacramento Cooridor - 94703 Oakland Hills / Laurel - 94619 El Sobrante - 94803 Oakland Dimond - 94602 Central Oakland - 94606 Alameda - 94501 Oakland Grand Lake / Lakeshore - 94610 Berkeley Downtown / South of Campus - 94704 Piedmont / Oakland Montclair - 94611 California El Cerrito - 94530 Oakland Rockridge - 94618 Alameda County Albany - 94706 Contra Costa County Berkeley Claremont / Elmwood - 94705 Berkeley Hills / Kensington - 94707 Northside Berkeley - 94709 Tilden/Berkeley Hills - 94708 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Visits per 10,000 residents

600

500

400 San Pablo

300 Emeryville

200 Richmond & Iron Triangle

Visits per 10,000 residents 100 Alameda County Contra Costa County 0 Asthma Diabetes Figure 24. Select ZIP Codes - Asthma and Diabetes ED visits per 10,000 residents Source: Sutter Health, Health Needs Maps, 2011

107 Page 50 of 82

42 IMPACTS ON UC BERKELEY STUDENT HEALTH CARE

The UC Berkeley student population may be adversely impacted by increased travel times to the Summit campus. The campus can generate about 4,000 student ED visits per academic year, and the UC Tang Center alone estimates about 1,500 student ED referrals per year. While the Tang Center can meet the majority of urgent care student needs, it is not open 24 hours and does not perform imaging, surgery, and some emergency services make the UC Berkeley student population particularly reliant on Alta Bates Campus.

In the 2017-18 academic year, the University of to address most medical, mental health and California Berkeley had 30,574 undergraduate health education issues. The Tang Center students, 11,336 graduate students, and employs about 300 physicians, registered approximately 12,000 staff (UC Berkeley Office nurses, nurse practitioners, medical assistants, of the Vice Chancellor of Finance, 2017). Since physical therapists, pharmacists, nutritionists, lab/ we did not have complete information on radiology/pharmacy technicians, social workers, staff health insurance, this RHIA focuses on licensed psychologists and psychiatrists, and the potential impacts of the closing of Alta health educators. An urgent care facility is open Bates Campus on student health care access. seven days a week but limited to working hours, Roughly half of UCB students are enrolled in with reduced hours on weekends. the Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP), with the remainder enrolled either in alternative While the Tang Center is a student health asset, private insurance plans or through Medi-Cal. it is not a licensed hospital and therefore relies SHIP covers medical, counseling, prescription, heavily on Alta Bates Campus for timely referrals vision and dental services. In interviews with of acutely ill patients for conditions including Tang Center staff including Executive Director appendicitis, ectopic pregnancies, blood clots, of University Health Services, Claudia Covello, and head injuries requiring scans. According and Medical Director Dr. Anna Harte, we learned to the Tang Center, they refer approximately that a larger proportion of graduate students 2,500-3,000 students per year to the ED, 21% for are likely enrolled in SHIP. This is due in part to surgery and 41% for emergency care alone (not undergraduates being able to remain on their all, but most, go to ABMC). Approximately 1-2 parents’ insurance plans until students per day require ambulance transport to age 26. Regardless of insurance the hospital. An additional 2 students per week enrollment, all students have may require hospitalization for psychiatric care access to the on-campus Tang from Tang. Health Care Center. Cal There can be daily communication between The University Health Service Tang practitioners and Alta Bates and this close Tang Center is a fully-accredited relationship enables students to receive referrals outpatient center designed for potentially serious illnesses. In addition 108 Page 51 of 82

43 to urgent care referrals, the Tang Center also Student mental health is a critical issue on the refers students to Alta Bates Campus for some UC Berkeley campus. Severe episodes of stress, outpatient diagnostic procedures, maternity care, depression, thoughts of suicide and other mental and specialty care. health issues are prevalent in both undergraduate and graduate settings. Receiving timely treatment We reviewed SHIP billing data to estimate the for these mental health issues is critical to the student utilization of Alta Bates Campus and health of students and the general UC Berkeley Sutter health care facilities more generally. As population. noted, this is not the universe of all student health care issues and students on other insurance Our analyses of SHIP claimant data by diagnosis or without insurance are likely also accessing code from August 2016 through May 2017 the hospital. In addition, our review of studies revealed that of the 8,111 SHIP diagnoses, 15% from the Journal of American College Health were for some type of mental health-related suggested that across US universities, there were diagnosis, including, but not limited to: suicide approximately 100 ED visits per 1,000 enrolled attempts, thoughts of suicide, psychosis, bipolar students (McKillip et al, 1990). disorder, depression, schizophrenia, eating disorders and substance abuse. While a majority With approximately 40,000 students in 2017, of these were likely treated at the Tang Center, we estimated that UC Berkeley generates as we do note that 7% of the Alta Bates Campus ED many as 4,000 student ED visits to Alta Bates diagnoses in 2016 were for mental disorders/ Campus per academic year. (We note here, but episodes. Figure 25 compares SHIP utilization for did not analyze, that the East Bay has a number mental health related issues and those presenting of students at other institutions that will likely be at the Alta Bates Campus ED. similarly impacted by the closure of Alta Bates Campus. For example, there are an estimated While we cannot determine the exact number of 7,000 students at Berkeley City College, and students visiting Alta Bates Campus for mental 7,900 at Contra Costa College, but many of these health care, our conversations with Tang and Alta are commuter students and we were unable to Bates staff suggest that a high percentage of the obtain data on these students’ health insurance mental health and suicide/self-harm visits to Alta status or residence). Bates Campus are from UC Berkeley students. Similarly, a significant proportion of UC Berkeley

120 3500

100 3000 Figure 25. Student vs Alta Bates mental 80 2500 health care utilization 2000 60 Source: SHIP, 2017 & OSHPD, 2016 1500

Number of Diagnoses 40 1000 SHIP utilization 20 500 0 0 Alta Bates ED Suicide/self harm Mental disorders/episodes

109 Page 52 of 82

Map 10. Population density in ZIP Codes surrounding UC Berkeley, Alta Bates Campus, and Summit Campus

UC UC Berkeley

AB Alta Bates Campus S Summit Campus

People per square mile (thousands) 25-30k 20-24.9k 15-19.9k 10-14.9k 5-9.9k < 5k

students that utilize mental health services seem ambulance or private vehicle from the Tang to have received a referral after being seen at Alta Center to Summit or another ED besides Alta Bates Campus, sometimes through the ED for Bates will likely increase time to receive care. issues such as anxiety and depression. The fact In addition, a number of students with chronic that Sutter’s Herrick campus will not be affected disease rely on Alta Bates Campus for routine by a potential closure is significant and will likely specialty care for diagnosis and follow up. In the off-set any potential care that is now provided at event of a closure, these students may have to Alta Bates. travel farther, requiring more time to access care and money to get there, and potentially resulting However, since Herrick does not have an ED, in delays. The perception of this distance by a limited number of students that require students could also change the way they access emergency psychiatric services will be impacted care. by the closure. Runyan et al (2017) noted that when young people are unfamiliar with where These impacts will be further compounded to access care and support, this can adversely by students’ time constraints, inexperience in impact suicide-related episodes. In addition, the navigating the healthcare system, and financial ED can provide important discharge counseling limitations. We predict that adding these barriers protocols for patients with potential suicide risks will further complicate health care access for (Runyan, et al. 2017). students and may delay student utilization of care.

For accessing emergency care, travel by As depicted in Map 10, the 94704 (southside) and 110 Page 53 of 82

94709 (northside) ZIP Codes surrounding the UC Berkeley campus and Alta Bates Campus UC BERKELEY are the most densely populated in the RHIA STUDENT VIEWS defined Hospital Service Area (HSA), with ON ALTA BATES 25,297 and 20,165 persons per square mile respectively. This greatly exceeds the density CLOSING of most other ZIP Codes in the HSA, with the next highest being 17,766 persons per square mile in Downtown Oakland (94612) and an Student 1: overall average of 5,989 persons per square mile in the HSA (ACS 2012-2016). “It was around 9pm so we could not go to Tang first. I knew a Thus the student population may be most friend of mine had gone to Alta adversely impacted during a campus or Bates previously for a night time regional emergency, in which a large volume emergency, since it was the closest of students and residents in areas surrounding emergency care available, so that is the UC Berkeley campus require access to why we chose it.” timely care. We discuss the impacts of a disaster scenario on emergency services in Student 2: more detail on page 56. “I don’t know of another urgent care We interviewed students and met with facility nearby that I trust, and had student organizations already concerned with the situation been worse, it may have the potential impacts of the closure of Alta been too far to go.” Bates Campus. We heard from students that had direct experience at Alta Bates Campus Student 3: and received treatment for appendicitis, hand lacerations, allergic reactions and “[Alta Bates closing] would be other injuries. A common theme among the extremely detrimental as students students was that Alta Bates Campus and its would no longer have a location ED was close-by, familiar and served them that was close for emergencies. when the Tang Center was closed. Particularly for more emergent situations, [when] there is a need to In general, students we heard from were not go see a doctor immediately. If not familiar with other hospitals in the region then it could cause more harm than and would need more information on what good to go somewhere farther away. alternatives were available if Alta Bates Campus were to close. We also heard from both UCB health professionals and students that they viewed Alta Bates as an ‘extension’ of the UC Berkeley health care network. The likely short-term impacts to student health on Alta Bates closing are difficult to estimate, but may include a disruption of familiar care options and longer travel times to a 24hr ED. 111 Page 54 of 82

46 IMPACT ON EMERGENCY SERVICES In 2017, the Alta Bates Campus ED received 6,424 visits over the recommended number by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP). Modeled travel times to Summit hospital surpass 40 minutes for the evening rush hour period for 10 ZIP Codes north of Alta Bates. For the Summit Campus, the average City of Berkeley EMS time on task is about 10-12 minutes longer than for transports to Alta Bates Campus. The additional travel time to Summit can result in about 2 hours of time an ambulance is away from service compared to ED transports to Alta Bates.

Longer wait times Excess burden on already vulnerable people Longer travel times Increased health inequities Emergency Increased morbidity Department Longer on call times for EMS access Decreased capacity for surge Increased mortality event Delayed critical care

Whenever an urban hospital closes there are hospitals have closed and that ED visits have risen concerns over travel times for ambulances to by 23% in the United States over the last decade. reach the next closest ED and potential adverse health outcomes from delayed access to care. Shen and Hsia (2016) studied changes in acute Liu et al. (2014) reviewed California emergency myocardial infarction (AMI) among Medicare department closures between 1999 and 2010 patients whose communities experienced and found that patients who lived near a closed increased driving time to an ED due to the emergency department and were later admitted closing of an ED in their community. They found had a 5% higher chance of dying in the hospital that patients whose driving time related to than those who did not live near a closure. They local ED closure increased by ≥ 30 minutes concluded that ED closures do have significant had a statistically significant increase in 90-day effects on patient outcomes. mortality by 6.58 percentage points (CI 2.49, 10.68) and 1-year mortality by 6.52 percentage Crandall et al. (2016) studied outcomes in EDs points. Patients whose driving time increased for serious trauma after the closing of a large by 10 – <30 minutes also had a significant medical center in Los Angeles. They did not but less pronounced increase in 90-day and find any significant impact on trauma-related 1-year mortality, by 1.60 percentage points health outcomes, but did find that one hospital (CI 0.53, 2.67) and 2.05 percentage points (CI ED surrounding the closure had a tripling of 0.96, 3.14), respectively. Patients whose driving uninsured patients visiting their ED in a ten year time increased by less than 10 minutes did not period. Lee et al. (2015), found that in NY State, experience worse mortality rates after an ED urban hospital ED use increased in areas where closed in their community. 112 Page 55 of 82

at Summit to accommodate the patients from the Hsia et al. (2012) used California data from 1999- Berkeley facility. 2009, and found that patients with an increase in distance to the nearest ED (0.8 miles average Analyses of Travel Times to Alta Bates vs Summit distance increase) did not have significantly Campus Emergency Departments higher mortality in general or for specific conditions, including those with acute myocardial Sutter has indicated that it plans to relocate all infarction, stroke, asthma or chronic obstructive in-patient and emergency department services to pulmonary disease, and sepsis. However, Nichol the Summit campus in Oakland by 2030, though et al. (2007) found that increased journey distance little details have been provided to date about the to the hospital appeared to be associated extent and time line of the proposed expansion. with an increased risk of mortality. Berlin et A concern is whether the move to Summit will al. (2016) studied acute myocardial infarction increase the travel time to the ED for some (AMI) mortality in Switzerland and found a 19% people in the region. increase and a 10 % increase for men and women respectively, all over 65 years, for those with Using Google Maps GPS navigation software, the longest driving time to a university hospital the RHIA modeled travel times via private vehicle compared to the same population group with the to Alta Bates and Summit campuses during shortest driving times to the same hospital. the morning and evening peak traffic periods (8:30am and 5:30pm). We compared these Alta Bates ED Utilization periods to travel time at 12am as the non-traffic period. We estimated travel times for all ZIP Alta Bates Campus had a total of 50,414 ED visits Codes in the RHIA defined Alta Bates Hospital in 2017, a 21% increase since 2010. The campus Service Area. The analysis routed travel to Summit treated an average of 126 patients per day in and Alta Bates campuses from the center point 2016 and 138 patients per day in 2017. Alta Bates of each ZIP Code in the HSA, and recorded an Campus currently has 22 emergency treatment estimated range in minutes to each destination. stations in their ED.4 The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recommends a Figure 22 provides detailed findings of travel standard of 2,000 visits annually per emergency times from all of the ZIP Codes north of Alta Bates treatment station. In 2016, Alta Bates Campus Campus, using the high end of each travel time had approximately 1,836 visits per emergency range. Findings revealed that travel times to both treatment station, but this rate increased to 2,292 Alta Bates and Summit Campuses from ZIP Codes 3 visits per emergency treatment station in 2017. in north Alameda County and West Contra Costa This increase resulted in 6,414 ED visits over the County are longest at the 5:30pm peak traffic ACEP standard in 2017. time. For the PM rush hour, all ZIP Codes in West Contra Costa County (in Richmond, San Pablo, El Our analyses of OSHPD data and review of the Sobrante, and El Cerrito) as well as Albany and literature suggests that ED visits are increasing Berkeley, have increased travel times to Summit nationwide and in the Bay Area. Further, there Campus when compared to Alta Bates Campus. may already be an inadequate supply of ED These findings also overlap with ZIP Codes treatment stations to keep up with this increasing identified in the vulnerable communities section, demand. The closing of Alta Bates Campus will indicating that there is a potential negative impact remove at least 22 ED treatment stations and, as of increased travel times on already vulnerable noted above, require a doubling of ED capacity populations that are served by Alta Bates. 113 Page 56 of 82

Overall travel times at 5:30pm are longest from equipment to treat a time-critical patient. ZIP Codes in West Contra Costa County, four of which have a total travel time between 50-60 Map 11 depicts travel times via private vehicle minutes to the Summit Campus. An additional to the Summit Campus during peak evening six ZIP Codes near the West Contra Costa and traffic within 10 minute increments, and projected Alameda County border fall within a 40 – 50 annual emergency department visits related minute range of travel time to the Summit campus. to heart disease. We calculated the number of estimated heart disease patients for each ZIP Timely transport to care is critical for a range of code by multiplying the population by the actual health emergencies, but can mean the difference percent of ED visits for heart disease (from 2011). between life and death for ST-segment elevation Richmond, San Pablo and El Sobrante have both myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients (i.e., a heart the longest travel times to Summit and the largest attack in which an artery is blocked). Mathews estimated heart disease related ED visits. 13 ZIP et al. found that up to 40% of STEMI patients Codes have estimated travel times greater than 30 use private vehicle or non-EMS transportation to minutes to Summit Campus, which is currently the reach the hospital. While ambulance transport closest STEMI receiving center in the region. time is also critical, ambulances have life-saving

Figure 26. Travel times to Alta Bates & Summit Campuses from ZIP Codes in the HSA

No Traffic (12am) Traffic (8:30am) Traffic (5:30pm) Estimated annual Heart Disease related ED visits ZIP Code Time Time Diff Time Time Diff Time Time Diff Population x % heart disease ED City to AB to S (S - AB) to AB to S (S - AB) to AB to S (S - AB) visit per ZIP Code (2011) * 94702 10 12 2 18 22 4 20 40 20 321 94703 5 10 5 10 16 6 12 22 10 177 94704 6 12 6 9 22 13 12 26 14 645 94705 6 14 8 8 20 12 9 24 15 248 94706 16 10 -6 35 26 -9 28 45 17 367 Berkeley 94707 16 16 0 30 35 5 30 50 20 215 94708 20 22 2 22 28 6 22 35 13 280 94709 12 16 4 18 30 12 18 35 17 195 94710 10 8 -2 20 16 -4 24 40 16 86 94720 9 20 11 10 26 16 12 30 18 32 El Cerrito 94530 20 14 -6 45 35 -10 40 45 5 185 94801 26 22 -4 55 45 -10 45 50 5 165 Richmond 94804 18 12 -6 45 35 -10 35 45 10 1,023 94805 18 12 -6 50 40 -10 35 45 10 249 El Sobrante 94803 26 22 -4 40 40 0 35 55 20 459 San Pablo 94806 26 22 -4 60 50 -10 45 50 5 1,275 114 Page 57 of 82

Map 11. Estimated Number of Heart Disease ED visits & Private Vehicle Travel Time for Peak Period to Summit Campus for select ZIP Codes

Travel Time to Summit Campus during Peak PM Period 50 - 59 minutes 40 - 49 minutes 30 - 39 minutes 20 - 29 minutes

# Projected annual Heart Disease related ED visits AB Alta Bates Campus S Summit Campus

Map 12 depicts travel times to Summit Campus also tested travels times via public transportation and Alta Bates Campus via private vehicle at (bus and BART). We did not find significant 5:30pm for three ZIP Codes in the RHIA defined differences in travel time to Alta Bates Campus HSA. Each of these ZIP Codes experience shorter vs. Summit Campus for ZIP Codes north of Alta travel times to Alta Bates Campus than Summit Bates in the HSA for public transit. Travel times via Campus during peak evening traffic time, and one public transit averaged approximately 1 hour from relies on heavily congested freeways including West Contra Costa County to both Alta Bates and 580 and 80. Summit campuses.

Given that 15% of households in the HSA report having no vehicle (ACS 2012-2016), the analysis 115 Page 58 of 82

Map 12. Travel times to Alta Bates vs. Summit Campus at PM Peak Period from select ZIP Codes in the Alta Bates HSA

50 - 59 minutes 40 - 49 minutes 30 - 39 minutes 20 - 29 minutes 9 - 19 minutes

Alta Bates Campus Hospital Service Area (HSA) AB Alta Bates Campus S Summit Campus

Impacts on Ambulance Travel Time ambulance time on task – the total EMS time from receiving a 9-1-1 call to arriving on scene, Though this RHIA does not include an analysis then arriving at the hospital, and returning to of projected ambulance travel times, we assume service. That window represents time that the that emergency vehicles are likely to travel faster ambulance and associated staff cannot respond than private vehicles in both traffic and non-traffic to new incoming calls, and cannot be at the Fire conditions. Department garage maintaining the vehicles or completing trainings and other tasks. When an ED closes it can cause ambulances to travel to further, and may also result in ED The Alameda County Emergency Medical crowding. Overcrowding can cause increased Service (EMS) system responds to about 160,000 116 Page 59 of 82

51 emergency calls annually. Under normal protocol is not a STEMI receiving center. Despite this, a fire department unit and Paramedics Plus closing the Alta Bates Campus ED may result in ambulance respond to emergency medical extra time spent transporting patients to care and calls, however the Berkeley Fire Department decreased regional EMS capacity for ambulance EMS division owns and operates four of its own transports, which is particularly concerning ambulances and therefore generally provides the for patients with conditions for which quicker emergency transport services in the Berkeley area. transport time is related to measurable differences In 2014, the Berkeley Fire Department transported in health outcomes. 5,049 patients to Alta Bates Campus, while Paramedics Plus transported less than 500 from If Alta Bates Campus closes, the Berkeley Fire the Berkeley area to the same campus. Department expects that most of the emergency transports would instead be taken to the Summit Given this large volume of Berkeley EMS Campus in Oakland. For the Summit Campus, transports to Alta Bates Campus and findings the average City of Berkeley EMS time on task from the general travel time analysis (Figures 22 averages about 10-12 minutes longer than & 23) which indicate that 5 ZIP Codes in Berkeley transports to Alta Bates Campus. According to the have increased travel times by vehicle to Summit data from Berkeley EMS, there are an average of Campus compared to Alta Bates Campus during 12.5 emergency trips made to Alta Bates Campus no traffic hours, we focus the ambulance travel daily. If Alta Bates Campus were to close, the extra time analysis on the experiences of the Berkeley time needed to transport these patients to the Fire Department, referencing data and insight Summit campus instead would add up to about provided by the Fire Captain for the City of two hours extra of time on task in total per day. Berkeley. Without additional resources, response times to The Berkeley Fire Department transports about incoming emergency calls for all causes would 7,000 patients annually to local hospitals, of which likely increase due to the additional time on task there are 14 receiving facilities throughout the required to transport patients to Summit and county. Receiving centers are determined by to get back to Berkeley, where they can receive matching the closest hospital with the equipment another call. Assuming there are no additional that the patient needs. For instance, if someone ambulances in rotation to offset additional time standing on the corner of Telegraph and Ashby on task for transport to Summit, patients with has a major heart attack and is being transported intermediary or high risk of mortality, including by ambulance, they may be transported to Summit those requiring time-sensitive interventions – such rather than Alta Bates Campus, since Summit is as coronary revascularization in acute myocardial the closest ST- elevation myocardial infarction infarction, fibrinolytic therapy for acute ischemic (STEMI) receiving center and can adequately stroke, early goal directed therapy in sepsis, and address the needs of a major heart attack patient. trauma center care for injuries may not receive The vast majority of all-cause City of Berkeley the timely response associated with a survival EMS transports are taken to Alta Bates Campus, benefit, and subsequently mortality rates for life followed by Kaiser Permanente in Richmond, and threatening conditions may increase. While Alta the Summit Campus in Oakland (4,576, 1,093, and Bates is not a critical stroke or STEMI receiving 578 transports in 2016, respectively). center, stroke and major heart attack patients in Berkeley will still be disproportionately impacted We assume that most of these transports were not by the proposed closure due to the added time for major heart attacks, since Alta Bates Campus on task and decreased capacity of Berkeley EMS 117 Page 60 of 82

911 phone call Figure 27. Emergency response time line Call transferred to medical call taker Source: National Association of State EMS Officials, 2011 Call location pre-alerted to dispatcher First responders & ambulance crew notified Ambulance en route Ambulance arrives on scene Crew departs scene Crew arrives at medical facility Crew is available for call Transport Event identification Dispatch “Chute” Travel Treatment

EMS system response time

Ambulance “time on task”

to respond to all 9-1-1 calls. This impact may Oakland, which is further away from West Contra be worsened by an increase in diversion hours Costa County than the Alta Bates Campus. at Summit Campus after the proposed closure The additional distance is likely to increase of Alta Bates Campus, which we discuss in the emergency service travel times and time-on-task, following section. which would keep ambulances out of rotation longer and increase emergency response wait We find similar impacts on ambulance transports times for others in Contra Costa County. In in West Contra Costa County, where the closest addition to increased distance to Alta Bates ED is at Kaiser-Richmond hospital, with the next Summit, there could be time on task added if Alta closest being Alta Bates Campus, followed by Bates Summit is on diversion status or is not on Summit Campus. According to Patricia Frost, diversion status, but is overwhelmed with a high Director of Emergency Medical Services for volume of patients. Closing Alta Bates Campus Contra Costa County, prior to the DMC closure will likely increase time on task for Contra Costa the Kaiser Richmond ED received about 31% of EMS, forcing the county to either contract out all ambulance transports, but after the closing for additional ambulances or try to absorb the this increased to 52%. From January 1 to March additional time on task, which could put lives at 31, 2016, 11% of the 4,692 EMS ambulance risk. destinations in West Contra Costa County, 516 in total, went to Alta Bates Campus. From 2014 The 2014 Contra County Health Services report to 2016, the Alta Bates Campus experienced a analyzing the potential impacts from the closing 123% increase in transports from Contra Costa of the ED at Doctors Medical Center in San Pablo, County EMS, going from 2.5 trips to Alta Bates noted the following impacts which are worth per day to nearly 5.7 trips to Alta Bates per day. repeating here as they likely apply to the closing of Alta Bates’ ED: If Alta Bates Campus closes, we would expect 1. American Medical Response ambulance crews these patients to go to Alta Bates Summit in will experience longer time-on-task for all 118 Page 61 of 82

transports going to more distant hospitals as a hospital closures on ED ambulance diversion result of the DMC closure. in Los Angeles County from 1998 to 2004. They documented ambulance diversion hours due to 2. In addition to possible delays in fire and ED saturation and found that hospital closures ambulance response resulting from increased increased ambulance monthly diversion hours by time on task, the West County community has an average of 56 hours for the first 4 months at the raised a concern that there may be an increase nearest EDs. in the number emergency calls. Increased 9-1-1 usage may result when patients choose to access In 2016, both Alta Bates and Summit campuses 9-1-1 rather than private transport due to the practiced ambulance diversion for about 60 longer driving distance and lack of familiarity with hours during the year.3 However in 2017, Alta routes to other facilities. Bates’ diversion hours decreased to 13, and Summit decreased to 29. Comparatively, Highland 3. 9-1-1 ambulance traffic from the region would Hospital in Oakland had 161 hours of ambulance overwhelm Kaiser-Richmond’s ED or require diversion in 2017.4 Since Summit is already transporting patients to other EDs that would be practicing diversion, there is a high likelihood that further away, impacting ambulance availability additional diversion hours would be added to the within the county. Summit ED after a closure of Alta Bates Campus.

4. Kaiser-Richmond will experience 80 – 100 new ED Regional Emergency Department impacts patients per day on top of the 78 it already sees daily. That is an increase of at least 102 percent. The San Francisco Bay Area is home to more than While there are 12 other EDs in the region, 80 acute care hospitals, serving a region of more Kaiser-Richmond will be disproportionately than 7 million people, situated within 9 counties impacted. The reason for this is that patients and 110 cities (ACS 2012-2016).11 In Alameda and typically choose the next closest ED for their Contra Costa Counties, there is a large hospital ED needs, barring significant new healthcare network in place to serve the counties’ more than resources in the community or an extensive 2.7 million residents. However, the hospitals within public education campaign. this network are not evenly distributed throughout the region, and this may impact where patients go Ambulance Diversion for care if Alta Bates Campus is to close.

Crowded EDs can also result in ambulance As we discuss throughout the report, the regional diversion, which is when ambulances are hospital network was recently impacted by the redirected to bring patients to a different ED than closure of Doctor’s Medical Center (DMC) in 2015. they would under normal conditions for timely The closure of DMC resulted in a regional gap treatment. Beyond indicating overcrowding, in ED care, making Kaiser Richmond (which has diversion is harmful in itself, as it increases time to limited capacity for non-Kaiser patients) the only definitive care and can be associated with poor ED besides Alta Bates Campus along the corridor outcomes for patients with certain conditions, from San Pablo to Berkeley. This RHIA has found particularly stroke and acute myocardial infarction. that Kaiser-Richmond experienced an increase According to OSHPD, Alta Bates Campus had in ED utilization since DMC closed, going from 182 hours of ambulance diversion in 2014 but 40,065 ED visits in 2013 to 64,680 in 2017.4,7 only 57 hours of ambulance diversion in 2016. According the 2016 Contra Costa EMS System Sun et al. (2006) assessed the effects of nearby Performance Report there was an approximate 119 Page 62 of 82

12% increase in EMS responses from 2014-2016 in will seek emergency care, both independently the county, with an average of 271 EMS responses and by ambulance transport. per day (in 2016). Since 2014, there has not only been a large increase in total ambulance usage, To assess the capacity of regional hospitals to but, as a result of the DMC closure and distance absorb additional ED patients, we used the to the next closest hospitals, there has also been American College of Emergency Physicians a large increase in ambulances originating from (ACEP) standard of 2,000 ED visits annually per ED Richmond, San Pablo and nearby areas that treatment station. Figure 24 shows the additional travel high traffic roads and freeways to Kaiser- number of ED visits (using 2017 data) that could Richmond, Alta Bates Campus, Contra Costa be absorbed by regional hospitals per year should Regional Medical Center in Martinez and John Alta Bates Campus ED close, before exceeding Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek. the ACEP standard. If Alta Bates Campus were to close and all of the 50,414 ED patients in 2017 Within Alameda and Contra Costa County, utilized the remaining open EDs, particularly only 6 hospital other than Alta Bates Campus Highland Hospital and Kaiser-Oakland, there (Summit Campus, Kaiser Richmond, Kaiser would be capacity in the region even without Oakland, Highland Hospital, Alameda Hospital an expansion of Summit Campus in Oakland. In and Children’s Hospital Oakland) receive a 2017, Highland could have absorbed 48,003 visits significant (25% or more) number of patients before exceeding the ACEP standard, and Kaiser- from the RHIA defined Alta Bates Hospital Service Oakland could have absorbed 32,313 visits before Area (HSA), and in 2016 Alta Bates Campus was exceeding the ACEP standard. However, whether overwhelmingly the most utilized non-Kaiser or not the 50,414 patients that went to the Alta hospital by residents of Berkeley, Albany, El Bates Campus ED in 2017 will utilize Kaiser and/ Cerrito, Richmond and San Pablo. or Highland in the event of an Alta Bates Campus Given the increasing reliance on Alta Bates closure is unclear, given the disproportionate Campus ED by patients from West Contra Costa utilization of the campus (in 2017 Alta Bates County and the high utilization by Berkeley Campus ED surpassed the ACEP standard by over residents, it is unclear where people in the HSA 6,000 visits).

50000

40000

30000

20000 Number of visits Figure 28. Additional ED visits/year hospitals can absorb before exceeding 10000 American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) standard, 2017.

0 Summit Oakland Kaiser Oakland Highland Hospital Alameda Hospital K

120 Page 63 of 82

ACEP standard for the Alta Bates and Summit Highland Hospital receives the majority of its campuses. To calculate the emergency patients from central and east Oakland, and in department capacity, based on the ACEP 2016 the hospital received 62% of its ED patients standard, the number of emergency department from 10 ZIP Codes. 8 of the 10 ZIP Codes fall stations is multiplied by 2,000, which is the ACEP within the Alta Bates Campus HSA, however just standard for yearly visits per emergency treatment 14% of Alta Bates Campus ED patients came from station. In 2017, Alta Bates Campus had an ACEP those same 8 ZIP Codes.6 Since there is currently defined capacity of 44,000 (22 ETS*2,000) and relatively low utilization of Highland by the was over capacity by 6,424 visits. Meanwhile, Alta population primarily served by Alta Bates Campus, Bates Summit had an ACEP defined capacity of it is not likely that Highland will become the 50,000 (25 ETS*2,000) and was under capacity primary receiving center for Alta Bates Campus by 2,883 visits. Summit Campus would need ED patients. It is more likely that the majority to expand their emergency treatment stations of Alta Bates Campus’ current patients would by at least 24 to accommodate the increase in choose to utilize Summit, which is already near patients from Alta Bates Campus. Sutter Health capacity and would need to double its capacity to has stated on their Vision 2030 website that they accommodate all of the patients that utilize Alta would increase the Alta Bates Summit Campus Bates Campus ED annually. emergency department capacity to accommodate 90,000 visits per year. However, this would Figure 25 shows the relationship between the be insufficient to accommodate all Alta Bates number of ED stations, total ED visits and the Campus emergency department patients, should the campus close.

ACEP standard of 2,000 ED visits annually per treatment station

Figure 29. Alta Bates & Summit ED utilization & American College of Emergency Physicians’ recommended capacity

# ED ACEP standard ACEP Defined 2017 Total ED Visits that exceed capactiy Stations (yearly visits per station) Capacity Visits (+ exceeds, - under capacity) (2017)

Alta Bates campus 22 2000 44000 50414 +6414

Summit campus 25 2000 50000 47117 -2883

Total 47 94000 97531 +3531 121 Page 64 of 82

56 DISASTER EVENT IMPACTS

In this section, we estimate the potential impact investigates the likely impacts of a 7.0 magnitude of the closing of Alta Bates on emergency earthquake along the Hayward fault, with an department capacity during two disasters, an epicenter under the city of Oakland. In this earthquake and large fire. We base these analyses scenario, the 7.0 magnitude earthquake strikes on on the HayWired Reports Volume I & II which detail April 18, 2018 at 4:18pm, just around the start of likely impacts from an earthquake on the Hayward the week-day rush hour (USGS, 2018). fault line, and data from the aftermath of a 2012 fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, CA. According to FEMA data, there are an estimated 837 people mortally injured, 461 life-threatening The entire Alta Bates HSA runs along the Hayward injuries, 3,007 injuries requiring a high degree fault line, and the Working Group on California of medical care, and 12,263 injuries that require Earthquake Probabilities calculates that there is a medical attention and cannot be treated at home 33-percent likelihood of a large (6.7 magnitude after the initial quake. In total, there are 16,568 or greater) earthquake occurring along this fault casualties from the earthquake, 837 fatalities and line in the next few decades (USGS, 2018). In 15,731 people that require medical attention. The order to fully examine the potential impacts of a HayWired scenario rounds FEMA’s estimates to major earthquake along the Hayward fault line, 800 fatalities and 16,000 injured and needing the USGS, along with a number of stakeholders, medical attention. FEMA estimates that 84% of created the HayWired scenario and resulting displaced households will come from Alameda reports. County (68%) and Contra Costa County (16%) (USGS, 2018). Using these same percentages, we The HayWired scenario is one of many plausible estimate that those injured and needing medical scenarios for the region’s next major earthquake. It attention would total to 13,440 in Alameda County and Contra Costa Counties, with 10,880 needing medical attention in Alameda County and 2,560 in Contra Costa County. Haywired Earthquake Scenario: Access and time to treatment will be critical for many of the injured, and considering that the 84% of households are displaced in majority of the impact will be felt in Alameda Alameda and Contra Costa Counties County and Contra Costa County, there will be increased pressure on the existing hospital network and emergency services to respond to 14,000 estimated injuries requiring and treat the surge of patients in the ED. If all of medical attention from Alameda and the injuries that occur in Alameda County seek treatment at hospitals in Alameda County in an Contra Costa Counties even manner (all hospitals are evenly impacted by the event), there would be an estimated $57 billion in total direct economic 837 additional patients seeking treatment at each emergency department as a result of the loss quake. For instance, in the event of the HayWired 122 Page 65 of 82

Source: HayWired Map 13. Earthquake along the Hay- Report Volume I ward Fault & Hospital Locations scenario, Kaiser San Leandro, which addresses Campus. Since the Kaiser Richmond emergency the highest # of ED cases/day in Alameda County, department is the primary receiving center for would need to serve an estimated 1,028 patients. West Contra Costa County residents, we would This is a 438% increase from their daily average expect at least half of the remaining 2,280 to number of visits. If Alta Bates Campus were to go to Kaiser Richmond. The Kaiser Richmond close, the number of surge patients requiring ED Emergency Department could be overwhelmed treatment in Alameda County would increase by with an estimated 1,316 people needing an additional 64 visits for each hospital in the treatment the day of the earthquake. If Alta Bates county. were to close, we estimate that Kaiser Richmond would experience an additional 282 ED patients In Contra Costa County, we estimate 2,560 injuries immediately following the earthquake. needing medical attention. We estimate that roughly 280 people from Contra Costa County In the 1994 Northridge earthquake, a magnitude would access emergency treatment at Alta Bates 6.7 earthquake in Los Angeles, there were over 123 Page 66 of 82

9,000 people injured and 57 fatalities. Research an earthquake without Alta Bates Campus. conducted around the Northridge Earthquake showed that injuries increased significantly with Though our earthquake analysis does not account age. 60-79 year olds were 10.9 times more likely for potential post-earthquake barriers to local to be injured, and people 80 and older were hospitals, it is critical to note that the Summit 34.6 times more likely than 0-19 year olds to Campus is bounded by freeways, including 580, sustain earthquake related injuries (Peek-Asa, 980 and 880. Under the Haywired scenario there 1998). The Northridge Earthquake highlighted is a high possibility that local freeways will be that those most impacted by injuries are likely compromised and hospitals, including Summit, to be the aging/elderly (60+), and aging/elderly may not be accessible by all that need care. populations already experience issues of mobility, Concentrating ED care in fewer locations in the from issues related to driving restrictions, physical East Bay may compromise access to emergency limitations or other cognitive/familiarity issues that medical treatment after an earthquake. inhibit their ability to access far away or unfamiliar hospitals. Potential Impact from Chevron Refinery Fire

Approximately 13% of the population in the Alta On August 6, 2012, a major fire erupted at the Bates Campus HSA are over the age of 65, with Chevron Refinery in Richmond, CA. A Level 3 an additional 12% between 55-64. Compared community warning and shelter in place order to other cities in the HSA, Berkeley has a high were immediately issued. There were no injuries concentration of elderly, as people over 65 make or fatalities at the scene, but the emergency up between 20-30% of the population in three of departments at Kaiser-Richmond and Doctors its ZIP Codes (94705, 94707 and 94708). The ZIP Medical Center began to receive patients that Codes with the highest total number of elderly complained of respiratory problems. Emergency (65+) in the HSA are located in Richmond (94806), departments were overwhelmed and placed on Alameda (94501) and Oakland (95611), each with diversion status. American Medical Response over 6,500 residents over 65. These six zip codes (AMR), a subcontractor for emergency services, would be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of requested mutual aid resources, and an ambulance staging area with one ambulance from San Ramon Valley Fire and two Paramedics Plus Units from Alameda County was established Chevron Fire Example: at San Pablo Town Hall. Tents were set up at both Kaiser and DMC, establishing separate areas for Estimated related emergency patients to be seen. Within the first two hours after 15,000 the fire, 200 patients sought emergency treatment department visits over 2 ½ weeks at DMC. On the peak day four days after the fire, regional EDs (mostly in Contra Costa County), saw to emergency 2,876 visits related to the fire, and an approximate 2,876 visits 4,500 visited the ED over the next 3 days. In departments on peak day (4 days after total, the fire sent over 15,000 patients to the fire occurred) emergency department for 18 days following the event (CCHS, 2012).

200 ED visits Figure 26 shows the regional emergency within the first 2 hours after the fire department surge pattern for ED visits related to 124 Page 67 of 82

59 the Chevron fire in the two weeks following the incident. “The magnitude of the earthquake that’s going to happen here At the time of the fire, both is so significant that we really do need to have every critical DMC and Kaiser-Richmond facility in the best possible earthquake shape possible.” EDs were in full operation. Before its closure, DMC had - Nancy Skinner (NY Times Article) 25 emergency treatment stations, and Kaiser Richmond had 15 emergency treatment stations. Even with two hospitals receiving the would seek treatment without Alta Bates Campus. surge of patients, both emergency departments We estimate that Summit and Highland Hospital, were quickly overwhelmed and both hospitals did as well as urgent care facilities in Contra Costa not return to normal operations until August 23rd County would need to absorb the increased ED (CCHS, 2012). patient load.

As highlighted in the Alta Bates Campus Without Alta Bates Campus, the emergency Utilization and Hospital Service Area sections response plan to provide residents from Contra above, Alta Bates Campus has seen an increase Costa County with timely care in the case of in patients from West Contra Costa County since a major fire would need to be addressed. As the closure of DMC in 2015. If this scenario were noted above, a fire or earthquake disaster may to happen without the ED of Alta Bates Campus, overwhelm ED capacity and services at hospitals we estimate that between 1000- 1,200 people throughout the region, and these impacts may be would seek treatment at regional EDs in the first critical if the Alta Bates Campus closes. three days of the event. Kaiser Richmond would be most impacted, but it is unclear where patients from Contra Costa County and northern Alameda

Figure 30. Emergency Department patient surge volume after Chevron refinery fire, Richmond, CA, 2012

125 Page 68 of 82

60 ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Alta Bates generated over $1.9 billion in patient revenue and spent $604 million on operations and employee compensation in 2016. According to their filing with the State of CA, Alta Bates has reduced their overall spending by over $81 million since 2012. The closing of Alta Bates will adversely impact the local economy but the extent of the impact will depend on the nature of replacement services, hiring and contracting at the Summit campus.

Excess burden on already vulnerable people Lost wages Increased economic inequality Regional Lost jobs economy Increased costs for local governments Lost contracting Decreased regional spending

Hospitals such as Alta Bates Campus are major paying staff such as physicians, surgeons, and generators of economic activity. As a result, nurses, Alta Bates Campus is also a major source closure of a hospital can not only impact those of low-skilled jobs. According to SEIU-UHW, the employed there but the local and regional hospital directly employed 280 people in low- economy. In 2016, Alta Bates Campus reported skilled, lower-paid jobs in 2015 (Rauber, 2014). earning almost $1.9 billion in revenue for These positions include clerks, patient aides, food providing care to patients, with billing including service and custodial staff, nursing assistants, Medicare (35% of total revenue), Medi-Cal (26%), and technical support staff. With average hourly and private insurance providers (38%).2 Though wages between $20 and $24 per hour, these Alta Bates Campus earned almost $1.9 billion in lower paid positions nonetheless offer generally revenue, with spending, adjustments and other higher wages when compared with similar jobs in deductions, their net income was approximately different settings. $19 million in 2016. In line with their announced plan to systematically Much Alta Bates Campus’ revenue is subsequently shut down service lines and transfer them to spent on hospital clinical and nonclinical Summit campus, Alta Bates Campus has already operations. In 2016, Alta Bates Campus reported reported significant decreases in spending for spending a total of $604 million on operations. Of certain service lines. Cardiac Services saw a 68% this, $284 million was spent on direct expenses, reduction, with spending going from almost $4.4 which includes purchases of supplies and million in 2012 to less than $1.4 million in 2016. equipment, leases and rents, and purchased Radiology Services - for both diagnostic and services such as parking and security.2 therapeutic purposes - had a decrease of 57% or over $19 million over the same time period. Of the $604 million spent on operations, the Adolescents service lines showed no spending by other $320 million was spent on employee 2016.1,2 compensation. Aside from high-skilled and high- 126 Page 69 of 82

According to their financial disclosures, Alta Bates Campus also contributes to the regional economy has even started to reduce spending in their by employing hundreds of staff. If not through birthing center. Between 2012 to 2016, Labor direct employment, Alta Bates supports dozens of and Delivery Services saw an almost 23%, or $7 jobs through its purchasing of services. million reduction in spending, while spending on Neonatal Intensive Care fell almost 35% over this As a nonprofit hospital, Alta Bates Campus same time period.1 is required by law to reinvest any surplus revenue back into the community in the form Impact Magnitude of community benefit programs.According to its Community Benefit Plan, Alta Bates Low wage 165 workers already laid off since 2012 spent over $97 million in 2016 for community workers benefit programs, activities, and initiatives. Community Potential reduction of $91 million in charity The vast majority of this community benefit-- benefits care over $91 million--comes in the form of charity Local Potential loss of $1.5B annually in local care, providing free medical services for those economic economic activity without coverage and unable to afford the cost activity of their care (Sutter Health, 2016). The rest is spent funding various public health programs such as asthma and diabetes resource centers, neighborhood revitalization programs, and youth Alta Bates as an Economic Base Multiplier outreach and career development services.

Alta Bates Campus, like all hospitals, has a large As a result, Alta Bates Campus acts as what impact on the regional economy. Hospitals draw economists call an economic base multiplier. in billions of dollars in revenue from medical That is, the hospital generates significantly higher reimbursements. These reimbursements come overwhelmingly from outside the region: Medicare brings in federal dollars; Medi-Cal brings in a combinations of federal and state dollars; and private insurance brings in money from corporations based across the country. $1.9 billion in patient revenue With this continuous source of revenue, generated in 2016 hospitals like Alta Bates Campus typically spend overwhelmingly within the metropolitan area or its surrounding region. In fact, economists 23% reduction in spending on Labor & estimate that an average urban hospital spends Delivery Services from 2012-16 at least 80% of its patient revenue within the metropolitan area (Erickson et at., 1986). 35% reduction in spending on Neonatal The nature of hospital operations necessitates Intensive Care from 2012-16 that Alta Bates Campus contracts with local companies for everything from medical supplies and equipment to food for its patients, staff, 165 lower wage workers and visitors. They must also contract with already laid off by Alta Bates since 2012 local companies for purchased services such as laundry, parking, and security. Alta Bates 127 Page 70 of 82

Majority of hospital patient revenue sources are from outside of the region Total Patient (i.e. Medicare, Medi-Cal, and Private Insurance) Revenue 2015: $1.89 billion

Direct Spending on Employee Surplus Revenues Supplies and Operations Compensation (“Profits”)

Regional spending on: Employees spend money By law, nonprofit hospitals purchased services, supplies, locally for living expenses & must spend surplus on local direct costs recreation community benefit (e.g. utilities, rent)

Figure 31. How hospitals contribute to regional Economies

downstream economic output in proportion to jobs, or leave the region to find work elsewhere. its revenue. A number of studies highlighted If skilled nurses leave, the region’s health care this economic base multiplier effect on urban facilities may experience an increase in the hospitals in Pittsburgh, PA, Syracuse, NY, and nursing shortage. Minneapolis, MN. These studies found that the multiplier ranged from 2.63 to 2.69, meaning There is little doubt that Alta Bates Campus that every dollar that a hospital earns in patient provides economic benefits to the local and revenue generates between $2.63 and $2.69 regional economy. The exact adverse impacts in economic activity for the surrounding region from the closing are difficult to estimate, but our (Moore, 1974 & Doeksen et al., 1997). review of OSHPD data suggests that close to $1.5 billion in local economic activity could be lost. We used the economic-multiplier idea and conservative assumptions to estimate the hospital’s likely contributions to the local economy. Given that in 2016 Alta Bates Campus spent $604 million, we estimate that the hospital is likely responsible for generating approximately $1.5 billion in economic activity for the Bay Area.

The economic impacts from the closing of Alta Bates Campus will likely also include loss of low wage jobs. These workers may lose income and experience other hardships. Skilled workers, such as physicians and nurses will either be relocated to Summit, find work elsewhere, loose their

128 Page 71 of 82

63 APPENDICES

Jacquelyn McCormick, Senior Advisor to the Mayor, City of Berkeley

A. Acknowledgments, Reviewers & Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, City of Berkeley Interviewees Patrick Richards, Associate Director, Business and Finance at University of California, Alta Bates Regional Task Force, Members Berkeley

Andy Katz, Alta Bates Regional Task Force Rochelle Pardue-Okimoto, Mayor Pro Tem, El Member Cerrito

Anna Harte MD, Medical Director, UC Berkeley Scott Donahue, Council member, City of University Health Services Emeryville

Mary Kay Lacey, Bateman Neighborhood B. HSA Calculation & Discharges by ZIP Code Association

Bahar Navab, Associate Director, University Calculation Calculation Notes Health Services Description

Carolyn Bowden, Community Organizer, AB HSA AB CHNA zip codes + See Table 1 California Nurses Association non-CHNA zip codes below for more sending highest information Claudia Covello, Assistant Vice Chancellor, numbers of patients University of California, Berkeley Student to AB = approximately Affairs & Executive Director, University Health 75% of AB patients Services Surge Event (16,000 Haywired Assumes that Community Health Commission, City of Injuries Alameda estimated the percentage Berkeley County Estimate injured)*(estimate of displaced of 68% of displaced households is Cynthia Frankel, EMS Coordinator, Alameda County Emergency Medical Services households coming equivalent to the from Alameda percentage of Daniel Caraco, Alta Bates Regional Task Force County)= 10,880 injuries occurring estimated injuries in in Alameda County David McPartland, EMS Captain, Berkeley Fire Alameda County Department Economic Loss $2.5 (economic base Economic base Declan Walsh, Research Analyst, SEIU-UHW Estimate multiplier)*($1.9 multiplier = $2.5 West billion in patient per every dollar in revenue in 2016)= patient revenue Dominic Chan, California Nurses Association $4,750,000,000 Gabriel Quinto, Mayor, City of El Cerrito

129 Page 72 of 82

Zip Code 2016 # Patient Discharges from Alta Bates Campus

94613 10 94805 822 94720 276 94803 1,145 94612 866 94501 1,431 94619 875 94801 1,557 94618 972 94706 1,737 94610 992 94530 2,156 94602 1,106 94804 2,764 94709 1,130 94806 3,134 94708 1,186 Total non-CHNA zip code patient 14746 discharges (approximately 75% of 94603 1,194 all ABC patient discharges) 94606 1,215 94707 1,230 94710 1,295 94607 1,297 94621 1,579 94611 1,629 94605 1,751 94609 1,855 94705 1,992 94601 2,241 94704 2,394 94608 2,754 94702 2,922 94703 3,035 Total CHNA patient discharges 35796

130 Page 73 of 82

C. Acute Care Hospitals in Alameda County and Contra Costa County with Basic or Comprehensive EDs

Hospital County 2016 ED Visits/Beds (AMA benchmark 2017 ED Visits/Beds (AMA benchmark is is 2000 visits/Emergency Treatment 2000 visits/Emergency Treatment Station Station (ETS) (ETS)

Alta Bates Berkeley Alameda County 1836 visits/ETS (25 ETS) 2292 visits/ETS (22 ETS)

Alta Bates Summit Alameda County 1481 visits/ETS (32 ETS) 1885 visits/ETS (25 ETS)

Highland Hospital Alameda County 1211 visits/ETS (57 ETS) 1158 visits/ETS (57ETS)

Kaiser Oakland Alameda County 1289 visits/ETS (48 ETS) 1327 visits/ETS (48 ETS)

Kaiser Fremont Alameda County 2347 visits/ETS (16 ETS) 2452 visits/ETS (16 ETS)

Kaiser San Leandro Alameda County 1645 visits/ETS (40 ETS) 1739 visits/ETS (40 ETS)

Alameda Hospital Alameda County 1404 visits/ETS (12 ETS) 1369 visits/ETS (12 ETS)

St. Rose Hospital Alameda County 2037 visits/ETS (17 ETS) 2134 visits/ETS (17 ETS)

CHORI Alameda County 1289 visits/ETS (37 ETS) 1261 visits/ETS (37 ETS)

San Leandro Hospital Alameda County 2739 visits/ETS (12 ETS) 2,851 visits/ETS (12 ETS)

Washington Hospital Alameda County 2236 visits/ETS (23 ETS) 2168 visits/ETS (23 ETS) Fremont Eden Medical Center Alameda County 2097 visits/ETS (22 ETS) 1943 visits/ETS (22 ETS)

Stanford ValleyCare Alameda County 1768 visits/ETS (18 ETS) 1886 visits/ETS (18 ETS)

Contra Costa Regional Contra Costa County 2122 visits/ETS (20 ETS) 1499 visits/ETS (26 ETS) Medical Center (CCRMC)

Kaiser Richmond Contra Costa County 2256 visits/ETS (28 ETS) 2310 visits/ETS (28 ETS)

Kaiser Antioch Contra Costa County 1588 visits/ETS (36 ETS) 1699 visits/ETS (36 ETS)

Kaiser Walnut Creek Contra Costa County 1183 visits/ETS (52 ETS) 1224 visits/ETS (52 ETS)

John Muir Concord Contra Costa County 1876 visits/ETS (32 ETS) 1858 visits/ETS (32 ETS)

John Muir Walnut Creek Contra Costa County 1206 visits/ETS (44 ETS) 1262 visits/ETS (44 ETS)

Sutter Delta Antioch Contra Costa County 1906 visits/ETS (32 ETS) 1835 visits/ETS (32 ETS)

San Ramon Regional Contra Costa County 1526 visits/ETS (12 ETS) 1578 visits/ETS (12 ETS) Medical Center

131 Page 74 of 82

66 REFERENCES

OSHPD Data Sets

RHIA Report or Data Data Set Description URL Data Used in HIA Data Location Reference # Set Source

1 Annual Financial Hospitals and long-term care (LTC) https://siera. Total Patient Revenue Page 12 Disclosures facilities report detailed annual oshpd.ca.gov/ Report 2012 facility-level data on services capacity, FinancialDisclosure. Clinical Operations Page 17 inpatient/outpatient utilization, aspx patients, revenues and expenses by type and payer, balance sheet and Nonclinical Operations Page 18 income statement. 2 Annual Financial See above https://siera. Total Patient Revenue Page 12 Disclosures oshpd.ca.gov/ Report 2016 FinancialDisclosure. Clinical Operations Page 17 aspx Nonclinical Operations Page 18

3 Hospital Annual Contains basic licensing information https://www. Overview of capacity Pivot Table Utilization Data including bed classifications; patient oshpd.ca.gov/HID/ and services offered 2016 (including demographics including occupancy Hospital-Utilization. ALIRTS) rates, the number of discharges and html#Pivot patient days by bed classification, and the number of live births; as well as information on the type of services provided.

4 Hospital Annual See above https://www. Overview of capacity Pivot Table Utilization Data oshpd.ca.gov/HID/ and services offered 2017 (including Hospital-Utilization. ALIRTS) html#Pivot

5 Patient Origin ZIP Code of residence for all ED visits https://www.oshpd. Pivot Table and Market and hospitalizations ca.gov/HID/POMS- Share Reports Report.html#Pivot 2012-2013

132 Page 75 of 82

6 Patient Origin See above https://www.oshpd. Pivot Table and Market ca.gov/HID/POMS- Share Reports Report.html#Pivot 2016 - 2017

7 Facility Summary Patient level data are reported https://www.oshpd. Patient Payer Mix Downloadable Reports 2013 through the Medical Information ca.gov/HID/Facility- Emergency Department Report Reporting for California (MIRCal) Summary-Reports. Ambulatory Services system. These reports display a html Inpatient services numerical and percentage breakdown of patient level data. These Summary Reports combine report periods into an annual view of a facility's Hospital Inpatient (IP), Emergency Department (ED), or Ambulatory Surgery (AS) patient level data. 8 Facility Summary See above https://www.oshpd. Patient Payer Mix Downloadable Reports 2016 ca.gov/HID/Facility- Emergency Department Report Summary-Reports. Ambulatory Services html Inpatient services

9 Seismic Description of the seismic https://www. Definitions of SPC + Web page Compliance performance (SPC) rating criteria oshpd.ca.gov/ MPC ratings Unit: Seismic FDD/seismic_ Performance compliance/ Ratings SB1953/ SeisPerfRatings. html 10 California This page presents information https://www.oshpd. Building Site Plans Web page Hospital and for California hospitals and skilled ca.gov/FDD/Forms/ + SPC Ratings of Skilled Nursing nursing facilities such as site plans Keyplans/index. Buildings Facility Data (also called "keyplans"), building html Open Projects 2018 numbers, SPC/NPC ratings and various links associated with the facility. Links to the OSHPD Report Center for open, closed, and old projects are included. 11 General Facility All California hospital facilities in https://www.oshpd. Acute care hospitals in Listing 2017 2017 ca.gov/HID/Facility- region Listing.html

133 Page 76 of 82

General References

Ahmedani, B. K., Simon, G. E., Stewart, C., Beck, A., Waitzfelder, B. E., Rossom, R., ... & Operskalski, Buchmueller, T. C., Jacobson, M., & Wold, C. B. H. (2014). Health care contacts in the year (2006). How far to the hospital?: The effect of before suicide death. Journal of general internal hospital closures on access to care. Journal of medicine, 29(6), 870-877. health economics, 25(4), 740-761.

Alameda County Data Sharing Initiative. (2014). Cal Hospital Compare. (2018). Compare Paramedics Plus Response Time. https://data. Hospitals. Retrieved from Cal Hospital Compare acgov.org/Public- Safety/Paramedic-Plus- website: http://calhospitalcompare.org/find- Response-Time/9yek-274s/about. Accessed hospitals/?q=alta+bates+ November 2017. California Department of Health Care Services. Associates in Process Improvement. Alameda (2018). Do You Qualify? | Medi-Cal Eligibility. County Emergency Medical Services Quality Retrieved from http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/ Improvement Program Plan 2017. http://www. medi-cal/Pages/DoYouQualifyForMedi-Cal.aspx acphd.org/media/476290/2016%20alameda%20 county%20ems%20system%20quality%20 California Health Care Foundation. (2006). improvement%20plan.pdf. Published September Overuse of Emergency Departments Among 21, 2017. Insured Californians. Retrieved from California Health Care Foundation website: https://www. Betz, M. E., Wintersteen, M., Boudreaux, E. D., chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PDF- Brown, G., Capoccia, L., Currier, G., ... & Moutier, EDOveruse.pdf C. (2016). Reducing suicide risk: challenges and opportunities in the emergency department. California Health Care Foundation. (2008). Annals of emergency medicine, 68(6), 758-765. Beds for Boomers: Will Hospitals Have Enough? Report. Retrieved from the California Berlin, C., Panczak, R., Hasler, R., Zwahlen, M. Do Healthcare Foundation website: https://www. acute myocardial infarction and stroke mortality chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PDF- vary by distance to hospitals in Switzerland? SnapshotBedsBoomers.pdf Results from the Swiss National Cohort Study. (2016) BMJ Open, 6 (11), art. no. e013090. California Health Care Foundation. (2014). A Tale of Two Births. Adapted from: https://www.chcf. Berkeley City College. (2018). About BCC Home. org/publication/a-tale-of-two-births-high-and- Retrieved from Berkeley City College website: low-performing-hospitals-on-maternity-measures- http://www.berkeleycitycollege.edu/wp/about- in-california/. bcc/ California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Bindman, A. B., Keane, D., & Lurie, N. (1990). A Development (OSHPD). (2018). Data and Reports. public hospital closes: impact on patients’ access Retrieved from: https://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/. to care and health status. Jama, 264(22), 2899- 2904. City of Berkeley, Department of Health, Housing

134 Page 77 of 82

69 and Community Service, Public Health Division. Contra Costa Health Services. (2010). Community (2013). Health Status Report 2013. Report. Health Indicators for Contra Costa County. Retrieved from City of Berkeley website: https:// Retrieved from Contra Costa Health Services www.cityofberkeley.info/Health_Human_Services/ website: https://cchealth.org/health-data/hospital- Public_Health/2013_Health_Status_Report.aspx council/

City of Berkeley Health Commission. (2017). Contra Costa Health Services. (2017). 2016 Contra Report to the Berkeley City Council: Health Costa EMS System Performance Report. Retrieved Impact Assessment of the Proposed Closure from Contra Costa Health Services website: of Alta Bates. Retrieved from City of Berkeley https://cchealth.org/ems/pdf/annual-report-2016. website: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/ pdf City_Council/2017/10_Oct/Documents/2017-10- 03_Item_11_Health_Impact_Assessment_of_the_ Countouris, M., Gilmore, S., & Yonas, M. (2014). Proposed_Closure_of_Alta_Bates.aspx. Published Exploring the impact of a community hospital July 25, 2017. closure on older adults: A focus group study. Health & place, 26, 143-148. Community Commons. (2018). Accessed from: https://www.communitycommons.org/ Crandall, M., Sharp, D., Wei, X., Nathens, A., & Hsia, R. Y. (2016). Effects of closure of an urban level Contra Costa College. (2018). About Contra Costa I trauma centre on adjacent hospitals and local College. Retrieved from Contra Costa College injury mortality: a retrospective, observational website: https://www.contracosta.edu/about/ study. BMJ open, 6(5), e011700.

Chen, B. K., Cheng, X., Bennett, K., & Hibbert, Diaz, H., Ainsworth, D., & Schmidtlein, M. (2016). J. (2015). Travel distances, socioeconomic Community Health Needs Assessment of the characteristics, and health disparities in nonurgent Alta Bates Summit Medical Center Service Area: and frequent use of hospital emergency Three Campuses. Retrieved from Sutter Health departments in South Carolina: a population- Alta Bates Medical Center website: http://www. based observational study. BMC health services altabatessummit.org/about/communitybenefit/ research, 15(1), 203. community-assessment.html

Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services Doeksen, G. A., Johnson, T. G., & Willoughby, Agency. (2014). Impact Evaluation Report: Doctors C. (1997). Measuring the economic importance Medical Center San Pablo Potential Closure of of the health sector on a local economy: A brief Emergency Services. Retrieved from: https:// literature review and procedures to measure cchealth.org/dmc/ local impacts. Starkville, MS: Southern Rural Development Center. Contra Costa Health Services. (2012). Chevron Richmond Refinery Fire of August 6, 2012: Erickson, R. A., Gavin, N. I., & Cordes, S. M. (1986). After Action Report Based on Medical/Health The economic impacts of the hospital sector. Debriefing Conducted September 10, 2012. Growth and Change, 17(1), 17-27. Retrieved from: https://cchealth.org/special/ richmond-refinery-response.php Fishman, J., McLafferty, S., & Galanter, W. (2018). Does Spatial Access to Primary Care

135 Page 78 of 82

Affect Emergency Department Utilization for B. C., Boland, L. L., & Hokanson, J. S. (2012). Nonemergent Conditions?. Health services Disparities in potentially avoidable emergency research, 53(1), 489-508. department (ED) care: ED visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Medical care, 1020- Healthy Policy Alternatives. (2015). Review of 1028. the Evidence on the Use of the Emergency Department by Medicaid Patients and the Joynt, K. E., Chatterjee, P., Orav, E. J., & Jha, A. Evolving Role of Emergency Medicine Physicians. K. (2015). Hospital closures had no measurable White Paper. Retrieved from American College of impact on local hospitalization rates or mortality Emergency Physicians website: newsroom.acep. rates, 2003–11. Health Affairs, 34(5), 765-772. org/download/HPA+Medicaid+White+Paper_ March+18+2015.pdf Karaca, Z., Wong, H., & Mutter, R. (2013). Characteristics of homeless and non-homeless Hsia, R. Y. J., & Shen, Y. C. (2011). Rising closures of individuals using inpatient and emergency hospital trauma centers disproportionately burden department services, 2008. Health cost Util Proj, vulnerable populations. Health affairs, 30(10), 158, 1-14. 1912-1920. Kaiser Foundation Hospital. 2013 Community Hsia, R. Y., Kanzaria, H. K., Srebotnjak, T., Maselli, Health Needs Assessment. Report. Retrieved J., McCulloch, C., & Auerbach, A. D. (2012). Is from Kaiser Permanente website: https://share. emergency department closure resulting in kaiserpermanente.org/article/community-health- increased distance to the nearest emergency needs-assessments-2013/ department associated with increased inpatient mortality?. Annals of emergency medicine, 60(6), Kaiser Foundation Hospital. 2016 Community 707-715. Health Needs Assessment. Report. Retrieved from Kaiser Permanente website: https:// Hsia, R. Y., Brownell, J., Wilson, S., Gordon, N., & share.kaiserpermanente.org/wp-content/ Baker, L. C. (2013). Trends in adult emergency uploads/2016/12/KFH-LA-CHNA-Final-5.23.16. department visits in California by insurance status, pdf 2005-2010. Jama, 310(11), 1181-1183. Ko, M., Needleman, J., Derose, K. P., Laugesen, M. Hsia, R. Y., Srebotnjak, T., Maselli, J., Crandall, J., & Ponce, N. A. (2014). Residential segregation M., McCulloch, C., & Kellermann, A. L. (2014). and the survival of US urban public hospitals. The association of trauma center closures with Medical Care Research and Review, 71(3), 243- increased inpatient mortality for injured patients. 260. The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 76(4), 1048. Kushel, M. B., Perry, S., Bangsberg, D., Clark, R., & Moss, A. R. (2002). Emergency department use Horwitz, L. I., Green, J., & Bradley, E. H. (2010). US among the homeless and marginally housed: emergency department performance on wait time results from a community-based study. American and length of visit. Annals of emergency medicine, journal of public health, 92(5), 778-784. 55(2), 133-141. Larkin, G.L. and Beautrais, A.L. Emergency Johnson, P. J., Ghildayal, N., Ward, A. C., Westgard, departments are underutilized sites for suicide

136 Page 79 of 82

71 prevention. Crisis. 2010; 31: 1–6. DOI: https://doi. Trends in emergency department visits, 2006– org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000001. 2014. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Lee, D. C., Carr, B. G., Smith, T. E., Tran, V. C., Polsky, D., & Branas, C. C. (2015). The impact of Moore, C. L. (1974). The impact of public hospital closures and hospital and population institutions on regional income; upstate medical characteristics on increasing emergency center as a case in point. Economic Geography, department volume: A geographic analysis. 50(2), 124-129. Population health management, 18(6), 459-466. National Association of State EMS Officials. (2011). Liu, C., Srebotnjak, T., Hsia, R.Y. California 2011 National EMS Assessment emergency department closures are associated https://www.nasemso.org/documents/National_ with increased inpatient mortality at nearby EMS_Assessment_Final_Draft_12202011.pdf hospitals (2014) Health Affairs, 33 (8), pp. 1323- 1329. Cited 7 times. Nicholl, J., West, J., Goodacre, S., & Turner, J. (2007). The relationship between distance to hospital and patient mortality in emergencies: an Lorch, S. A., Srinivas, S. K., Ahlberg, C., & Small, D. observational study. Emergency Medicine Journal, S. (2013). The impact of obstetric unit closures on 24(9), 665-668. maternal and infant pregnancy outcomes. Health services research, 48(2pt1), 455-475. OSHPD. (2018). Quick Notes: New Approved Regulations - 2019. Memo. Retrieved from Mathews, R., Peterson, E. D., Li, S., Roe, M. T., the OSHPD website: https://oshpd.ca.gov/ Glickman, S. W., Wiviott, S. D., ... & Wang, T. wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MIRCal_ Y. (2011). Use of emergency medical service QuickNotesV49.pdf transport among patients with st-segment– elevation myocardial infarction: findings from Peek-Asa, C. “Fatal and Hospitalized Injuries the national cardiovascular data registry acute Resulting from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.” coronary treatment intervention outcomes International Journal of Epidemiology 27, no. 3 network registry–get with the guidelines. (June 1, 1998): 459–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ Circulation, CIRCULATIONAHA-110. ije/27.3.459.

McKillip, J., Courtney, C. L., Locasso, R., Eckert, Pines, J. M., Pollack Jr, C. V., Diercks, D. B., Chang, P., & Holly, F. (1990). College students’ use of A. M., Shofer, F. S., & Hollander, J. E. (2009). The emergency medical services. Journal of American association between emergency department College Health, 38(6), 289-292. http://dx.doi.org/1 crowding and adverse cardiovascular outcomes 0.1080/07448481.1990.9936202 in patients with chest pain. Academic Emergency Medicine, 16(7), 617-625. Miller, I. W., Camargo, C. A., Arias, S. A., Sullivan, A. F., Allen, M. H., Goldstein, A. B., . . . Boudreaux, Public Policy Institute of California. (2015). E. D. (2017). Suicide prevention in an emergency Planning for California’s Growing Senior department population: The ED Safe study. JAMA Population? Report. Retrieved from the Public Psychiatry, 74(6), 563–570. Policy Institute of California website: http://www. ppic.org/publication/planning-for-californias- Moore, B. J., Stocks, C., & Owens, P. L. (2017). growing-senior-population/ 137 Page 80 of 82

Retrieved from OSHPD website: https://www. Rauber C. Alta Bates Summit to slash 358 oshpd.ca.gov/documents/HID/Community- positions. San Francisco Business Times. January Benefit-Plans/2016/Sutter-Health-Alta-Bates- 7, 2014. Accessed March 30, 2018. Summit-Medical-Centers-(4-Campuses)- CBP-2016.pdf Runyan, C. W., Brooks-Russell, A., Tung, G., Brandspigel, S., Betz, M. E., Novins, D. K., & Agans, Sutter Health. (2018). Alta Bates Summit Medical R. (2017). Hospital emergency department lethal Center: Newborn Intensive Care Unit. Retrieved means counseling for suicidal patients. American from http://www.altabatessummit.org/ Journal of Preventive Medicine. Advance online publication. Sutter Health. (2018). Alta Bates Summit Medical Center: Our History and Our Work. Retrieved from Sager, A. (2013). Presentation. Causes and http://www.altabatessummit.org/about/history. Consequences of Urban Hospital Closings and html Reconfigurations, 1936-2010. Retrieved from the Boston University website: http://www. Sutter Health. (2018). Vision 2030: Rebuild Alta bu.edu/sph/files/2015/05/Sager-Causes-and- Bates Summit Frequently Asked Questions. (2018). Consequences-of-Urban-Hospital-Closings-1936- Retrieved from https://rebuild.altabatessummit. 2010-revised-final-version-21.pdf org/vision-2030/

Shen, Y.-C., Hsia, R.Y. Association between The Abaris Group. (2011). Study of West County Emergency Department Closure and Treatment, Emergency Medical Services, Emergency Access, and Health Outcomes among Patients Department, and Critical Care Access Final Report. with Acute Myocardial Infarction Walnut Creek, CA: The Abaris Group. (2016) Circulation, 134 (20), pp. 1595-1597. The Lancet. Public Health. (2018). Suicide in the Shen, Y. C., & Hsia, R. Y. (2016). Geographical USA: a public health emergency. The Lancet. Distribution of Emergency Department Closures Public Health, 3(7), e304. and Consequences on Heart Attack Patients (No. w22861). National Bureau of Economic Research. Thomas, L. (2014). Hospitals, doctors moving out of cities to more affluent areas. Retrieved from Sun, B. C., Mohanty, S. A., Weiss, R., Tadeo, http://archive.jsonline.com/news/health/hospitals- R., Hasbrouck, M., Koenig, W., ... & Asch, S. doctors-moving-out-of-poor-city-neighborhoods- (2006). Effects of hospital closures and hospital to-more-affluent-areas-b99284882z1-262899701. characteristics on emergency department html/ ambulance diversion, Los Angeles County, 1998 to 2004. Annals of emergency medicine, 47(4), U.S. Census Bureau (2013). ACS Demographic 309-316. and Housing Estimates, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved Sutter Health. (2013). Health Needs Map. from https://factfinder.census.gov/ Retrieved from: http://www.healthneedsmap.com/ index1.php U.S. Census Bureau (2017). ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, 2011-2016 American Sutter Health. (2016). Alta Bates Summit Medical Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved Center 2016-2018 Community Benefit Plan. from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/ 138 Page 81 of 82

73 tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

U.S. Census Bureau (2017). Household Size by Vehicle Available, 2011-2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t&keepList=t

U.S. Census Bureau (2017). Selected Economic Characteristics, 2011-2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from https:// factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t&keepList=t

United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2017). Report. The Haywired Earthquake Scenario. Retrieved from USGS website: https://www.usgs. gov/natural-hazards/science-application-risk- reduction/science/haywired-scenario?qt-science_ center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2017). Report. The Haywired Earthquake Scenario-- Engineering Implications. Retrieved from USGS website: https://www.usgs.gov/natural- hazards/science-application-risk-reduction/ science/haywired-scenario?qt-science_center_ objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

University of California Berkeley Office of the Vice Chancellor of Finance. (2017). Office of Planning and Analysis. Retrieved from the University of California Berkeley website: https://opa.berkeley. edu/berkeley-fall-enrollment-trends. Accessed December 4, 2017.

Yoon-Hendricks, A. & Stevens, M. California Today: The Costs of Making Buildings Safer. New York Times. August 30, 2018. Accessed August 30, 2018.

139 Page 82 of 82

Alta Bates Summit Medical Center RAPID HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 140 Page 1 of 3

Cheryl Davila Councilmember District 2 CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Cheryl Davila

Subject: African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council (AATCL) 10th Year Gala Fundraiser: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $250 per Councilmember including $150 from Councilmember Cheryl Davila, to African American Tobacco Leadership Council 10th Year Gala, December 2, 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; $150 is available from Councilmember Cheryl Davila’s Council Office Budget discretionary account (budget code 011-11-102-411-6).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY None.

BACKGROUND African American Tobacco Leadership Council has a commitment to raising the next generation to be strong, healthy and intelligent adults who are ready to take their rightful place in the world. The AATCLC is working to improve the life outcomes of all African Americans, especially young boys and men, and to overcome the legacy of slavery, segregation and oppression

African American Tobacco Leadership Council partners, with community stakeholders, elected officials and public health agencies have informed the national direction of tobacco control policy, practices and priorities, as they affect the lives of Black-American and African immigrant populations.

141 Page 2 of 3

The AATCLC has been at the forefront in elevating the regulation of mentholated and other flavored tobacco products on the national tobacco control agenda and has supported numerous California cities in adopting and implementing Buffer Zones. The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council 10th will be celebrating their 10th year with Gala at the Double Tree on December 2, 2018.

CONTACT PERSON Cheryl Davila, Councilmember, District 2 510.981.7120

ATTACHMENT: 1: Resolution

142 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 discretionary funds in her office expenditure account (budget code 010-0224-410); and

WHEREAS, since 2008, AATCLC partners with community stakeholders, elected officials and public health agencies to inform the national direction of tobacco control policy, practices and priorities, as they affect the lives of Black-American and African immigrant populations; and,

WHEREAS, the AATCLC has been at the forefront in elevating the regulation of mentholated and other flavored tobacco products on the national tobacco control agenda and has supported numerous California cities in adopting and implementing Buffer Zones. Buffer Zones are local legislation that prohibit the sale of all flavored tobacco products--including menthol--within a 500-1000 foot perimeter around schools. This includes Black & Milds, Swisher Sweets, blunt wraps and any other tobacco products; and WHEREAS, AATCLC has a commitment to raising the next generation to be strong, healthy and intelligent adults who are ready to take their rightful place in the world. The AATCLC is working to improve the life outcomes of all African Americans, especially young boys and men, and to overcome the legacy of slavery, segregation and oppression; and

WHEREAS, African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council be celebrating their 10th year with Gala at the Double Tree on December 2, 2018;

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 the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council (AATCL) 10th Year Gala Fundraiser.

143 144 Page 1 of 13

Cheryl Davila Councilmember District 2

CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmembers Cheryl Davila

Subject: Short-term referral to City Attorney and Health Housing and Community Service to amend Berkeley Municipal Code 7,441-N.S. to expand the control of flavored tobacco across the City of Berkeley toward preventing youth and young adult tobacco use

RECOMMENDATION Short-term referral to City Attorney and Health Housing and Community Service to amend Berkeley Municipal Code 7,441-N.S. according to the changes made in the attached amended ordinance to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products and require a minimum package size for cigars and little cigars across the City of Berkeley. The primary purpose of the amendment to the ordinance is to do more to prevent youth and young adult tobacco use.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION No fiscal impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Smoking is a environmental pollutant and a fire hazard, and has resulted in a smoking- related public health crisis as well as causes other damage to the environment as a result of the trees and forests destroyed for the creation of rolling paper and packaging, pesticides and the washing of cigarette butts into storm drains that washes them into the ocean, rivers and lakes.1

BACKGROUND In support of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) announcement about a series of tobacco restriction regulations aimed at combating flavored e-cigarettes and tobacco products that have lured young people into vaping and smoking, we propose doing the same in Berkeley. In addition, the FDA said it would move to outlaw two traditional

1 City of Berkeley, Tobacco Facts and The Environment, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Health_Human_Services/Public_Health/Tobacco_Facts_and_the_Environment.aspx.

145 Page 2 of 13

tobacco products that disproportionately harm African-Americans: menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars.2

Currently, Berkeley has an ordinance that prohibits the sale of flavored tobacco, including menthol, electronic cigarettes, within six hundred (600) feet of any school.3

The proposal to eliminate the sale of flavored tobacco, including menthol, and single or small package cigars and little cigars recognizes the targeting of young people, and African American young people disproportionately, by marketing and sales of flavored tobacco as well as sales of individual or small package cigars or little cigars. The City of Berkeley can and should follow San Francisco, Richmond and San Mateo in passing an aggressive tobacco control measure to stop the sale of flavored tobacco, including menthol, and require a minimum package size for cigars and little cigars across the City of Berkeley.

Approximately 480,000 people die in the United States from smoking-related diseases and exposure to secondhand smoke every year, making tobacco use the nation’s leading cause of preventable death;4 more than 16 million Americans are currently living with a disease caused by smoking.5 About 1 in 5 deaths each year is attributable to cigarette smoking.6 Each year 45,000 African Americans die from tobacco-related deaths.7 The World Health Organization has predicted that by the year 2025, 500 million people worldwide will have died from a tobacco related illness.8 Tobacco causes more deaths than AIDS, auto accidents, alcohol and drugs, homicides and suicides and fires combined.9

Ninety percent of all U.S. smokers start smoking as teenagers.10 In California, over 67% of current and former adult smokers started by the age of 18 and almost 100% start by age 26.11 In 2017, 22.8% of high school students in California had tried cigarette

2 New York Times, F.D.A. Seeks Restrictions on Teens’ Access to Flavored E-Cigarettes and a Ban on Menthol Cigarettes, November 15, 2018. 3 As measured by a straight line from the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the school is located to the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the business is located. 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf. 5 City of Berkeley, Health Status Report 2018, City of Berkeley Public Health Division, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Health_Human_Services/Level_3_-_Public_Health/2018-health-status-report- berkeley.pdf, page 64. 6 City of Berkeley, Health Status Report 2018, City of Berkeley Public Health Division, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Health_Human_Services/Level_3_-_Public_Health/2018-health-status-report- berkeley.pdf, page 64. 7 US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “Tobacco Use Among US Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups—African Americans, American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics: A Report of the Surgeon General,” 1998, http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/1998/complete_report/pdfs/complete_report.pdf. 8 City of Berkeley, Tobacco Facts and The Environment, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Health_Human_Services/Public_Health/Tobacco_Facts_and_the_Environment.aspx. 9 Ibid 10 Ibid 11 California Department of Public Health California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2016. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health. 2016. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigu res/2016FactsFiguresWeb.pdf.

146 Page 3 of 13

smoking.12 Each day in California 300 youth light up for the first time; about one-third of them will die from a tobacco related disease.13 5.6 million of today’s Americans who are younger than 18 are projected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness.14

Approximately 11% of youth self-report smoking cigarettes.15 The number is most likely higher. In Berkeley, according to the Health Status Report 2018, cigarette smoking has continued to drop for 7th and 9th graders but fluctuated for 11th graders.16 The number of students and youth using cigarette quadruples by eleventh grade.17 There has been a drop in e-cigarette use for students at all grade levels and we want to see these number continue to drop.

Mentholated and flavored products have been shown to be “starter” products for youth who begin using tobacco18 and these products help establish tobacco habits that can lead to long-term addiction.19 Flavored tobacco has significant public health implications for youth, people of color, low income populations, and members of LGBTQ+ communities as a result of targeted industry marketing strategies and product manipulation.20 Unlike cigarette use that has steadily declined among youth, the prevalence of the use of non-cigarette tobacco products has remained statistically unchanged and in some cases actually increased among youth.21

12 Kann L, McManus T, Harris WA, et al. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 2017. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018;67(8):1-114. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6708a1; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2017. Supplementary Tables 52-93: Tobacco Use. 2018; https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/2017_tables/tobacco_use.htm. 13 City of Berkeley, Tobacco Facts and The Environment, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Health_Human_Services/Public_Health/Tobacco_Facts_and_the_Environment.aspx. 14 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf. 15 http://healthystoreshealthycommunity.com/counties/berkeley/ 16 City of Berkeley, Health Status Report 2018, City of Berkeley Public Health Division, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Health_Human_Services/Level_3_-_Public_Health/2018-health-status-report- berkeley.pdf, page 30. 17 Ibid, page 64. 18 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/; Hersey JC, Ng SW, Nonnemaker JM, et al. Are menthol cigarettes a starter product for youth? Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8(3):403-413. doi: 10.1080/14622200600670389; Wackowski O, Delnevo CD. Menthol cigarettes and indicators of tobacco dependence among adolescents. Addict Behav. 2007;32(9):1964-1969. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.12.023. 19 Ibid; Oliver AJ, Jensen JA, Vogel RI, Anderson AJ, Hatsukami DK. Flavored and nonflavored smokeless tobacco products: rate, pattern of use, and effects. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(1):88-92. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nts093. 20 United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009), and order clarified, 778 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2011); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/; Yerger VB, Przewoznik J, Malone RE. Racialized geography, corporate activity, and health disparities: tobacco industry targeting of inner cities. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18(4 Suppl):10-38. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2007.0120; Kreslake JM, Wayne GF, Alpert HR, Koh HK, Connolly GN. Tobacco industry control of menthol in cigarettes and targeting of adolescents and young adults. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(9):1685-1692. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.125542; Fallin A, Goodin AJ, King BA. Menthol cigarette smoking among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(1):93-97. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.07.044. 21 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/; Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE, Miech RA. Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary school students. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. 2014. Available at:

147 Page 4 of 13

Although federal and state law ban the sale of individual cigarettes,22 neither federal nor California state laws restrict the sale of individual little cigars and cigars. Many retailers sell little cigars and cigars individually, making them more affordable and appealing to youth.23 For example: 87.4% of California tobacco retailers sell a popular brand of youth-friendly cigars for less than $1.00.24 And, from 1995 to 2008, annual sales of cigarillos increased by 255%, and sales of little cigars increased by 316%.25

The availability of inexpensive tobacco products leads to increased tobacco use as evidenced by more than 100 academic studies that conclusively show that when tobacco products are made more expensive, fewer people use tobacco, fewer initiate tobacco use, and more people quit tobacco use.26

In Berkeley in 2016, 91.4% of stores selling cigarettes sold menthol. That year there was also a 14% increase in percent of stores that sell swisher sweets (akin to a cigarillo) for less than a dollar: In 2013 70.0% sold them versus 84.2% in 2016. There was a 25% increase in stores selling electronic smoking devices: In 2013 57.8% sold them versus 72.9% in 2016.27

http://monitoringthefuture.org//pubs/monographs/mtf-vol1_2013.pdf; Harrell PT, Naqvi SMH, Plunk AD, Ji M, Martins SS. Patterns of youth tobacco and polytobacco usage: The shift to alternative tobacco products. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2017;43(6):694-702. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2016.1225072; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2011. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHNationalFindingsResults2010- web/2k10ResultsRev/NSDUHresultsRev2010.pdf; Wang TW, Gentzke A, Sharapova S, Cullen KA, Ambrose BK, Jamal A. Tobacco Product Use Among Middle and High School Students - United States, 2011-2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(22):629-633. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6722a3; Cobb C, Ward KD, Maziak W, Shihadeh AL, Eissenberg T. Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking: An Emerging Health Crisis in the United States. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2010;34(3):275-285. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.34.3.3. 22 21 C.F.R. § 1140.16(b); Cal. Penal Code § 308.3(a). 23 California Department of Public Health California Tobacco Control Program. Tobacco in the Retail Environment. 2012. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigu res/TobaccoRetailEnvironmentFactSheetEasyPrint.pdf. 24 California Department of Public Health California Tobacco Control Program. 2016 Healthy Stores for a Healthy Community Survey Results-all counties. 2016. Available at: http://healthystoreshealthycommunity.com/media-center/?campaign. 25 Cullen J, Mowery P, Delnevo C, et al. Seven-year patterns in US cigar use epidemiology among young adults aged 18-25 years: a focus on race/ethnicity and brand. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(10):1955-1962. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300209. 26 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf; Institute of Medicine. Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation. Washington, DC. 2007. Available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11795/ending-the-tobacco- problem-a-blueprint-for-the-nation; Community Preventive Services Task Force. Reducing Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Interventions to Increase the Unit Price for Tobacco Products. 2012. Available at: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Tobacco-Increasing-Unit-Price.pdf; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State Cigarette Minimum Price Laws—United States, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59(13):389-392; Chaloupka FJ, Cummings KM, Morley C, Horan J. Tax, price and cigarette smoking: evidence from the tobacco documents and implications for tobacco company marketing strategies. Tob Control. 2002;11(Supplement 1):i62-i72. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i62; Chaloupka FJ, Yurekli A, Fong GT. Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy. Tob Control. 2012;21(2):172-180. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050417; Huang J, Gwarnicki C, Xu X, Caraballo RS, Wada R, Chaloupka FJ. A comprehensive examination of own- and cross-price elasticities of tobacco and nicotine replacement products in the U.S. Prev Med. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.04.024; Pesko MF, Huang J, Johnston LD, Chaloupka FJ. E-cigarette price sensitivity among middle- and high-school students: evidence from monitoring the future. Addiction. 2018;113(5):896-906. doi: 10.1111/add.14119; Jawad M, Lee JT, Glantz S, Millett C. Price elasticity of demand of non-cigarette tobacco products: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2018. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054056. 27 http://healthystoreshealthycommunity.com/counties/berkeley/

148 Page 5 of 13

As a result of the FDA ban on all flavored cigarette products (except menthol), tobacco use by youth decreased by 6% and the likelihood of a youth becoming a cigarette smoker post flavor ban fell by 17%.28

CONTACT PERSON Cheryl Davila, Councilmember District 2 510.981.7120

ATTACHMENT: 1: Tobacco Buffer Zone Ordinance No. 7,441-N.S. 2: Buffer Zone Resolution 3: Washington Post article on FDA New Tobacco Rules: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fdas-new-tobacco-rules-are-a-victory-for-public- health/2018/11/17/58116d9a-e9bf-11e8-bbdb- 72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d8261dd47ca3 4: NY Times article on FDA New Tobacco Rules: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/health/ecigarettes-fda-flavors-ban.html

28 Courtemanche CJ, Palmer MK, Pesko MF. Influence of the Flavored Cigarette Ban on Adolescent Tobacco Use. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(5):e139-e146. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.019.

149 Page 6 of 13

ORDINANCE NO. ##,###-N.S.

AMEND BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE 7,441-N.S. TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND REQUIRE A MINIMUM PACKAGE SIZE FOR CIGARS AND LITTLE CIGARS ACROSS THE CITY OF BERKELEY.

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley to amend BMC 7,441-N.S. as follows:

Section 1. Legislative findings:

A. The City Council hereby finds that:

1. Approximately 480,000 people die in the United States from smoking-related diseases and exposure to secondhand smoke every year, making tobacco use the nation’s leading cause of preventable death;1

2. 5.6 million of today’s Americans who are younger than 18 are projected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness;2

3. Despite the state’s efforts to limit youth access to tobacco, youth are still able to access tobacco products, as evidenced by the following:  In California, over 67% of current and former adult smokers started by the age of 18 and almost 100% start by age 26;3  In 2017, 22.8% of high school students in California had tried cigarette smoking;4  In 2018, 11% of Berkeley high school youth self-report smoking cigarettes and the rate of cigarette smoking quadruples from 10th to 11th graders.5

4. The federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (“Tobacco Control Act”), enacted in 2009, prohibited candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes,6 largely because these flavored products are marketed to youth and young adults,7 and younger smokers were more likely than older smokers to have tried these products;8

5. Neither federal nor California state laws restrict the sale of menthol cigarettes or flavored non-cigarette tobacco products, such as cigars, cigarillos, smokeless tobacco, hookah tobacco, electronic smoking devices, and the solutions used in these devices;

6. In 2016, an estimated 82% of tobacco retailers in California sold flavored non-cigarette tobacco products, over 90% of tobacco retailers sold menthol cigarettes, and 8 out of 10 tobacco retailers near schools sold flavored non-cigarette tobacco products;9

7. In Berkeley in 2016, 91.4% of stores selling cigarettes sold menthol. There was a 14% increase in percent of stores that sell swisher sweets for less than a dollar: In 2013 70.0% sold them versus 84.2% in 2016. There was a 25% increase in stores selling electronic smoking devices: In 2013 57.8% sold them versus 72.9% in 2016.10

8. Mentholated and flavored products have been shown to be “starter” products for youth who begin using tobacco11 and these products help establish tobacco habits that can lead to long-term addiction;12

150 Page 7 of 13

9. Flavored tobacco has significant public health implications for youth, people of color, low income populations, and members of LGBTQ+ communities as a result of targeted industry marketing strategies and product manipulation;13

10. As a result of the FDA ban on all flavored cigarette products (except menthol), tobacco use by youth decreased by 6% and the likelihood of a youth becoming a cigarette smoker post flavor ban fell by 17%;14

11. Unlike cigarette use that has steadily declined among youth, the prevalence of the use of non-cigarette tobacco products has remained statistically unchanged and in some cases actually increased among youth;15

12. Although federal and state law ban the sale of individual cigarettes,16 neither federal nor California state laws restrict the sale of individual little cigars and cigars;

13. Many retailers sell little cigars and cigars individually, making them more affordable and appealing to youth.17 For example:  87.4% of California tobacco retailers sell a popular brand of youth-friendly cigars for less than $1.00;18  From 1995 to 2008, annual sales of cigarillos increased by 255%, and sales of little cigars increased by 316%; and19

14. The availability of inexpensive tobacco products leads to increased tobacco use as evidenced by more than 100 academic studies that conclusively show that when tobacco products are made more expensive, fewer people use tobacco, fewer initiate tobacco use, and more people quit tobacco use.20

Section 2. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 9.80.020 is hereby amended as follows:

Section 9.80.020 Definitions.

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this article, shall have the meanings defined in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

A. “Cigar” means any roll of tobacco other than a cigarette wrapped entirely or in part in tobacco or any substance containing tobacco and weighing more than three pounds per thousand.

A.B. “Cigarette” means: (1) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; and (2) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described herein.

B.C. "Characterizing flavor" means a distinguishable taste or aroma, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco, that is imparted either prior to or during consumption of a tobacco product or any byproduct produced by the tobacco product, including but not limited to tastes or aromas relating toof menthol, mint, wintergreen, chocolate, vanilla, honey, cocoa, any candy, any dessert, any alcoholic beverage, any fruit, any herb, and any spice; provided, however, that no tobacco product shall be determined to have a characterizing flavor solely because of the use of additives or flavorings or the provision of ingredient information. A

151 Page 8 of 13

public statement or claim made or disseminated by the manufacturer of a tobacco product, or by any person authorized or permitted by the manufacturer to make or disseminate such statements, that a tobacco product has or produces a characterizing flavor shall establish that the product is a flavored tobacco product. B. "Constituent" means any ingredient, substance, chemical, or compound, other than tobacco, water, or reconstituted tobacco sheet, that is added by the manufacturer to a Tobacco Product during the processing, manufacture, or packing of the Tobacco Product.

C. "Distinguishable" means perceivable by an ordinary consumer by either the sense of smell or taste.

D. “Consumer” means a person who purchases a tobacco product for consumption and not for sale to another.

C.E. D. "Electronic nicotine delivery system" means any electronic and/or battery-operated device that can be used to deliver an inhaled dose of nicotine or other substances, including but not limited to electronic cigarettes, vaporizer pens, electronic cigars, electronic cigarillos, electronic pipes, electronic hookahs, or any other product name or descriptor, and including any component, part, or accessory of such a device, whether or not sold separately, including but not limited to cartomizers, clearomizers, atomizers, and tips.

D.F. E. "E-liquid" means any liquid, gel or other substance designed for use with an electronic nicotine delivery system, including but not limited to e-juice, smoke juice or any other product name or descriptor. Excluded from this definition is any non-nicotine containing liquid, gel or other substance that contains cannabis in any form as its active ingredient. E.G. F. "Flavored tobacco product" means any tobacco product containing, made of, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor.

H. “Labeling” means written, printed, or graphic matter upon any tobacco product or any of its packaging, or accompanying such tobacco product.

I. “Little cigar” means any roll of tobacco other than a cigarette wrapped entirely or in part in tobacco or any substance containing tobacco and weighing no more than three pounds per thousand. “Little cigar” includes, but is not limited to, tobacco products known or labeled as small cigar, little cigar, or cigarillo.

J. “Manufacturer” means any person, including any repacker or relabeler, who manufactures, fabricates, assembles, processes, or labels a tobacco product; or imports a finished tobacco product for sale or distribution into the United States.

F.K. “Package” or “Packaging” means a pack, box, carton, or container of any kind or, if no other container, any wrapping (including cellophane) in which a tobacco product is sold or offered for sale to a consumer.

G.L. "Pharmacy" means any retail establishment in which the profession of pharmacy is practiced by a pharmacist licensed by the State of California in accordance with the Business and Professions Code and where prescription pharmaceuticals are offered for sale, regardless of whether the retail establishment sells other retail goods in addition to prescription pharmaceuticals.

152 Page 9 of 13

H.M. “Proprietor" means a person with an ownership or managerial interest in a business. An ownership interest shall be deemed to exist when a person has a ten percent (10%) or greater interest in the stock, assets or income of a business other than the sole interest of security for debt. A managerial interest shall be deemed to exist when a person can or does have, or can or does share, ultimate control over the day-to-day operations of a business.

I.N.“School" means a building or group of buildings and associated grounds used for educational and/or classroom purposes operated by the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) and/or other public or private educational institutions offering a general course of study at primary, secondary or high school levels (grades K through 12) which is equivalent to the courses of study at such levels offered by the BUSD, as specified by City Council Resolution from time to time. Pre-school, vocational or trade programs shall be considered schools only when incidental to the primary use as a school as defined herein. Excluded from this definition are buildings operated by public or private education institutions in which the total student enrollment is less than 25 students and private residences at which students participate in home-based or independent study programs.

J.O. “Sale” or “Sell” means any transfer, exchange, barter, gift, offer for sale, or distribution for a commercial purpose, in any manner or by any means whatsoever.

K.P. "Tobacco paraphernalia" means items or instruments designed or marketed for the consumption, use, or preparation for consumption, of any substance containing tobacco or derived from tobacco, including but not limited to cigarette papers or wrappers, pipes, hookahs, and cigarette rolling machines.

L.Q. "Tobacco product" means: 1. any substance containing, made of, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption, whether smoked, heated, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed or ingested by any other means, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, little cigars, cigarillos, pipe tobacco, snuff, chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, bidis, and shisha; 2. any e-liquid; 3. any electronic nicotine delivery system; and 4. any tobacco paraphernalia.

"Tobacco product" does not include drugs, devices, or combination products authorized for sale any cessation product specifically approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, as those terms are defined in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. for use in treating nicotine or tobacco dependence.

M.R. "Tobacco retailer" means any person or business that operates a store, stand, booth concession or other place at which the sales of tobacco products are made to purchasers for personal consumption or use.

Section 3. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 9.80.030 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 9.80.030 Requirement for tobacco retail licensure.

153 Page 10 of 13

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a tobacco retailer without first obtaining and maintaining a valid tobacco retailer’s license pursuant to this chapter, for each location at which that activity is to occur.

B. It shall be a violation of a tobacco retailer’s license for a licensee or his or her agent or employee to violate any local, state, or federal tobacco-related law.

C. It shall be a violation of a tobacco retailer’s license for a licensee or his or her agent or employee to sell or offer for sale, or to possess with intent to sell or offer for sale, any flavored tobacco product.

1. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco retailer in possession of four or more flavored tobacco products, including, but not limited to, individual flavored tobacco products, packages of flavored tobacco products, or any combination thereof, possesses such flavored tobacco products with intent to sell or offer for sale.

2. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco product is a flavored tobacco product if a tobacco retailer, manufacturer, or any employee or agent of a tobacco retailer or manufacturer has: a) made a public statement or claim that the tobacco product imparts a characterizing flavor; b) used text and/or images on the tobacco product’s labeling or packaging to explicitly or implicitly indicate that the tobacco product imparts a characterizing flavor; or c) taken action directed to consumers that would be reasonably expected to cause consumers to believe the tobacco product imparts a characterizing flavor.

D. It shall be a violation of a tobacco retailer’s license for a licensee or his or her agent to sell any tobacco product to any consumer unless such product: (1) is sold in the original manufacturer’s packaging intended for sale to consumers; and (2) conforms to all applicable federal labeling requirements.

E. It shall be a violation of a tobacco retailer’s license for a licensee or his agent or employee to sell to a consumer: 1. any little cigar unless it is sold in a package of at least 20 (twenty) little cigars; or 2. any cigar unless it is sold in a package of at least at least 6 (six) cigars [ provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to a cigar that has a price of at least [ $X.00 ] per cigar, including all applicable taxes and fees ].

C.F. Any tobacco retailer who as of September 15, 2015, was lawfully selling electronic nicotine delivery systems or e-liquids and was not otherwise required to have a tobacco retailer’s license shall be exempt from the requirements of subdivision A of this Section until January 1, 2016.

Section 4. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 9.80.035 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 9.80.035 Limits on eligibility for a tobacco retailer license.

A. No new tobacco retailer license may be issued to a pharmacy.

B. No existing tobacco retailer license may be renewed by a pharmacy.

154 Page 11 of 13

C. No new tobacco retailer license may be issued to authorize the sale of tobacco products within six hundred (600) feet of any school as measured by a straight line from the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the school is located to the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the business is located.D. Effective January 1, 2017, no person shall sell, give away, barter, exchange, or otherwise deal in flavored tobacco products within six hundred (600) feet of any school as measured by a straight line from the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the school is located to the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the business is located.

D. Effective January 1, 2017, no person shall sell, give away, barter, exchange, or otherwise deal in electronic nicotine delivery systems or e-liquid within six hundred (600) feet of any school as measured by a straight line from the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the school is located to the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the business is located.

1. Subdivision DE.1 shall not prohibit the sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems to persons who demonstrate that they are qualified patients or primary caregivers as defined in Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 or persons with identification cards issued pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.71, provided that such electronic nicotine delivery systems are unaccompanied by any tobacco product defined in Sections 9.80.020.K.1 or 9.80.020.K.2.

E. A tobacco retailer lawfully operating prior to March 1, 2015, that is engaged primarily in the sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems or e-liquid and is prohibited from selling electronic nicotine delivery systems and e-liquid due to the proximity to a school as specified in subdivision DE.1 may obtain an exemption from subdivision DE.1 yearly for up to a total of three years, beginning January 1, 2017, if it makes a showing, as determined by the City Manager or his or her designee, that application of subdivision DE.1 would result in a taking without just compensation under either the California or the United States Constitution. "Engaged primarily" for purposes of this subsection means that the sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems and e-liquids account for more than 50% of the tobacco retailer’s calendar year 2014 gross receipts.

F. A map identifying the areas falling within six hundred (600) feet of schools shall be adopted by the City Council by resolution, and may be amended from time to time.

Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after January 11, 2019; provided, however, that Section 9.80.030(C) shall not take effect until June 11, 2019, thereby giving retailers 6 months to sell or move around related merchandise.

1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf. 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf.

155 Page 12 of 13

3 California Department of Public Health California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2016. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health. 2016. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigu res/2016FactsFiguresWeb.pdf. 4 Kann L, McManus T, Harris WA, et al. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 2017. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018;67(8):1-114. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6708a1; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2017. Supplementary Tables 52-93: Tobacco Use. 2018; https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/2017_tables/tobacco_use.htm. 5 6 21 U.S.C. § 387g(a)(1)(A). 7 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/; Villanti AC, Collins LK, Niaura RS, Gagosian SY, Abrams DB. Menthol cigarettes and the public health standard: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):983. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4987-z; Villanti AC, Johnson AL, Ambrose BK, et al. Flavored Tobacco Product Use in Youth and Adults: Findings From the First Wave of the PATH Study (2013-2014). Am J Prev Med. 2017;53(2):139-151. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.026. 8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/. 9 California Department of Public Health California Tobacco Control Program. 2016 Healthy Stores for a Healthy Community Survey Results-all counties. 2016. Available at: http://healthystoreshealthycommunity.com/media-center/?campaign. 10 http://healthystoreshealthycommunity.com/counties/berkeley/ 11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/; Hersey JC, Ng SW, Nonnemaker JM, et al. Are menthol cigarettes a starter product for youth? Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8(3):403-413. doi: 10.1080/14622200600670389; Wackowski O, Delnevo CD. Menthol cigarettes and indicators of tobacco dependence among adolescents. Addict Behav. 2007;32(9):1964-1969. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.12.023. 12 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/; Oliver AJ, Jensen JA, Vogel RI, Anderson AJ, Hatsukami DK. Flavored and nonflavored smokeless tobacco products: rate, pattern of use, and effects. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(1):88-92. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nts093. 13 United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009), and order clarified, 778 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2011); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/; Yerger VB, Przewoznik J, Malone RE. Racialized geography, corporate activity, and health disparities: tobacco industry targeting of inner cities. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18(4 Suppl):10-38. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2007.0120; Kreslake JM, Wayne GF, Alpert HR, Koh HK, Connolly GN. Tobacco industry control of menthol in cigarettes and targeting of adolescents and young adults. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(9):1685-1692. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.125542; Fallin A, Goodin AJ, King BA. Menthol cigarette smoking among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(1):93-97. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.07.044. 14 Courtemanche CJ, Palmer MK, Pesko MF. Influence of the Flavored Cigarette Ban on Adolescent Tobacco Use. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(5):e139-e146. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.019. 15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/; Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE, Miech RA. Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary school students. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. 2014. Available at: http://monitoringthefuture.org//pubs/monographs/mtf-vol1_2013.pdf; Harrell PT, Naqvi SMH, Plunk AD, Ji M, Martins SS. Patterns of youth tobacco and polytobacco usage: The shift to alternative tobacco products. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2017;43(6):694-702. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2016.1225072; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2011. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHNationalFindingsResults2010- web/2k10ResultsRev/NSDUHresultsRev2010.pdf; Wang TW, Gentzke A, Sharapova S, Cullen KA, Ambrose BK, Jamal A. Tobacco Product Use Among Middle and High School Students - United States, 2011-2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(22):629-633. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6722a3; Cobb C, Ward KD, Maziak W, Shihadeh AL, Eissenberg T. Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking: An Emerging Health Crisis in the United States. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2010;34(3):275-285. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.34.3.3. 16 21 C.F.R. § 1140.16(b); Cal. Penal Code § 308.3(a). 17 California Department of Public Health California Tobacco Control Program. Tobacco in the Retail Environment. 2012. Available at:

156 Page 13 of 13

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigu res/TobaccoRetailEnvironmentFactSheetEasyPrint.pdf. 18 California Department of Public Health California Tobacco Control Program. 2016 Healthy Stores for a Healthy Community Survey Results-all counties. 2016. Available at: http://healthystoreshealthycommunity.com/media-center/?campaign. 19 Cullen J, Mowery P, Delnevo C, et al. Seven-year patterns in US cigar use epidemiology among young adults aged 18-25 years: a focus on race/ethnicity and brand. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(10):1955-1962. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300209. 20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014. Available at: https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf; Institute of Medicine. Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation. Washington, DC. 2007. Available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11795/ending-the-tobacco- problem-a-blueprint-for-the-nation; Community Preventive Services Task Force. Reducing Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Interventions to Increase the Unit Price for Tobacco Products. 2012. Available at: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Tobacco-Increasing-Unit-Price.pdf; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State Cigarette Minimum Price Laws—United States, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59(13):389-392; Chaloupka FJ, Cummings KM, Morley C, Horan J. Tax, price and cigarette smoking: evidence from the tobacco documents and implications for tobacco company marketing strategies. Tob Control. 2002;11(Supplement 1):i62-i72. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i62; Chaloupka FJ, Yurekli A, Fong GT. Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy. Tob Control. 2012;21(2):172-180. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050417; Huang J, Gwarnicki C, Xu X, Caraballo RS, Wada R, Chaloupka FJ. A comprehensive examination of own- and cross-price elasticities of tobacco and nicotine replacement products in the U.S. Prev Med. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.04.024; Pesko MF, Huang J, Johnston LD, Chaloupka FJ. E-cigarette price sensitivity among middle- and high-school students: evidence from monitoring the future. Addiction. 2018;113(5):896-906. doi: 10.1111/add.14119; Jawad M, Lee JT, Glantz S, Millett C. Price elasticity of demand of non-cigarette tobacco products: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2018. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054056.

157

Attachment Not Received

This attachment has not been received from the submitting office.

City Clerk Department 2180 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6900

The City of Berkeley, City Council’s Web site: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil/

158 Page 1 of 2

Kate Harrison Councilmember District 4 CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmembers Harrison and Davila Subject: Referral to City Manager to establish Recreational Vehicle Waste Discharge Facility on City Property and Referral to FY 2019/20 Budget Process

RECOMMENDATION 1. Refer to the City Manager to establish a recreational vehicle waste discharge facility on City property and equitable administrative fee program, and

2. Refer costs associated with the facility to the FY 2019/20 Budget Process.

BACKGROUND A limited number of RV waste discharge facilities exist across the Bay Area; no such public facility is currently available in Berkeley. The nearest public facility appears to be miles away in San Leandro. The ability to discharge human waste into municipal sewers protects public health and meets a basic human need. It is in the interest of the City to prevent the improper discharge of untreated waste into the environment and to provide equitable and convenient access to municipal services.

The City’s Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Department reported in June of 2018 that some 200 vehicle dwellers, including visitors, parked overnight in the Berkeley Marina. Vehicle dwellers also park in streets throughout Berkeley. Vehicles provide them with critical respite from the elements but vehicle dwellers lack basic sanitary services.

The Council established an informal Council-staff task force in June of 2018 to explore the feasibility of establishing a sanctioned vehicle dweller park with restrooms and potentially a discharge facility. The task force is making progress, but the long-term nature of the exploration process leaves RV dwellers without critical services. The City can reasonably establish a waste discharge facility on City property in the short term, while pursuing a comprehensive RV park over the long term.

Consultations with officials managing waste discharge facilities at the Central Marin Sanitation Agency and with the Contra Costa County Fairgrounds indicate that the cost of constructing a discharge facility would be relativity inexpensive as fees can be established to cover the cost. Both facilities consist of a sewer drain and RV tank connection equipment, as well as a clean water hose for cleaning. Central Marin reported that their facility cost $150,000 and was completed ten years ago, which,

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected] 159 Page 2 of 2

Referral to City Manager to establish Recreational Vehicle Waste Discharge Facility CONSENT CALENDAR on City Property and Referral to FY 2019/20 Budget Process December 11, 2018

adjusted for inflation, is approximately $176,000. Both Marin and Contra Costa charge $10 for each use of the facility, report very low management costs, and serve an average of 10 users per month.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Costs associated with building the facility, approximatively $150,000 – $200,000, offset by fees, and staff time to collect fees. On average, an RV occupied by two people needs to discharge waste every week. Thus for every 50 RVs, 2,400 discharges annually could be expected, generating $36,000 with a $15 per use fee. Under this scenario, costs would be recouped in approximately 5 years and a small percentage of the fee could go towards subsidizing service for very low-income vehicle dwellers.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Reduces public health hazards, as well as environmental pollutants entering our waterways due to poor sanitation and/or a lack of sanitation services. Reduces travel time and resulting emissions.

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Kate Harrison, Council District 4, (510) 981-7140

Page 2 160 Page 1 of 14

CONSENT CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn Subject: The Berkeley Public Library Foundation 17th Annual Authors Dinner: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember to the Berkeley Public Library Foundation’s 17th Annual Authors Dinner with funds relinquished to the City’s General Fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budget of any Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

The Berkeley Public Library Foundation raises funds to support and enhance the facilities, programs and services of the Berkeley Public Library. The proceeds from this event will subsidize library programs and would fulfill the municipal public purpose.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS No General Fund impact

BACKGROUND The Foundation’s Annual Authors Dinner is a unique cultural event that spotlights the Bay Area’s literary tradition. For one night only, the historic downtown Central Library transforms into a beautiful literary salon featuring a lively meet-the-authors reception, an epicurean meal seated with one of our honored authors, and a festive program introducing all 29 authors. Guests take home lasting memories and a celebrated author’s book.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY No known environmental impacts.

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Sophie Hahn, District 5, (510) 981-7150

Attachment: 1. Resolution 2. List of confirmed authors

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7150 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected] 161 Page 2 of 14

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 MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE

WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax exempt corporation, The Berkeley Public Library Foundation, through their 17th Annual Authors Dinner, seeks funds in the amount of $500 to subsidize library services for the City of Berkeley; and

WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the following municipal public purpose: The Berkeley Public Library Foundation raises funds to support and enhance the facilities, programs and services of the Berkeley Public Library. The proceeds from this event will subsidize community literacy programs.

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 $500 per office shall be granted to the Berkeley Public Library Foundation, through its 17th Annual Authors Dinner to support the Berkeley Public Libraries and their programs. Page

162 Page 3 of 14

Faith Adiele

Faith Adiele has authored two memoirs: Meeting Faith, an award-winning account of becoming Thailand’s first black Buddhist nun, and The Nigerian Nordic Girl’s Guide to Lady Problems. She is writer/narrator/subject of the PBS documentary My Journey Home; and co-editor of Coming of Age Around the World: A Multicultural Anthology. One of Marie Claire magazine’s “5 Women to Learn From,” Faith teaches at California College of the Arts, the Writers Grotto, and Left Margin Lit. Founder of African Book Club and the nation’s first People of Color travel writing workshop, she lives in Oakland and at adiele.com and @meetingfaith.

Shane Bauer

Author of American Prison: A Reporter’s Undercover Journey into the Business of Punishment (2018) Check back soon for his bio.

Michael Chabon

Michael Chabon is the bestselling and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the novels The Mysteries of Pittsburgh, Wonder Boys, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, Summerland, The Final Solution, The Yiddish Policeman’s Union, Gentlemen of the Road, Telegraph

163 Page 4 of 14

Avenue, and Moonglow; the short story collections A Model World and Werewolves in Their Youth; the essay collections Maps and Legends, Manhood for Amateurs; and the recent Pops: Fatherhood in Pieces. He lives in Berkeley, California, with his wife, novelist Ayelet Waldman, and their children.

M. K. Chavez

Latinx writer, MK Chavez, is the author of Mothermorphosis (Nomadic Press) and Dear Animal (Nomadic Press). She is a recipient of a 2017 PEN Oakland/Josephine Miles Award. She is a fellow with CantoMundo, co-founder and co-curator of the reading series Lyrics & Dirges, co-director of the Berkeley Poetry Festival, and guest curator of the reading series at UC Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive (BAMPFA) in the Fall of 2018.

Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky is Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at University of California, Berkeley School of Law. He was founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law at University of California, Irvine School of Law, and, before that, professor at Duke University and USC. His eleventh book, We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the 21st Century, will be published by Picador MacMillan in November 2018. In addition, he is the author of more than 200 law review articles. He writes a weekly column for the Sacramento Bee, monthly columns for the ABA Journal and the Daily Journal, and frequent op-eds in newspapers across the country. He frequently argues appellate cases, including in the United States Supreme Court. He received a B.S. from Northwestern University (1975), and a J.D. from Harvard Law School (1978).

164 Page 5 of 14

Kirstin Chen

Kirstin Chen’s new novel, Bury What We Cannot Take (Little A, March 2018), has been named a Most Anticipated Upcoming Book by Electric Literature, The Millions, The Rumpus, Harper’s Bazaar, and InStyle, among others. She is also the author of Soy Sauce for Beginners. She was the fall 2017 NTU-NAC National Writer in Residence in Singapore, and has received awards from the Steinbeck Fellows Program, Sewanee, Hedgebrook, and the Napa Valley Writers’ Conference. Born and raised in Singapore, she currently resides in San Francisco.

Tom Dalzell

Tom Dalzell has lived in Berkeley since 1984. He grew up outside Philadelphia. After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania in 1971 he moved to California to work with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers. He worked for the UFW legal department until 1980; during that time, he was admitted to the Bar under a long-ignored state-allowed legal apprenticeship program. Since 1981 he has worked for Local 1245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, first as an attorney and since 2006 as the elected leader of the union. He has written extensively on slang, and since 2013 has blogged about Berkeley’s quirky material culture for his website Quirky Berkeley and for Berkeleyside. Heyday has published two volumes of Quirky Berkeley, and in April 2019 Heyday will publish his The Crying of Lot 1875-2: The Battle for People’s Park, Berkeley 1969.

165 Page 6 of 14

Jasmin Darznik

Jasmin Darznik’s debut novel Song of a Captive Bird is a fictional account of Iran’s trailblazing woman poet, Forugh Farrokhzad. It was selected as a New York Times Book Review Editors’ Choice as well as one of 2018’s Best Books by Vogue, Ms. and Newsweek. Jasmin is also the author of the New York Times bestseller The Good Daughter: A Memoir of My Mother’s Hidden Life. Her books have been published and are forthcoming in seventeen countries and her essays have appeared in numerous periodicals, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times. Jasmin was born in Tehran, Iran, and came to America when she was five years old. She holds an MFA in fiction from Bennington College and a Ph.D. in English from Princeton University. Now a professor of English and creative writing at California College of the Arts, she lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with her family and is working on a novel set in 1920s San Francisco.

Carolyn Federman

Carolyn Federman is the founder and Director of the Charlie Cart Project, a nonprofit bringing hands-on food and nutrition education to scale in schools, libraries and other community hubs. Prior to Charlie Cart, Carolyn worked in food education for more than a decade, with such food advocacy pioneers as Alice Waters, Jamie Oliver and Michael Pollan. Carolyn is proudly raising two teenagers in Berkeley, California. She is the author of New Favorites for New Cooks: 50 Delicious Recipes for Kids to Make (2018).

Francis Fukuyama

166 Page 7 of 14

Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He has previously taught at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and at the George Mason University School of Public Policy. Fukuyama was a researcher at the RAND Corporation and served as the deputy director for the State Department’s policy planning staff. He is the author of Political Order and Political Decay, The Origins of Political Order, The End of History and the Last Man, Trust, and America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. Dr. Fukuyama is chairman of the editorial board of The American Interest, which he helped to found in 2005.

Charlotte Gray

Charlotte Schiander Gray, author of Fatima’s Room and Stories from Ethiopia, was born in Copenhagen in 1944. After earning her PhD in Scandinavian Languages and Literature at the University of California at Berkeley, she accompanied her American husband, a water engineer for UNICEF, to Yemen, India, Sudan, and Ethiopia. In Sudan she taught English and Women’s Studies at the Ahfad University for Women. She has published academic articles and book reviews on Scandinavian literature, and wrote a book on the Danish author Klaus Rifbjerg. Charlotte has taught literature at UC Berkeley Extension and volunteered for the Friends of the Berkeley Public Library all while also volunteering in the public schools attended by her three sons. For the past fifteen years she has written fictional stories of her life in foreign countries. She spends the summer months in her second home on the Danish island of Ærø.

Sands Hall

Sands Hall’s memoir, Flunk. Start: Reclaiming My Decade Lost in Scientology (Counterpoint), was named a top ten book in religion and spirituality by Publishers Weekly, Spring 2018. Other books include the novel Catching Heaven (Ballantine), a Willa Award Finalist; and a volume of writing essays and exercises, Tools of the Writer’s Craft. Her stories have been published in such places as New England Review, Green Mountains Review, and Iowa Review. Her produced plays include an adaptation of Alcott’s Little Women, and the comic-drama Fair Use, which takes on the “was it plagiarism” controversy surrounding Wallace Stegner’s novel, Angle of Repose. Sands is also a

167 Page 8 of 14

singer/songwriter, with a recent CD called Rustler’s Moon. She lives in Nevada City, California.

Oliver James

Oliver James is an author and illustrator born in Berkeley in 1991. He started watching birds in his backyard on Colusa Avenue at age five and never turned back. Since then he has competed in national birding tournaments, worked as a birding tour guide, and joined ornithological research teams from Peru to Alaska. He graduated from Berkeley High School in 2009, Wesleyan University in 2014, and is currently a graduate student in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. James is the author of Birds of Berkeley (Heyday Press, 2018) and A Field Guide to the Birds of Wesleyan (Wesleyan University Press, 2014). To view his work visit oliver-james.com.

Michael David Lukas

Michael David Lukas has been a Fulbright Scholar in Turkey, a night-shift proofreader in Tel Aviv, and a waiter at the Bread Loaf Writers’ Conference in Vermont. Translated into more than a dozen languages, his first novel The Oracle of Stamboul was a finalist for the California Book Award, the NCIBA Book of the Year Award, and the Harold U. Ribalow Prize. His second novel, The Last Watchman of Old Cairo, was published recently by Spiegel & Grau. A graduate of Brown University and the University of Maryland, he is a recipient of scholarships from the National Endowment for the Arts, Montalvo Arts Center, New York State Summer Writers’ Institute, Squaw Valley Community of Writers, and Elizabeth George Foundation. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Slate, National Geographic Traveler, and Georgia Review. He lives in Oakland and

168 Page 9 of 14

teaches at San Francisco State University.

Laura McLively

Laura McLively is an Oakland-based registered dietitian and food writer. An avid home cook, Laura is the creator of My Berkeley Bowl, a popular blog about cooking with unusual fruits and vegetables from Berkeley Bowl, from which the seeds for her Berkeley Bowl Cookbook took root. McLively has worked at the Native American Health Center in Oakland since 2009, where she is currently the Director of Nutrition and Fitness.

Laura Nader

Laura Nader’s current work focuses on how central dogmas are made and how they work in law, energy science, and anthropology. Harmony, Ideology, Injustice and Control in a Mountain Zapotec Village (1990) and The Life of the Law: Anthropological Projects (2002) indicate a wide range of interests in law that has moved from village sites into national and international arenas. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society (1980) is the initial work that has continued on in the area of energy and resources culminating in Naked Science Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge (1996). Essays in Controlling Processes (1994, 1996, 2002) is ongoing work on power and control. Nader is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1995 the Law

169 Page 10 of 14

and Society Association awarded her the Kalven Prize for distinguished research on law and society.

Tommy Orange

Tommy Orange is a recent graduate from the MFA program at the Institute of American Indian Arts. He is a 2014 MacDowell Fellow, and a 2016 Writing by Writers Fellow. He is an enrolled member of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma. He was born and raised in Oakland, California, and currently lives in Angels Camp, California. His latest book is There There (2018).

Halifu Osumare

Halifu Osumare, Ph.D., is a choreographer and scholar who has been involved with dance and black popular culture internationally, for over forty years, as a dancer, choreographer, teacher, administrator, and scholar. She holds an M.A. in Dance Ethnology, and a Ph.D. in American Studies. Dr. Osumare is Professor Emerita of African American & African Studies at University of California, Davis, and is a noted hip-hop scholar as the author of The Africanist Aesthetic in Global Hip-Hop: Power Moves (2007) and The Hiplife in Ghana: West African Indigenization of Hip-Hop (2012). Her memoir, Dancing in Blackness, which contains much Bay Area cultural and arts history, was published by the University Press of Florida in February 2018.

Cleo Papanikolas

Cleo Papanikolas is the author/illustrator of The Opposite Is Also True: A Journal Of Creative Wisdom For Artists and Cook Until Desired Tenderness. After Berkeley High School she earned a

170 Page 11 of 14

BFA in printmaking from California College of Arts and an MFA in painting from the University of California, Berkeley. As a working artist, Cleo has painted large public murals, oil-on-canvas paintings for fine art galleries, and illustrations for print and her Cleomade craft business. She currently teaches illustration at California College of the Arts extension

Anna Rabkin

Anna Rabkin’s early life in Poland was one of serial escapes – from Communists, Nazis, and her Catholic saviors. After WWII to escape Polish fascism she was sent to England. At the age of 18 she emigrated to New York where she was introduced to a cosmopolitan, globetrotting life. Anna and her husband migrated to Berkeley in the sixties and became active in local politics. She served as Berkeley’s elected City Auditor for 15 years; was a 1991 delegate to the White House Conference on Libraries; co-authored Public Libraries: Travel Treasures of the West, and in 2009 received Berkeley Public Library Foundation’s Fred and Pat Cody award. Recipient of master’s degrees in City Planning from University of California, Berkeley and in History from California State University, East Bay; she continues to visit libraries whenever she travels. Her memoir, From Krakow to Berkeley: Coming out of Hiding, was published by Vallentine Mitchell in 2018.

David Reid

Author of Suffer in Silence: A Novel of Navy SEAL Training (2012). Check back soon for his bio

Greg Sarris

171 Page 12 of 14

Greg Sarris received his Ph.D. in Modern Thought and Literature from Stanford University, where he was awarded the Walter Gore Award for excellence in teaching. He has published several books, including Grand Avenue (1994), an award-winning collection of short stories, which he adapted for an HBO miniseries and co-executive produced with Robert Redford. He is serving his thirteenth elected term as Chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. Formerly a full professor of English at UCLA, and then the Fletcher Jones Professor of Creative Writing and Literature at Loyola Marymount University, Greg now holds the position of Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria Endowed Chair of Sonoma State University, where he teaches a number of courses in Creative Writing, American Literature, and American Indian Literature. His new book How a Mountain Was Made, a collection of stories was released in October 2017

Erin Scott

Erin Scott is a food and lifestyle photographer who works out of her North Berkeley garden studio. Inspired by nature’s bounty, Erin has photographed nearly twenty books, most recently The Berkeley Bowl Cookbook, and her images have been featured in Sunset Magazine, the San Francisco Chronicle, Edible SF, and the Huffington Post. Erin is also a passionate home cook and author of the Yummy Supper cookbook, which was honored by the BPL in 2015.

Robin Sloan

Robin Sloan’s first novel, Mr. Penumbra’s 24-Hour Bookstore, was a New York Times Best Seller, translated into more than twenty languages. His latest novel, Sourdough, was published in 2017. With his partner Kathryn Tomajan, Robin produces California extra virgin olive oil under the label Fat

172 Page 13 of 14

Gold. He lives in Oakland and works out of the Murray Street Media Lab in South Berkeley, down by the railroad tracks

Betty Reid Soskin

Betty Charbonnet Reid Soskin is an author, singer, songwriter, social and political activist, entrepreneur, mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother, historian, blogger, public speaker, and National Park Service Ranger. Betty was instrumental in the establishment of Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, California, in 2000 where she now works. Born in 1921, she spent her early years in New Orleans. Her family later settled in Oakland, California in 1927. In March of 2018, her first book, Sign My Name to Freedom, a memoir of her long, multifaceted life was published

Oscar Villalon

Oscar Villalon is the managing editor at the San Francisco literary journal ZYZZYVA. His writing has been published in the Virginia Quarterly Review, The Believer, the Daily Beast, NPR.org, the Rumpus, and other publications. A contributing editor to Lit Hub, he is a former board member of the National Book Critics Circle and the former book editor at the San Francisco Chronicle.

Ayelet Waldman

Ayelet Waldman is the author of A Really Good Day: How Microdosing Made a Mega Difference in My Mood, My Marriage, and My Life, the novels Love and Treasure, Red Hook Road, Love and Other Impossible Pursuits, and Daughter’s Keeper, as well of the essay collection Bad Mother: A

173 Page 14 of 14

Chronicle of Maternal Crimes, Minor Calamaties, and Occasional Moments of Grace and the Mommy-Track Mystery series. She is the editor of Inside this Place, Not of It: Narratives from Women’s Prisons and the forthcoming Kingdom of Olives and Ash: Writers Confront the Occupation. She was a federal public defender and an adjunct professor at the UC Berkeley Law School where she developed and taught a course on the legal implications of the War on Drugs. She lives in Berkeley, California, with her husband, Michael Chabon, and their four children

Narda Zacchino

Narda Zacchino is a journalist, writer and editor. She worked at the Los Angeles Times for over thirty years, eventually serving as vice president and associate editor. She has also been the deputy editor for the San Francisco Chronicle and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the International Women’s Media Foundation and Journalism and Women’s Symposium. She has co- launched a book publishing company, Time Capsule Press, which she serves as editor and publisher. In 1995, she co-created the ongoing Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, which draws more than 100,000 to the campus of the University of California on a weekend every April. She is currently Heyday’s executive editor and a senior fellow at the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy, and continues to work as an independent writer and editor. Her most recent book California Comeback: How a “Failed State” Became a Model for the Nation came out in August of 2016

Jessica Nutik Zitter

Jessica Zitter, MD, MPH, practices ICU and Palliative Care at the Highland Hospital in Oakland, California. She is the author of Extreme Measures: Finding a Better Path to the End of Life. Her essays and articles have appeared in the New York Times, The Atlantic, the Huffington Post, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other publications. Her work is featured in the Oscar and Emmy-nominated short documentary, Extremis, now streaming on Netflix. She is a nationally recognized speaker on the topic of dying in America.

174 Page 1 of 2

Lori Droste Councilmember, District 8

Consent Calendar December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmembers Susan Wengraf and Lori Droste

Subject: The Berkeley Public Library Foundation 17th Annual Authors Dinner: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember including $500 from Councilmembers Wengraf and Droste to the Berkeley Public Library Foundation’s 17th Annual Authors Dinner with funds relinquished to the City’s General Fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Councilmembers Wengraf, Droste and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute. The Berkeley Public Library Foundation raises funds to support and enhance the facilities, programs and services of the Berkeley Public Library. The proceeds from this event will subsidize library programs and would fulfill the municipal public purpose.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION No General Fund impact; $500 is available from Councilmembers Droste and Wengraf Council Office Budget discretionary accounts.

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

175 Page 2 of 2

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 MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE

WHEREAS, Councilmembers Lori Droste and Susan Wengraf have surplus funds in their office expenditure accounts (budget code 010-0262-410); and

176 Page 1 of 88

Zero Waste Commission ACTION CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Zero Waste Commission Submitted by: Chrise de Tournay Birkhahn, Chairperson, Zero Waste Commission Subject: Referral Response: Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

RECOMMENDATION Review the results of the Zero Waste Commission’s community outreach and analysis provided in response to Council’s referral and consider incorporating the Zero Waste Commission recommendations for improvements into the referred draft proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance (Attachment 1).

SUMMARY The Zero Waste Commission was tasked by Council to invite input from the public and key stakeholders, including restaurants, food retailers, the disabled community, and other City commissions on the proposed Ordinance. This report includes results of the community and business outreach, including analysis and recommendations for improvements to the proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION The added cost of the referral is staff time to review recommendations, including health codes and operations.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS This report responds to referral that originally appeared as item 34 on the agenda of the April 24, 2018 Council meeting. This referral was sponsored by Councilmember Sophie Hahn and Mayor Jesse Arreguin, and Councilmembers Linda Maio and Susan Wengraf.

At the City Council meeting on April 24, 2018 the City Council approved the following recommendation:

1. Refer the proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance to the Zero Waste Commission to invite input from key stakeholders, including restaurants and other food retailers and zero waste, plastics, oceans and other environmental experts, and hold public meetings to obtain input on the proposed Ordinance; and

Referral Response: ACTION CALENDAR Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance December 11, 2018

2. Refer to the Zero Waste Commission to report back to the City Council results of the Commission’s community outreach and analysis, and provide recommendations for improvements to the proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance.

The Zero Waste Commission held seven public input sessions, two of which were part of the extended public comment period at monthly Zero Waste Commission meetings. The meetings were held on different days of the week, at different times, and in different geographic locations around the City. The Zero Waste Commission has compiled a report of recommendations (Attachment 1) and public comments (Attachment 2) from these listening sessions and from written comments submitted by the public and stakeholders.

BACKGROUND Single-use disposable foodware and packaging (SUDs) is a major contributor to street litter, ocean pollution, marine and other wildlife harm and greenhouse gas emissions. The practice of providing food and beverage packaging free-of-charge fails to incorporate the environmental and social costs of these products into the price of the products.

SUDs are costly and challenging to divert from landfill. Non-recyclable food and beverage packaging is costly to remove from the waste stream and reduces the quality and value of recyclables. In order for Berkeley to reach its Zero Waste goals, the City must reduce use of unnecessary single-use food and beverage packaging.

The Zero Waste Commission approved their recommendations for improvements to the Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance at the September 24, 2018 regular meeting of the Zero Waste Commission. Motion: Sharenko; Second: Stein; Vote: 7 Ayes: de Tournay, Twu, Poliwka, Sharenko, McKinstry, Stein, Whitney; Noes: None; Abstain: None; Absent: Watson, Clark.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The production, consumption and disposal of single use food and beverage packaging is a major contributor to litter in our streets, plastic in landfills, pollution in waterways and oceans, greenhouse gas emissions, and harm to wildlife. The ordinance represents a step forward in reducing the use of disposable foodware in Berkeley, fulfilling Berkeley’s Zero Waste and Climate Action Goals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and meeting State trash load level mandates.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The Zero Waste Commission recommendations are based on an analysis of the gathered public and stakeholder feedback. Incorporation of the recommendations will lead to an improved Ordinance.

178 Page 3 of 88

Referral Response: ACTION CALENDAR Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance December 11, 2018

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED None.

CITY MANAGER See companion report.

CONTACT PERSON Heidi Obermeit, Recycling Program Manager, Zero Waste Commission Secretary, Department of Public Works, 510-981-6357

Attachments: 1: Zero Waste Commission Recommendations for the Proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance 2: Public and Stakeholder Comments Collected 3: April 24, 2018 City Council Referral Report and Draft Proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

179 Page 4 of 88

Page 1 of 6

Zero Waste Commission Recommendations for the proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Note that comments may not be verbatim, and that “recyclable” materials refer ONLY to those accepted in the City’s Curbside Recycling Collection Program.

TOPIC: Requiring Durable/Reusable Foodware for DINING-IN

Comments received:  Space concerns for installing washing machines/water usage/reusable ware  Durable foodware poses a safety threat to employees if used as projectiles (comment from Top Dog)  Labor costs to train and require employees to wash durable food ware

Based on the input received, the ZWC suggests Council consider the following possible adjustments to the proposed ordinance:

 Provide free technical assistance to help food establishments plan operations and equipment changes  Provide small grants or loans to help defray the up-front costs of purchasing reusable foodware and re-configuring kitchens  Allow private off-site washing/cleaning services to provide service in lieu of on-site cleaning.  Exempt certain establishments from the 100% reusable requirement on a case-by-case basis, if they can prove it was impossible to implement all requirements due to unique considerations, so long as a good faith effort is made to do the most possible to achieve goals of ordinance.  Compostable items used in any case where use of reusables are determined non- implementable by City.  City-wide funded education program for businesses to transition to requirements of ordinance.  Provide fact-sheet/FAQ for businesses

TOPIC: Collection and Documentation of SUD Charge-Added complexity/logistics

Comments Received:  Multiple business owners expressed concern about how to implement the SUD charge.  Need clarification on how to enter line item(s) for SUD charges? (Ex: Does a customer who orders a soup, salad, and sandwich need three SUD line items, each item to be documented?)  Limited/low quality of labor and high cost of business makes this a real issue  Many people do not request a receipt - is this non-compliant with ordinance requiring public notification of charge?

180 Page 5 of 88

Page 2 of 6

Based on the input received, the ZWC suggests Council consider the following possible adjustments to the proposed ordinance:  Clarify requirements for reporting line-item charges on receipts (virtual or hardcopy)  Provide fact-sheet/FAQ for businesses

TOPIC: Ordinance targets prepared/served food produced in-house for take-out, while exempting other waste generating food-serving establishments (ex: pre-packaged take-out food from grocery stores, coffee chains, movie theaters).

Comments:  Food that is trucked in (examples: Trader Joe’s salads, to-go prepared food at grocery stores, coffee chains) can be packed in any container with no fee, thus targeting small, local businesses.  Similarly, will a fountain drink in a SUD is subject to a charge, but not a can of soda.  Movie theaters do not have kitchens, cannot be expected to convert to reusables, request exemption from SUD charges.

Based on the input received, the ZWC suggests Council consider the following possible adjustments to the proposed ordinance:  Phased approach to charge for take-out food ware, to ensure equity across businesses in Berkeley  Examine ways to require compostable containers for prepared foods from other establishments besides those that produce food on-site for take-out (ex: grocery stores, coffee store chains)  Include movie theaters for conversion to compostables if reusables are not possible.

TOPIC: Availability of alternative compostable containers to contain all foods for take-out.

Comments:  No compostable containers exist that can hold items at 180F degrees  No acceptable alternatives to plastic are currently available for all types of food condiments

Suggestion:  Exempt items with no reasonable alternatives until acceptable/compliant items are available in the market Alternatives should be compostable or recyclable.  City should work with recognized industry organizations for accepted standards of “best” items that comply with compostability and health concerns (ex: BPI) in order to develop approved list of compliant items

181 Page 6 of 88

Page 3 of 6

TOPIC: Ordinance does not ensure compostable/recyclable SUD items will end up in proper source-separated stream.

Comments:  If SUDs are required to be compostable or recyclable, it is still likely these items will end up in landfill, based on consumer behavior and availability of recycle/compost collection containers. Suggest a focus on downstream user, as it is a known issue that waste streams are often poorly sorted.  Overseas markets are no longer accepting our plastics, and they are harming the environment with litter and chemicals/degradation

Based on the input received, the ZWC suggests Council consider the following possible adjustments to the proposed ordinance:  Funded City-wide program to educate consumers on proper sorting of waste and ordinance (FAQ)  Improve collection through increased service and quantity of city bins in high-traffic food take-out establishments  All items should be required to be compostable (no recyclable plastics), due to changing overseas markets  Require customer-facing in-store compost bins for collection

TOPIC: Charges for take-out containers when consumers have no alternative to BYO (affects consumer)

Comments:  Many restaurants are prohibited from in-house dining, and thus can only offer take out options.  Results in customer complaints for being charged for take-out containers with no alternatives available.  As customers have no choice, charge will not lead to a positive behavior change (this issue is in contrast to the bag fee, where customers always have the choice to bring their own bags).  Take-out is an essential life factor for many customers.  Punishing people for using such is regressive.  Many businesses will not allow BYO take-out container to fill for sanitary concerns or health violations.  With minimum wage increase, this ordinance would add just another increase in prices and be hard for consumers to swallow.  Reusable cups brought in by customers have been relatively acceptable and exhibits positive behavior change  Affects low-income stakeholders that may have no access to washing their BYO containers  Incentives for discount for BYO instead of charges

182 Page 7 of 88

Page 4 of 6

Based on the input received, the ZWC suggests Council consider the following possible adjustments to the proposed ordinance:  Create a guidance document and feasibility study on “Bring Your Own…”  Develop a pilot program for standardized reusable to-go container system.  Implement phased-approach to charge: phase one for hot beverage containers/lids, phase two later for food containers after analyzing results of phase one implementation and pilot program  Assess impacts of any charge on low-income, transient stakeholders  Consider incentives for BYO as part of overall ordinance strategy  Clarify in the ordinance language that there is no requirement for businesses to charge additional fees for disposables; the SUD fee must simply be itemized. (i.e. if a business currently charges $10 for a meal, they can still charge $10, but they need to itemize on the receipt the $9.75 for meal + $.0.25 for the disposable container.)

TOPIC: BYO containers need to be acceptable to businesses for portion sizing and cleanliness/compliance with health codes. (affects Businesses)

Based on the input received, the ZWC suggests Council consider the following possible adjustments to the proposed ordinance:  Work with local health code departments for clarity on acceptable containers  Work with businesses to support conditions of BYO containers provided by customers (beverage containers)  Establish City-wide reusable container program (funding likely necessary)  Consider pilot-program for reusable container program  Implement phased-approach to charge: phase one for hot beverage containers/lids, phase two later for food containers after analyzing results of phase one implementation and pilot program

183 Page 8 of 88

Page 5 of 6

TOPIC: Acceptable straws that meet ordinance requirements yet effectively serve disabled stakeholders.

Comments:  Disabled community has been left out of conversation  Disabled stakeholders need straws that will not degrade or pose a choking hazard  Other stakeholders that are not disabled may need straws (children, older people)

Based on the input received, the ZWC suggests Council consider the following possible adjustments to the proposed ordinance:  Assess and study best alternatives available that are deemed acceptable for the disabled community.  Bio-Plastic certified compostable straws could be exempted for said special uses/stakeholders, with recommendation that businesses have them available and provided upon request.  For general use, specify compostable paper straws only, on request or self-service  Possible: City purchase of reusable silicone straws to be distributed by City through disabled groups, commission, and other sanctioned methods (City of Alameda).

Topic: Coordinate with existing laws/ordinances and seek support from the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (StopWaste).

Comments:  Replace “Disposable Food Packaging” with “Disposable Foodware” (StopWaste)  Waivers: What would a partial waiver include? What happens after 3 years? What constitutes “make every effort to become compliant”? What type of activities/efforts would the city consider? What types of thresholds would be considered allowable under “space constraints?” (StopWaste)  Clarify language of ordinance, including waivers, time frame, space constraints, free of added Fluorinated Chemicals  If “to go” meal is served in a compliant reusable bag, an additional minimum $0.10 will need to be charged to comply with Ordinance 2016-2, which could increase total “Takeout Meal” charges to be greater than $0.25. There is no charge for carryout food given to customers in compliant paper bags. (StopWaste)

Based on the input received, the ZWC suggests Council consider the following possible adjustments to the proposed ordinance:  Coordinate with ACWMA (StopWaste)to ensure language is consistent with existing ordinances  Examine best practices of local communities in County and cities bordering City.  Review Bag Ban ordinance for compliance and consideration of charge amount.

184 Page 9 of 88

Page 6 of 6

The Commission recommends taking note of the following issues that should to be addressed:

 Recyclability of most “plastic” foodware  Difficulty to tell the difference between compostable bio-plastic utensils and plastic utensils  Importance of City-approved list for acceptable materials for take-out containers  Which food waste-generating establishments are exempted (ex. theaters)  No plastic ware should be accepted, in spite of language in current City Curbside Recycling Collection Program accepted materials, due to market instability and environmental concerns.  Amount of proposed charge ($0.20 v. $0.25) to balance customer behavior change with businesses concerns of loss of sales due to minimum wage hike and proposed charge.

185 Page 10 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 1 of 65

June 16, 2018 Special Meeting of the Zero Waste Commission Foodware Subcommittee to solicit public input 21 members of the public attended; 17 public comments. Summary of Spoken Comments: Peter Levitt Owner, Saul’s Deli

I have a restaurant Saul’s Deli so obviously I think the goals are admirable, I am just unclear about whether you are attacking the most used materials. I am always concerned about going at the lowest hanging fruit especially when it pertains to the mom and pop.

And I have a deep concern, again once I have confidence that you have used the garbage cans widely enough in other words are we looking at the household mix in the resident?

How do the four Safeway’s, the Trader Joe’s, and the two whole foods the waste stress compared to our mom and pop restaurant, that is a big concern that we have. I don’t know if you are aware of what we have done at Saul’s. But we have gone 10 years without straws We thought it was the right move a long time ago, and inconvenient. We do glass mason jars for soup, we now use sippy cups for children instead of the single use plastic glass. We haven’t used straws, well we used paper straws for about 6 or 7 years then moved to stainless steel straws. So we now almost purchase almost no straws.

For us this was low hanging fruit, no one asked us to do it we just did it. I am just concerned with that we are going to end incurring costs that will be difficult for us especially in the climate of having minimum wage going up all of the time And really do t love the idea of having a single line item on every invoice. I actually do not know how to implement it. Each and every customer is different. Does an employee have to enter a single button every time? What is a customer comes in for a soup salad and sandwich does the employee have to hit the button 3 times? It’s going to open up Pandora's Box and I do not see the solutions are and it is of great concern to us that we won’t be able to hit the button or

The difficulty we are already having with labor and quality of labor And the last thing I will say is that you do have your work cut out for you because every time you raise minimum wage restaurants like ours disappear and smaller hole in the wall type restaurants with few employees with no place come into existence. It's getting harder and harder. No one will reopen Saul’s in this town. If we go away one day, we will be replaced by two smaller stores, and they will use straws and it will be a takeout environment. 186 Page 11 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 2 of 65

Lisa Brenners Farmer, Berkeley Farmers Market My name is Lisa

I am from Berkeley, I am currently a farmer and I sell at the ecology farmer’s market in downtown Berkeley on Saturdays. So I know firsthand, how much this kind of use of packaging demand is customer driven.

I stand at the market. My stuff is lose I have paper bags, but I know there is a segment of the population that will not pick up my fruit. But if I put it in this little red mesh bag that 20% increase in sells. I am comfortable with the bags, but there are people who will just not buy something that is not in a bag. So this is demand driven and the restaurants feel this.

Umm so I am going to go really fast I have a lot of points here. I think there might be a flaw if your goal is to reduce waste. You’re changing the packaging, mandating it and charging for it. But the customer is still taking it home. They are responsible for disposable. If they do not dispose of it properly then it’s in the landfill anyway. So that’s just procedural thing. If the goal is that how have we improved? The second point is that the ordinance may be unintentionally calls out and targets food that is produced on premises, locally if food is not produced locally it is trucked in… free pass. It’s free and you can put it in anything you want. But if it is produced here’re you having the rules there is a clarification I would like about conforming food ware. If a person used reusable food ware must they both meet the regulations and charge?

And the doggy bag loophole which I shouldn’t mention because you will probably try to close it up, but right now it seems that if you go and have something on premises then ask for a doggy bag you can have any container you want and it is free.

So will the city commit to disposing properly of all these newly mandated disposable ware items?

Jim Maser Owner, Picante Hi my name is Jim and I own picante

In Berkeley on 6th street I have been there for 24 years, my colleague Peter couldn’t make it, ditto on everything he has to say.

Since I am having a question-answer session, but it is one sided I am just going to throw some questions out there.

187 Page 12 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 3 of 65

In regards to the containers themselves, has a container been come up with that can take a 180 degree food, because that's my biggest challenge. Peter has met it with glass bottle I am unable to meet that with chili rellenos or .. or anything that came off of the stove at 180 degrees it burns through anything tested and right into the upholstery of my guests cars.

The receipt issue. I want to reiterate what Peter said, using social guilt on that is works, it worked in SF for our colleagues for health programs for our colleagues over there. However the cost benefit analyses. I am not sure what business were looked at, where the dishwashers were bought from. But we look at that 25 cents as the differential between the products that you are going to recommend and conventional products that are used now and that is not going to bridge the gap for the increased cost. These 25 cents does not drop to the bottom line it is taxed and if you take the 35 percent tax out we really are going to end up with 16 cents and will that really be differential. I have tried to use the highest quality products that are available and with minimum wage hitting us the way it has been we have had to make compromises that doesn’t sit well with my heart.

For all the big gulps, is theater popcorn being charged, but the one it get for coca cola will not because it is not manufactured in the theater?

The ordinance is very confusing in regards to who it is going to apply to. My recommendations are that from your test study at café Strada that you use disposable cups and ……….. I want to finish up, if paper cups are major problem implement the charge for the cups also please do the straw ordinance right away, other cities in California have already done, the restaurant association is going to do it, and it's a small step towards curbing our reliance on these convenience products which we will hopefully contribute to the change of attitudes and usage but please take one step at a time, regardless of the request of the city council, that seems lazy because in my book change takes time.

Heliya Izadpanah Cal Dining Services So I work at Cal Dining on waste reduction, and over the past year I’ve been trying to get more reusable products in our campus that are breaking down. We just switched to paper straws, and PLA clamshells that aren’t breaking down. I am curious to how this policy is going to impact our campus and if it still pertains to it, also curious about the utensils that need to be either compostable or recyclable, because in my experience compostable utensils do not actually break down because their plastic is too thick at our local facilities. And if they are recyclable, people do not want to sort them out of the rest of the food waste and containers and so the recycling bin gets contaminated or the compost gets contaminated.

188 Page 13 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 4 of 65

Helen Walsh Disability Commission My name is Helen Walsh, I’m on the commission of disability Berkley. I am speaking on the behalf of the diverse community with people with disability, people with medical conditions and anyone with a disability. So my focus here is the ordinance of single straws and utensils, which would have to be compostable and be provided only by request. Persons with disabilities who use straws, are also deeply committed to protecting the environment, I am one. Disability rights and environmental protection have long been compatible. People with disabilities want to save the planet but they also need to be able to drink and eat, our food is pureed sometimes. As more and more cities are banning straws, they do not think about the unintended consequences these bans will have on people with disabilities. How will we drink if straws are no longer available? Some might have suggested providing reusable or compostable straws as answers, however metal and wood straws can be dangerous, uncomfortable or ineffective with people with disabilities. For example, metal and bamboo straws can be dangerous to people with Parkinson’s disease because they are too strong, likewise paper straws become soggy over time and can become a choking hazard. Useable straws are generally more expensive than plastic ones. Which is import to note became poverty is more prevalent with people with disabilities. In 2016, nearly 27% of people with disabilities lived below the federal poverty level compared to 10% of none disabled people according to the census bureau. Until someone creates an appropriate alternative to plastic straws, they must continue to be made available to people with disabilities. They are a simple but necessary accommodation.

Elizabeth Jordan Recently Peet's started offering reusable cups, no straw needed and there less than $3 and they can also be used at Starbucks. But what they're doing, they're offering discount so every time you go to Peet’s and buy something there is a 10 cent discount at the downtown Peets and now it changed. Peet’s at the downtown is changing more than the other Peet’s, and depending on the neighborhood prices go up or down, so depending on the Peet’s you'll get a 5 or 10 cent discount. So I guess why not work on something that will benefit you. Clark Mosher Hi everyone i was a volunteer and I want to thank everyone for being here. The one concern I have from business owners is that how will they track this, I think there was an assumption that might be refunded by the city, but I think this is just an amazing chance for Berkeley has a chance to lead because our leaders aren't leading. Trump just refuse to sign the G 7 this week I believe which over rules the plastic in the ocean. The midline estimate is 5.3-14 million plastic waste in our ocean each year the visualization that hit home was, imagine 5 plastic grocery bags filled with trash sitting on every foot coast of the world, that's how much plastic is going to into the ocean. Berkley is trying to eliminate any plastic that uses from an average from 0 to 20 min, and I think about all the plastic utensils that we don't even use. So I’m going to end on a positive note, McDonald’s yesterday, announced that its getting rid of all the plastic straws in the UK and Ireland this year, and change is coming. I’m really happy Berkeley has a chance to lead.

189 Page 14 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 5 of 65

Floy Andrews Bay Area CoRoasters & CoRo Coffee Room I am the CEO of a little company called Bay Area coRoasters & CoRo Coffee Room. We are opening next week, on 5th St. Our cafe is aesthetically beautiful, and so there are a few things that occur to me with this proposal, fist I want to say that CoRo is very focused on stability and the goals that the council is working on we totally support. Just sort of listing to the comments, there are a few thing I would like to comment on, in high end coffee it's about the amazing coffee flavor and aesthetics of presentation, when you go in and order your drink, the barista is going to do beautiful latte art or pour over or watch them make it, it's all about the full experience. So i don't think that if you’re bringing in your mug or Peet’s cup or whatever, you'll not be getting the coffee experience that we are providing. I also want to talk about the signage, as we build out this restaurant all these plastic signs that don't really go with what they call exit or here's the all gender bathroom, so the fewer the required signs the better. I also want to ask about is there any outreach to Oakland because I can imagine consumers saying “oh am I going to Berkeley or Oakland for coffee this morning.” I do think that plastic is something that we as a species need to tackle for sure, I am wondering if the compostable coffee cups stops the ability to do beautiful latte art, is really the piece of trash that is stopping us to do beautiful latte art?

Aladdin Sammakieh Owner of both Berkeley McDonald’s locations (1:14:00) I'm Aladdin Sammakieh, I recently purchased the two McDonalds restaurants in Berkeley. So I first would like to say your right about the plastic straws In McDonalds in Europe. We are tying to that in the US as well. McDonalds can push the entire industry in one direction, like what they did with cage free eggs, and Styrofoam.

Frances Schultz Indivisible Berkeley It’s clear that we have a plastic crisis, both globally and locally that our plastic footprint in the world is much bigger than we deserve. I support wholeheartedly the efforts of the city, the ecology center, the big water action, everything that you’re doing to put together a local solution to that and hopefully one that can be a model for different places that can be used in other places. I applaud the work that you've done already to work with businesses and get their input, I appreciate the input from the businesses that are here today, I know none of these changes are going to be easy for any of us and particularly with businesses, and these are places that are important to us as Berkley Like local restaurants and stuff. But I also feel confident, with everyone's input we can come up with something that will be minimally difficult for all of us but it can make a big difference in our environment. I really am here to support the effort wholeheartedly, thank you.

190 Page 15 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 6 of 65

Michael Goldhopper Chair of the community Environmental Advisory commission Hi my name is Michael Goldhopper, I’m the Chair from the community Environmental Advisory commission We didn't have a good look at this, but on Thursday we had our regular meeting we did approve a letter that has come out to you indicating our support. However personally listening to some of the items and thinking it through, I have a couple thoughts the first one is purely administrative, I think some folks on the panel spoke way to long and this is a very educated group, and knows what's going on, it was unnecessary to give such long introductions. Secondly, I do think that there's a problem, with the fee as it is presently constructed. I know that Alameda County passed the grocery bag fee, which gives everyone the opportunity not having to pay the fee very clearly if they bring something or don't use a bag at all. It is less clear in this ordinance if you choose to not use a cup or whatever that you will it have to pay 25 cents, also there is a problem about having it on a receipt because receipts are something that the environmental and others would like to get rid of because they contain PCP, and the danger is especially the workers that have to use them are in jeopardy because they have to use it. Let's put an end to receipts. People mostly throw away or don’t want is a sensible solution. I do think that it has to be rethought based on what has said so far including a eliminating the requirements in the case of items that cannot be properly handled because they’re too hot. I think trying to get larger restaurants to use reusable’s should be absolutely mandatory for in-house dining and should be the main thing that you should start with obviously using compostable materials when they are affordable is a good idea but the details of the charge has to be rethought I think.

Victoria I came in a little late so I don't know if this was addressed. I shop at Berkeley Bowl and Whole Foods, and I don't know if this ordinance takes this to account but what's the point of going to the market and bringing a reusable bag and filling it up with 20 plastic bags? I just feel like somehow that has to be addressed. I mean no one really talks about that, I see it all the time. And I don't know if this hearing addresses it or not when you go the restaurant and they throw in those packets of condiments, little plastic spoons and hot sauce and I have so many of those I don't know what to do with them. I am asking to kind of open your minds to addressing some other things that are really important plastic bags and peoples groceries carts are incredible.

Anet Howard

Hi my name is Anet Howard. 15 years I ago I went to a trip to the Bahamas. Every single beach was totally clear and beautiful. I never saw one piece of trash and I spent a couple years there. A lot of wonderful places to explore, not one piece of trash. Well it is pretty discouraging when I looked in a magazine and found this article about purging plastic in the Bahamas. They now have a movement called “Bahamas plastic movement” and what they're doing is getting volunteers and all the beaches are cluttered with plastic and they're trying to get rid of it. There gathering and trying to do something with it, but we really need to do something about it. I came across this article, in Japan they have this machine, which distributes to different islands in Japan, and what you do is shove the plastic in the machine and it turns it into gas, then there's this

191 Page 16 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 7 of 65 tube that goes out of it into a tank of water, well that cools the gas and the gas turns into oil. What I'm saying is, it might be easier for us to take all this plastic, heat it up and make oil and somehow make something else with it. Plastic comes in different shapes, sizes, weights and colors, outs really hard to get rid of and I think we need to try to do something about it. That's all I have to say.

Eun-soo yin County of San Mateo

Hello everybody. My name is Eun Soo Yin, I’m actually here representing the county of San Mateo. I heard about what you guys are doing, congratulations, I commend you on your efforts you guys are doing amazing things. The county is kind of researching about how to dispose of plastic but straws in particular, and so I started doing research about what other cities in the Bay Area are doing. Berkeley came on top of the list as always. Alameda is doing something great, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, Davis, so a lot of movement in this area. Berkeley is definitely not alone but you guys are pioneers in all of ways. And there's a reason I think why a lot of local governments are addressing these issues, as a lot of you guys already know, these are critical issues that we have to really address. So I wanted to come up here to commend you guys and I'm really looking forward to seeing how the ordinance rolls out and I really appreciate the feedback that the public sacrificed your Saturday morning to come here to listen to everyone speak, it was an eye-opening experience for me.

Danielle Bafone Hi my name is Danielle, I’m from Berkeley and lived here for about 25 years. I’ve had 2 businesses, one a shop and one a school. The last 4 years, I transitioned my work teaching to learning about the marine environment and I do plastic free advocacy, and it feels wild to speak to residents to hear from them what their concerns were. I wanted to thank the City of Berkeley zero waste commission and the ecology center where I’ve been leading a once a month book group on plastic free and many people know were moving into plastic free world next month. The streets are pretty clean around here but this is still something I was able to pick up. What I wanted to say was, I want to find a way to promote Berkeley zero waste coordinates and my goal as a community is to move towards that, I Think this is a individual thing for people to say I don't want use plastic but I think we need to understand as a community that this is a mandate think we're working towards, and not an option thing. This is what's expected of us as citizens. Arguing over paper and plastic straws is not going to be the answer but we all just need to move on.

Molly Hicks Hi my name is Molly Hicks, I’m sorry I missed most of the meeting, all my kids are sick, but I’ve been doing a lot of volunteer work in the schools about reducing their packaging. Both of my kids go to the newly renamed Silvia Mendes school formerly Le Conte and I’ve bought in that magazine over there and set up a green team for the kids to work on reducing the amount of plastic, educating each other. So one of the prizes they got was from that same website, I think it says landfill, I gave them a metal cup and a metal straw because kids love to use straws and a lot of the kids told me that they use them, they bring them to the restaurants and show them that we don't want to use plastic, it makes me feel good

192 Page 17 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 8 of 65 that these kids are getting the message and it's so quick for them to understand that they see all the trash on the school yard, they try to clean it up and teach each other. But I don't know if, I just wanted to make everyone aware that the Berkeley schools I feel like are kind of separated from the zero waste ordinates, they don't necessarily comply with the plastic free message. There twice a week, they get cereal individual proportion in plastic cereal bowls, most schools don't even recycle them, and our school got 25,000 this year and that's 1 out of the 11 elementary schools. So my daughter went and filled out an entire bag, one of those large garbage bags in one day and she brought it to the school board on Wednesday and showed them and told them “we don't want this anymore” and explained that can’t we just use regular bowls? we can wash them ourselves or even at best use paper and so getting the plastic message its slower because I feel like there's a disconnection that the school board can put a little more pressure on the schools themselves. The custodians kind of feel like it's not their job to do this extra work that they see and were trying to help make the kids see that yes we all have some extra work to do, but it's worth it, because I don't know if that is something you guys already discussed when I was gone, the restaurants for sure but the schools are putting a lot of trash into Berkeley, the plastic cream cheese containers they get every Friday, littering around too, that’s all recyclable that's just the little message I wanted to say, thank you.

Peter Schultze-Allen

My name is Peter I work in the stormwater field.

Sorry I’m late. Have you already talked about the litter requirement tonight?…. (1:35:01) That's a big regulation that most of the cities in the Bay Area have to deal with. It’s from the Regional Water Board stormwater permit and it says that all the cities have to reduce the amount of litter that’s going out into ocean by 2022. The permit is just one of the drivers for the city - it has to do more. The City has installed trash capture devices and has banned plastic bags and Styrofoam so this is another thing that is pushing the City to do more.

I also wanted to mention that I helped draft the ordinance that you all have in front of you, so all this summer we were trying to do outreach to the business community and talk to them about it in various different ways; the survey was a very big effort. I talked to just one business - a cafe owner in Berkeley who also serves coffee at the farmers market. He says that he pays 30 cents for each of these special disposable and compostable hot cups and that he wanted these cups because they are the best; it is a double walled cup with a compostable bio-plastic liner so it’s basically the top level, most compostable, disposable paper cup that you can get but it’s very expensive - 30 cents each. So since this ordinance can help him cover the expense for these cups, he was in favor for the ordinance. Of course he prefers everyone to drink the coffee in the store where he can provide a reusable ceramic and washable cup. He doesn't want people using the to-go cup - the in-house dining option is more sustainable. If other businesses are paying 5 cents for a non-compostable single use paper cup, that's not sustainable and they are kind of getting away with that right now. Under the proposed ordinance there would be a level playing field because everyone would have to use a similar compostable to-go cup, so I think that's one of the benefits.

193 Page 18 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 9 of 65

Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

From: Thomas Gregory Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 2:01 PM Subject: Re: Public Input Session Hosted by the Zero Waste Commission's Foodware Subcommittee re Single-use, Disposable Foodware

Hi Heidi,

The Center for Independent Living (TheCIL) is the Title-VII-of-the-Rehab-Act disability services and advocacy agency whose federally designated catchment is northern Alameda County.

Approximately one year ago, my boss (TheCIL's executive director, Stuart James) sent a message to each of Berkeley's City Council Members containing the language pasted immediately below. I'm now sending you the same message hoping that it will inform any deliberations/actions by the Zero Waste Commission.

Best, Thomas Thomas Gregory Deputy Director Center for Independent Living ______

Dear Berkeley City Council Members:

On behalf of the Center for Independent Living (TheCIL) and the disability community we serve, I am writing in regards to the drinking straw proposal highlighted in this Berkeleyside article: http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/06/06/know-berkeley-straw-ban-proposal/.

The board and staff of TheCIL applaud your ongoing efforts to protect environments in Berkeley and elsewhere. Just like responsible citizens without disabilities, responsible people with disabilities recognize the importance of maintaining (or, better yet, increasing) our planet's health. In fact, the disability community arguably has a heightened interest in environmental integrity as toxic environments can exacerbate disability-related medical conditions and can even, in some cases, lead to the acquisition of disabilities. So we appreciate the City's consideration of a city-wide plan to reduce or eliminate the use of disposable plastic straws. We also appreciate that the City is inquiring into the impacts of an anti-straw measure before implementing such a measure.

194 Page 19 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 10 of 65

It's important to recognize that, for some people, the use of straws is a necessity. Due to deficits in manual dexterity and various other factors, a significant number of folks require straws to drink beverages. It is important that Berkeley, as it moves forward with any plan, remember the needs of its disabled residents and to accommodate those needs. Specifically, I am urging the City to ensure that any measures implemented will involve restaurateurs and other beverage vendors providing straws to those who purchase beverages and need a straw to independently access a beverage. We at TheCIL feel that it is essential that people who rely on straws (including those who do not happen to have a straw in their possession at any given time) be able to access beverages while out in the community and be able to do so with the same degree of convenience as everyone else.

As the Berkeleyside article makes clear, there are various ways that Berkeley could reduce or eliminate the use of disposable plastic straws while simultaneously accommodating the needs of those for whom straws are not a luxury. "Soft bans," biodegradable disposable straws, and reusable steel straws are some potential solutions mentioned in the article. Although we are not currently advocating any particular solution, we are urging the City to ensure that those who need straws will continue to have access to them. Again, thank you for your efforts, and if there is any way that TheCIL could assist the City in its approach to this issue, please do not hesitate to contact us for any input you might desire.

Sincerely,

Stuart, Executive Director at TheCIL

195 Page 20 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 11 of 65

Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) Written Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

From: Michael Goldhaber Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 1:54 PM Subject: CEAC support for Proposed Ordinance on Foodware

To all concerned,

At its meeting last night, CEAC voted unanimously to support the ordinance prepared by the special subcommittee of the Zero Waste Commission.

While it may need minor modifications, we believe the proposed ordinance does an excellent job of balancing environmental and public needs in a way largely fair to all.

Best,

Michael ------Michael H. Goldhaber, Chair, CEAC

196 Page 21 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 12 of 65 Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

From: Michael Goldhaber Date: June 16, 2018 at 3:53:13 PM PDT Subject: comments on ZWC proposed food-container ordinance

Dear ZWC, Councilmember Hahn, and Mayor Arreguin,

I attended today’s public hearing on ZWC’s proposed Berkeley Single-Use Foodware and Litter Reduction ordinance. As I wrote to Councilmember Hahn and Mayor Arreguin, CEAC voted last Thursday to favor the ordinance.

However, after listening carefully to the presentations and especially the public comments at the meeting, I have revised my personal views as follows:

1. The plastic waste problem must be solved. That is vitally important. Berkeley has an opportunity to set a wide example.

2. The current draft ordinance approach, while seemingly sensible, is in fact not properly thought through at all. It puts the burden on restaurants in the city, but not on larger entities that send pre-packaged food into the city nor on consumers or garbage collectors to do a proper job collecting and sorting waste. Even with compostable utensils, as the waste stream is presently constituted, the burden is on each citizen to be ecologically aware, to take the time to understand the different categories of waste and to make the proper separations. It goes without saying that, while many will do their best to comply, some of those will make mistakes much of the time, and others will not even bother to take on the added responsibility, rather than tossing waste, if not willy-nilly, then into the wrong containers. My own wife, for example, while always trying to comply, is simply not nerdy or compulsive enough to do it right a good percentage of the time. Many others simply refuse to spend the time.

The solution is for the city and the ecology center to take on more of the job of waste separation. This may be an added burden on the city, but it would ultimately simplify collection and improve the waste stream. It is unrealistic to expect many citizens to bother with the three (or really, four) bins as it is. Martin Bourque, the Ecology Center Executive Director, at the meeting, himself pointed out that consumers largely ignore waste categories when taking the trouble to dispose of items even right in restaurants, even when there are illustrative pictures present to guide them. I have often observed

197 Page 22 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 13 of 65 the same with regard to the too-rare garbage cans the city provides on streets and in parks. 3. Another proposal in the ordinance that was not thought through is the $.25 charge for disposables that restaurants are to tack onto bills and receipts. Is a dish for a single scoop of ice cream rationally to be considered equal to an entire take-out meal in multiple containers? Further, the analogy with Alameda County’s single-use grocery bag charge does not actually work. People who normally carry around capacious knapsacks or purses would be able to carry a coffee cup or the like, but others who travel lighter are unlikely to have a cup with them should they decide they need a beverage. Carrying one’s own reusable utensils or meal containers becomes even more problematic, including sanitary concerns. The increasing number of delivery services for restaurant food also can hardly be expected to operate without disposables; there is already a substantial charge for such services, so a disposable charge wouldn’t be noticed.

4. A little more about pre-packagers outside the city: As some of the commenters at the meeting noted, the current draft doesn’t have any way of policing those suppliers who ship snacks and meals into Berkeley from beyond city limits. Almost every grocery store or deli is full of such items, and so are many chain restaurants. If local businesses are not to suffer unduly, that inequity needs confronting.

5. Because restaurant receipts, as presently offered, mostly contain biphenyls that are suspected of causing endocrine disruption, we should not encourage their use. As it is, many customers don’t even take or glance at them anyway. A better educational device is needed.

6. Finally, let me repeat what I said at the meeting: When holding a public hearing on a proposal that is likely to attract only those already well-informed on the substance, lengthy introductory lectures are not needed. People’s attention is a valuable resource that the publicly minded should try not to misuse.

Thanks for your attention to this.

Best,

Michael H. Goldhaber, Berkeley Resident

198 Page 23 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 14 of 65

Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Submitted by Helen Walsh, Diverse Disability Media June 16, 2018

Plastic Straws and persons with Disabilities (PWDs: • Area of concern for PWDs on the Berkeley Draft Ordinance: Single use straws, utensils, and stirrers (which will have to be compostable) be provided only “by request.

• Persons with disabilities who use straws are also deeply committed to protecting the environment.

• Disability rights and environmental protection ― have long been compatible.

•People with disabilities want to save the planet. We also need to be able to drink and eat.

As more and more cities and states seek to ban straws and have, It is concerning about the unintended consequences these bans have on people with disabilities.

•How will PWDs drink and eat if straws are no longer available or accessible and safe for us to use?

•How will businesses in the city of Berkeley serve PWDs if they are not informed about accessible cost effective straws that PWDs can utilize safely and successfully?

•Some have suggested providing reusable or compostable straws as the answer. However, “metal, wood, or glass straws can be dangerous, uncomfortable, or ineffective for [some people with disabilities].” PWDs are very concerned about this issue now because PWDs in areas plastic straws are banned are being excluded from the community they participate and work in.

199 Page 24 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 15 of 65

For example, metal and bamboo straws can be dangerous for people with Parkinson’s disease because they are too strong. Likewise, paper straws become soggy over time, which can become a choking hazard.

Reusable and compostable straws are generally more expensive than plastic ones, which is important to note, because poverty is more prevalent among people with disabilities; in 2016, nearly 27 percent of people with disabilities lived below the federal poverty level compared with 10 percent of non-disabled people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

•Until someone creates an appropriate alternative to plastic straws, we cannot ban plastic straws.

• Including persons with disabilities in every step of the process will provide full inclusion of the community as well as provide the city of Berkeley to be the leader of what it means to be an inclusive and accessible city.

The city of Berkeley has the opportunity to be inventive in regards to an environmentally accessible inclusive and cost effective straw.

•Straws are a simple but necessary accommodation. That said, we should not and cannot give up on trying to reduce our plastic use, and I fully support cutting down on our use of plastics.

•People with disabilities want to save the planet. We also need to be able to drink. These two positions do not have to be mutually exclusive. Banning plastic straws prior to providing an accessible/inclusive straw is not a solution to the plastic waste issue.

• Including PWDs in the process will benefit all. PWDs have an ability to provide the city of Berkeley information or invent the straw that is both cost effective and accessible/inclusive. Our “ wheels are needed” at your table. You’ll like the “way we roll” beside during Ed Roberts time the city of Berkeley did :)

200 Page 25 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 16 of 65

Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

From: Laura K Fujii Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2018 4:15 PM Subject: PASS and IMPLEMENT the Berkeley Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Dear Berkeley City Council and Zero Waste Commission:

I care deeply about the significant threat to our health and the health of our environment from the local and global plastics crisis. There is both a local and global plastics crisis. We must do more to remove single-use plastics from the waste stream, encourage the use of biodegradable and reusable products, and strongly discourage excessive packaging.

Berkeley should be a leader. As a consumer and as someone who cares about the oceans, wildlife, and the safety of our food and water, I strongly support the proposed Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance.

Funds earned from the charge of $0.25 for every disposable beverage cup and disposable food container provided by venders should be used to fund a Berkeley Zero Waste Campaign and Education program and to help support implementation of the Ordinance.

I urge you to pass and implement this urgently needed environmental and health ordinance.

Thank you. Laura Fujii Berkeley, CA. 94706

201 Page 26 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 17 of 65

Public Comments on the Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance heard at the regular meeting of the Zero Waste Commission on June 25, 2018

8 Public Comments.

Notes summarizing the spoken public comments:

1. Sheera Leeder – Berkeley Resident • Has a disability that requires her to use straws and cups with lids • Many people with disabilities are on a low income and can’t afford extra charges • Possible solutions: resusable straws, compostable straws, paper straws • Supports an on request ordinance • Note: Sheera submitted written public comments to the Secretary to elaborate on her concerns, and to provide possible solutions, regarding plastic straws and cups with lids

2. Farhad Salehian – DishJoy (Dishwashing Service) • Dishwashing and delivery company • They provide intelligent solution to world problems – reduce disposables by utilizing dishwashing of reusables • Supports ordinance • This ordinance can make Berkeley a model for the world

3. Max – Urban Ore • Opportunity for UC Berkeley outreach/education

4. Miriam Gordon - UpStream • Need to consider how to create an easier BYOC system • Pilot program on Telegraph – TBID • Need guidance document and feasibility study for BYOC program • Consider possible tax break for providing a reusable program • Need best management practices for refilling containers • Possibly a phased approach to charge for foodware

5. Martin Bourque – Ecology Center • Provided an update on plastics (relevant to plastic foodware) • Non-bottle mixed plastics are problematic: #5 PP dairy tubs have the most valuable • Currently no market to recycle PETg plastic clamshells (brittle/thermoform)

6. Jack Macy – SF Department of the Environment • Strong support for ordinance • This is a way to deal with the tsunami of disposable plastics • This is a logical next step after the plastic bag reforms. Providing items on request can reduce use by 50-90%

202 Page 27 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 18 of 65

 Businesses can potentially save money  The market responded to the Styrofoam ban  75% of businesses supported charging if they can keep the money  75% support from customers  $0.25 is the threshold for behavior change  This is something that can work  Jack offered to be a resource to help

7. Helen Walsh  Has a disability  People with disabilities are environmentalists  Need to include the disability community  Cost effective solutions are available  Inclusivity is important  The disability community can help solve the problem

8. Thu hà - Cheeseboard Collective  They are looking for alternatives to landfill disposables  They would like assistance to find good compostable products

203 Page 28 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 19 of 65 Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Received at the June 25, 2018 Zero Waste Commission Meeting Zero Waste Commission Public Comments on Its Planned Ordinance Banning Plastic Straws and Charging 25 cent for Cups and Lids

My name is Shira Leeder and I am long-time disability advocate and Berkeley resident. I am here to discuss my concerns and solutions regarding plastic straws and cups with lids.

Most people with disabilities live on a low fixed income, such as Social Security Disability, so 25 cent per cup and lid adds up to a punishing percentage of their monthly budget. My biggest objection, however, is not the cost. People with certain disabilities cannot eat, drink, or take medications without the help of straws. Children and the elderly also rely on straws.

I am one of those people whose disability requires me to use straws and cups with lids. If I have to carry a reusable cup with a lid, I will be less independent in my daily life, because I will have to either ask a stranger to help me fiII up the cup, or I will have to pay someone to stay with me all day to make sure my reusable cup is filled up at all times. Of course, the cost of the latter course is prohibitive. 1

204 Page 29 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 20 of 65

205 Page 30 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 21 of 65

206 Page 31 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 22 of 65 Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

From: Michael Katz Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 12:23 PM To: Obermeit, Heidi ; Berkeley Mayor's Office Subject: Single-use food container ordinance: Please exempt compostable containers from surcharges

Dear Mayor Arreguin, Councilmember Hahn, and City Staff, I've received several invitations for "input" sessions and opportunities regarding this proposed ordinance, but almost no details from the City on what would be considered "disposable." Here's my best attempt to respond with usable input:

I strongly support incentives that would discourage the distribution of materials that cannot be composted or recycled. Plastic straws definitely fall into this category. To my knowledge, so do most plastic lids for take-out containers: Although they're stamped with plastic grades (like "/1\" or "/6\"), this is misleading, because they're too flimsy for recyclers to process.

(The above information comes from a friend who used to run a plastics-recycling company. Please excuse any errors.)

I urge caution in establishing incentives rewarding "compostable coffee stirrers." Wooden coffee stirrers make some contribution to deforestation, and I have that (given cost pressures) many are sourced from tropical hardwoods. If there's a corn-based compostable alternative here, that's what Berkeley should really be encouraging.

Most importantly, I strongly oppose the prospect of a $.25 charge on compostable take-out containers. Given contemporary pressures on working people's time (from always-on employers, housing costs, etc.), take-out food containers have become a de-facto necessary part of our lives.

It's not practical to expect people to have the forethought or carrying space bring their own takeout containers to restaurants. People doing so might also trigger sanitary concerns or violations for the restaurants. (I'm saying this as someone who used to routinely bring my own plastic "Chinese take-out box" to my favorite take-out spot, and who gradually talked them into filling it instead of a single-use container.)

For these reasons, I think it's valuable for the City to create incentives for single-use containers to be compostable. But slapping a $.25 charge on compostable containers strikes me as the kind of action that exposes Berkeley to ridicule rather than respect: It would change hardly anyone's behavior, except to perhaps discourage patronizing Berkeley restaurants. But it would impose one more regressive tax on people who are already economically stressed.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Respectfully yours, Michael Katz Berkeley, 94709

207 Page 32 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 23 of 65 Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

From: Christina Tarr Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 9:30 PM To: Obermeit, Heidi Subject: single use plasticware

Dear Commissioner, I am writing to express my strong support of the proposed Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance I oppose disposable plastic food ware because globally, single-use disposable foodware is contributing to plastic pollution in the world’s oceans, drinking water, and food. According to the Ecology Center, 80% of plastic found in the ocean comes from land-based sources. Shoreline Cleanup volunteers collected 5,826 food wrappers; 2,156 straws and stirrers; 1,577 forks, knives, and spoons; and 3,269 foam packaging items from Berkeley, Albany, and Emeryville shorelines in 2016. The World Economic Forum estimates that 150 million tons of plastic are already floating in the world’s oceans – with an additional eight million tons entering the water each year. It is estimated that by 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in our oceans by weight. Worldwide, single-use packaging is the biggest source of trash found in or near bodies of water, according to the Ocean Conservancy, which also says that plastics are believed to threaten at least 600 different wildlife species. Ninety percent of seabirds, including albatross and petrels, are now eating plastics on a regular basis. By 2050, that figure is expected to rise to 100 percent. In addition, evidence suggests that humans are consuming plastics through the seafood we eat.

In addition, plastic is created from petroleum products, and to combat climate change, the less petroleum we use, the better.

The proliferation of plastic is a horrible problem, and in this case, completely unnecessary. There is no need to use plasticware for dine-in use, and for take-out, compostable is available. Many restaurants I frequent have already implemented this, so clearly it is possible.

With the current federal administration, we need to step up our game at the state and local levels. We can’t count on the federal government to lead the way, and we also can not afford to wait for a better administration. We need to act quickly to protect our environment.

Thank you very much,

Christina Tarr Berkeley, 94709

208 Page 33 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 24 of 65

Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

From: Rainbow Rubin Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 9:57 PM To: [email protected]; Obermeit, Heidi ; City Clerk Subject: Ban Single Use Plastic Dear Sir or Madam,

There is both a local and global plastics crisis. We must do more to remove single-use plastics from the waste stream, and Berkeley should be a leader. As a consumer and as someone who cares about the oceans, wildlife and the safety of our food and water, I support the proposed Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance.

Thank you, Rainbow Rubin

-- Rainbow Rubin, PhD MPH Berkeley, CA 94703 ______

From: Linda Zagula Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 11:05 AM To: Obermeit, Heidi Subject: Support Single-use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Hello,

We are in the midst of both a local and global plastics crisis. It’s crucial that we do more to remove single-use plastics from the waste stream, and Berkeley should be a leader. As a consumer and as someone who cares about the oceans, wildlife and the safety of our food and water, I support the proposed Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance.

Thank you,

Linda Zagula Berkeley, 94702

209 Page 34 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 25 of 65 Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

From: Janet Byron Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 8:13 AM To: Obermeit, Heidi Subject: Reducing single-use food waste

Hi Heidi, I strongly support the proposed ordinance. Thank you for receiving my opinion. Janet Byron Berkeley, CA -- Sent from______Gmail Mobile ______

-----Original Message----- From: Victoria K. Williams Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 2:06 PM To: Obermeit, Heidi Subject: Support Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Dear Heidi Obermeit,

I’m writing to you as Secretary of the Zero Waste Commission say that there is both a local and global environmental crisis because of the persistence of plastics in our rivers and oceans. We must do more to remove single-use plastics from the waste stream, and Berkeley should be a leader in this effort. As a consumer and as someone who cares about the oceans, wildlife, and the safety of our food and water, I urge you to support the proposed Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance.

Thank you,

Victoria K. Williams Berkeley and Richmond ______

On Jul 9, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Lisa Dietz wrote:

Dear Chairperson,

I wanted to let you know that I support this ordinance. I am unable to attend Thursday's meeting to tell you this in person, but I would be very happy to pay more for compostable take out foodware and would hope that Berkeley could be one of the leaders in this endeavor to stop the explosion of plastic waste. We all learned how to bring our bags with us to the grocery store. I think we can learn to carry our sporks in a pocket and wipe them clean with a (small) paper napkin.

Lisa Dietz Berkeley, 94705

210 Page 35 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 26 of 65 Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

From: RICK MOTAMEDI Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:31 AM To: Obermeit, Heidi ; City Clerk ; [email protected] Subject: In SUPPORT of the Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance.

Ms. Obermeit and Ms. De Tournay, We are writing in support of a ban on single-use plastic products. There is both a local and global plastics crisis and most of these plastic products are convenience items that are not necessary. We must do more to remove single-use plastics from the waste stream, and Berkeley should be a leader. As consumers who will support Berkely businesses who step up and as parents who care about the oceans, wildlife and the safety of our food and water, we support the proposed Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance.

Thank you,

Richard & Carrie Motamedi

211 Page 36 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 27 of 65

June 9, 2018

City of Berkeley Zero Waste Commission Berkeley, CA

Dear Commissioners,

The California Restaurant Association is the definitive voice of the food service industry in California and is the oldest restaurant trade association in the nation. On behalf of our restaurant members in Berkeley, we respectfully submit this letter to voice our strong concerns regarding a proposed ordinance to ban all single-use food ware for dine-in patrons.

Not allowing food service establishments to use disposable food service ware would negatively impact the ability of restaurants, cafeterias, delis, coffee houses, and other food/beverage establishments to offer many recyclable or compostable options for food ware. We believe this ordinance could result in unintended environmental impacts. Presumably, with increased use of reusable food service ware we would then see an increase in other utility usage and associated cots. Since reusable food service ware must be cleaned and sanitized, this results in increased water and energy usage.

Furthermore, encouraging the use of reusable food packaging poses serious health and safety concerns. If a customer were to bring in a reusable cup, straw, or Tupperware container to a restaurant that isn’t properly sanitized, it encourages the transfer of foodborne illnesses through these products and can spread throughout the entire restaurant.

In this ordinance, there is a clause that grants a restaurant with space limitations for installing extra dishwashing and sanitizing appliances a three-year grace period to accommodate the necessary appliances to handle a change in dishwashing and sanitizing. Most restaurants operating in the City of Berkeley are small businesses that lease older buildings with limited square footage. Square footage of established buildings will not change, no matter how much time is granted. Since square footage is fixed and cannot fluctuate, attention must be paid to those who do not have room to install extra appliances.

212 Page 37 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 28 of 65

In addition, imposing a take-out tax on cups and to-go containers is a regressive tax with larger implications for consumers. A take-out tax will negatively affect low income residents of Berkeley which sets a concerning precedent in a forward-thinking City Council.

We agree that manufactures and end users of disposable food service products certainly play an important role in reducing waste and addressing litter abatement. However, once the product leaves the restaurant establishment, it is up to the consumer to ensure that it is disposed of – or recycled/composted properly. A shared responsibility approach is necessary if the City of Berkeley is to make a real and lasting impact on the amount of material that is used.

Thank you for considering these points. Should you have any questions regarding our objections to elements of this proposal, please contact me at (650) 288-8235 or [email protected].

Sincerely, Alison Piccoli

Director, Local Government Affairs – Bay Area Region California Restaurant Association

213 Page 38 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 29 of 65 July 12, 2018 Special Meeting of the Foodware Subcommittee to solicit public input on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

11 members of the public attended; 6 public comments.

Notes summarizing the spoken public comments:

1. Anonymous Commenter (note taker didn’t catch name)  In favor of the proposed ordinance  Current system is unacceptable  City-wide approach is best – more efficient/faster than relying on individuals  People are busy and wont always remember to bring reusables  The fee helps people realize that the disposable foodware item takes resources and creates waste that ends up in the landfill  Will promote social change in how people see disposables  It will make it less weird to Bring Your Own Container (BYOC); it normalizes it

2. Helen Walsh  People with disabilities agree with the environmental approach  There is a difference between convenience and a tool when it comes to persons w/disabilities, the elderly, children, people that have medical issues  Should make a consideration in regards to straws for people with disabilities  Important to provide businesses with alternatives  Compostable straws put businesses at a disadvantage  There is no current solution  Work with the disability community – engage with people with disabilities  We are environmentalists with disabilities

3. Alison Piccoli – California Restaurant Association  Concern from restaurants regarding the ability to sanitize customer’s containers if BYOC  Concern regarding germs transferring to serving utensils  Concern about fee for disposable foodware

4. Meri Sol - StopWaste.org  Concern about the inclusion of bags in the definition of “disposable foodware” because there are discrepancies in the language between the County’s Reusable Bag Ordinance and the City’s proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance  This is the most forward thinking policy on reducing foodware out there  It is groundbreaking to insist on reusables for dine-in  Charges will encourage behavior change

214 Page 39 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 30 of 65

 Should consider how to take the burden off of individuals to BYOC  It would be better to have reusable containers available for customers  If reusables are available in the restaurant, it wont slow down the serving line as could happen with customers bringing their own containers  It needs to be easy for customers to drop off dirty reusables (cups and containers)  Meri mentioned after the meeting that she will provide detailed written recommendations prior to the Sept. 24 meeting

5. Annie Farman – Plastic Pollution Coalition  In favor of ordinance  It is groundbreaking  Impact would be similar to plastic bag ban  Support a city-wide reusable container program  Lots of businesses have cited operational concerns with BYOC  Consider tax breaks for reusable container system

6. Jessica – GreenFire Law  In favor of ordinance  Should include a separate provision to include an education component/include educational funding in the Ordinance language

215 Page 40 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 31 of 65

Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 4:47 PM To: Obermeit, Heidi Subject: Summary of comments to the proposed ordinance

Hi Heidi,

Here you go Comment, followed by author: We received 4 comments in addition to Marlem's from Taco Sinaloa--which you have.

______

I want to prioritize voices from the disabled community in this discourse that were systematically silenced in the implementation of equivalent straw bans across the country.

Otherwise, no particular qualms either way — this is clearly a patchwork solution and needs to be paired with larger-scale reforms minimizing Berkeley's impact and emphasizing our community's voice in the larger conversation about systemic climateIn community, solutions.

Jeff Noven, Executive Director [ED?] (he/him) Berkeley Student Food Collective 2440 Bancroft Way #102 Berkeley, CA 94704 ______

Fully against this ordinance, labor cost is already killing us and these additional costs to us or the customers will not sit well

Danny Rodriguez [email protected] ______

We echo what others are saying. Recently we increased our prices due to anticipated increase in minimum wage and rising food cost. More pass on of cost to customers will significantly impact our business. We think that adding/having a compost bin would be a better solution!

Thank you for considering! Sharon Chung Poke Bar Berkeley ______

216 Page 41 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 32 of 65

The City should research ways to help the merchants not set them back. Before us merchants add anymore cost to our operations. The city should focus on providing a clean and safe public area. One of our vendors parked over by peoples park and got their car window broken. We had some guy sit in front of our store wrap his arm and shoot up drugs into his arm. A BPD was driving by saw what was happening and kept driving. We have bigger issues. Processing waste for merchants is already extremely expensive. If anything merchants should be receiving some sort of financial support from the cities waste management especially since Berkeley merchants can’t outsource waste services. I will be attending the meeting.

Does the City have any sort of Merchant support program? The reason I ask is simply because I personally don’t see any sort of assistance towards merchants.

 Rents are extremely high  Labor is high  Parking is extremely expensive if you operate a business.  Parking tickets are a joke & 20 minute yellow parking is a bigger JOKE! – Parking plus parking tickets = about $26k annual for our team.  Waste disposal cost are insane. Just for refuge services we spent around $36k annually. This is not including $4k we spend on composable garbage bags. We cant even get a second quote for refuge because the only refuge service allowed in Berkeley is its own (can we be the only pizza in Berkeley?) which is BS.  The City itself is failing apart with an increase number in street people, human waste, paraphernalia, garbage, and it is not safe. Who would want to bring their families to spend a weekend in Berkeley? Just getting off the freeway on University is embarrassing for the City. It is so difficult as a merchant to produce a sale. Now try doing it under these conditions. Its mind boggling to me how North Berkeley does not have any of the issue I list about or at least to the extreme we see it on a daily. When we call 911 their reaction is negative as if we are a nuisance and don’t take our calls seriously. We have had street people spit on us, vandalize our store, vomit and shit in our restrooms, threaten to kill our employees, etc.. But again, I don’t see these issues in North Berkeley. I would love for someone at the city to analyze the difference and explain.  And lets not touch on the process of permitting within the City (insane!)

So, back to my original question. What does the City of Berkeley do for its Merchants?

Eduardo Perez Sliver Pizza --

217 Page 42 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 33 of 65 Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Tacos Sinaloa 2384 Telegraph Ave Berkeley [email protected] August 25, 2018 Dear Zero Waste Commission,

I am writing with some concerns in response to the proposed waste reduction ordinance. Although Tacos Sinaloa fully supports initiatives to reduce waste there are some concerns I would like for Zero Waste commission to consider in the drafting of the ordinance. Concern:1 Take out Restaurants /small restaurants Food consumed onsite: reusable dishes Will the proposal exclude take out restaurants ? Will the proposal exclude small restaurants who don’t have the space to accommodate high volume dish washing (no space for dishwashing appliances or an additional sinks) Concern : 2 Cost to invest on reusable dishes Concern: 3 Timing of the ordinance With minimum wage set to increase to $15 in October,2018 having restaurants invest in reusable dishes, appliances, need for additional employees to perform dish washing duties will pose an economical burden on small businesses . Concern 3: cost to customers Telegraph restaurants like ours who serve mainly college students would like to avoid passing on an additional charge to customers. Concern 4: encouraging customers to bring reusable containers and cups pose a food safety concern that can negatively increase mislead food contamination complaints. Without the ability for restaurants to control dinnerware sanitation restaurants cannot control for food contamination. I recommend the city helps find vendors that can provide inexpensive compostable dinnerware instead of encouraging the use of reusable dinnerware from home. Having a list or contract with vendors will assist restaurants in the transition of using compost only takeout dinnerware. Sincerely, Marlem Bueno, Tacos Sinaloa Manager

218 Page 43 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 34 of 65 ` Friends of Five Creeks Volunteers preserving and restoring watersheds of North Berkeley, Albany, Kensington, south El Cerrito and Richmond since 1996 1236 Oxford St., Berkeley, CA 94709 510 848 9358 [email protected] www.fivecreeks.org

August 29, 1918 Heidi Obermeit, Recycling Program Manager Members of the Berkeley Zero Waste Commission Berkeley City Clerk, Members of the Berkeley City Council

Members of the Zero Waste Commission, City Clerk, City Council, and Ms. Obermeit:

Friends of Five Creeks, a 22-year-old all-volunteer group supporting watersheds and nature in the East Bay, strongly supports the proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. Litter and pollution remain serious problems in local waterways, and this ordinance will be a major milestone in reducing our dependence on disposable goods.

In our 22 years of work as community volunteers restoring and caring for our creeks, we have seen first-hand the persistent amounts of harmful litter along our creeks and their outfalls into the Bay, largely due to food containers and to-go materials. On 2017’s Coastal Cleanup Day, volunteers picked up 3,761 lbs. of trash, including 24,284 small plastic pieces, 7,241 food wrappers, 2,505 straws and stirrers, and other litter, along the shorelines of Emeryville, Berkeley and Albany, where birds and fish feed. In turn, as of 2017- 18 there is more microplastic pollution in SF Bay than in many other US bodies of water (three times concentrations in Lake Erie).

Even the seemingly less harmful manufacture of paper cups nationally produces 2.2 billion tons of waste and 4 billion tons of CO2. At the same time, recycling has become less possible or cost-effective. As the Center for Environmental Health states, “single-use foodware is …a non-sustainable option even if the materials are compostable or recyclable.” This measure, and future possible increases in its coverage, would significantly return to re-use practices.

Many community members are as concerned about this problem as we are, and welcome ways to begin to tackle it. This ordinance will do just that. Many local businesses also support this measure; the $.25 charge for disposable foodware seems fair and feasible.

Friends of Five Creeks looks forward to joining with the City of Berkeley on Coastal Cleanup Day on September 15, 2018 -- and to seeing how much this ordinance achieves in reducing litter and pollution in urban runoff, local creeks, and the Bay next year.

Sincerely,

Susan Schwartz, President, Friends of Five Creeks

Friends of Five Creeks is a partner project of 501(c)3 Berkeley Partners for Parks

219 Page 44 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 35 of 65

Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Disposal Ordinance

Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:16 AM Subject: My family's support for the proposed Single-use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Dear Ms. Hobermeit,

Just wanted to you to know that although I am rehabbing from surgery and couldn't attend the July 12 meeting, my family and I still strongly support the proposed ordinance.

Yours truly,

Melanie Lawrence Allston Way

Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 10:06 PM Subject: City of Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Hello, Very happy to see this effort happening and it also seems like a particularly easy problem to solve. I will suggest my obvious solutions mostly as reinforcement for what is probably already on the minds of many other people. Only paper based materials used (yes paper comes from trees but it is a rapidly renewing resource and usually compostable or recyclable and not a pollutant in landfills). Any plastic for forks, spoons etc. must be of the compostable/recyclable variety. The city should approve manufacturers of these goods and make a list available of supply companies who are interested in providing the goods for merchants. Merchants should also be encouraged to allow customers to bring in their own containers to pick up take out food. Customers should be encouraged to start or continue cooking at home to save money, resources such as packing materials and to likely cut down on automobile traffic. Perhaps cooking programs at local community colleges can be enhanced and expanded. Thank you for your efforts and allowing people to provide input and encouragement. Kasra Kamooneh, President / CTO Certified Green Building Professional SUSTAINABLE ROOFING SOLUTIONS www.SustainableRoofingSolutions.com Building Exterior Specialists Design-Build / General Contractor 415.710.1324 / 510.981.0415(f)

220 Page 45 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 36 of 65 Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 10:43 AM Subject: Re: September 6th @ 6pm - Invitation to provide input on the proposed City of Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Hi!

I am a former restaurant owner in Berkeley. I would say I am definitely an environmentalist. My companies have been certified green for the last 10 years by the county of Alameda.

The restaurant business is under siege right now with limited labor availability, rising labor costs, and rising food costs. Many restaurants are on the verge of closing or have already closed.

Do not pick on restaurants right now. The timing is horrible. If anything, offer some kind of tax credit or incentive for following these guidelines rather than a law that puts more financial pressure on restaurants.

Sincerely, Hugh Groman

Follow us on instagram! @hughgromangroup The Hugh Groman Group Office: 510-647-5165 Phil's Sliders: 510-845-5060 www.hughgromangroup.com www.greenleafplatters.com www.hughgromancatering.com www.philssliders.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 12:50 PM Subject: plastics

I don't know much about what is being proposed, but generally speaking, I think it is crucial for Berkeley to take the lead in promoting less plastic usage in all areas of life/living,business!

Thanks Karen weil 1209 Bonita avenue, berk. 94709

221 Page 46 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 37 of 65

Written Public Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 12:08 AM To: [email protected]; Sophie Hahn; Jesse Arreguin Cc: Berkeley City Council; Berkeley City Council Subject: Foodware Subcommittee and Zero Waste Commission - Single Use Disposable Food Containers

Dear Foodware Subcommittee Members, Zero Waste Commission, Mayor Arreguin and Sophie Hahn Councilmember,

There are really two problems with the littering of single use food containers. One is the single use containers and the other is trash including single use containers strewn in the streets, sidewalks, yards, really across Berkeley.

Durham, North Carolina Green ToGo

It was disappointing in reading the proposed ordinance and materials for decreasing waste and single use containers that the Durham, North Carolina Green ToGo Reusable Takeout Container Service was not mentioned nor seemed to be considered as an option in decreasing single use containers. There are a number of articles about the Green ToGo program which can be easily found through internet search, it was even featured on PBS Newshour August 21, 2018.

Here are two links: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/this-restaurant-takeout-service-swaps-styrofoam-for-sustainable http://clarioncontentmedia.com/2016/11/durham-green-togo-reusable-takeout-container-service/

Trash

As I noted in the public comment period to City Council on return from travel in the midwest there was a sharp contrast between leaving Berkeley, the Oakland Airport and arriving in Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN. The Oakland Airport was filthy, the Minneapolis St Paul Airport was immaculate. The night I arrived and stayed in Bloomington, MN, the local news had a special on the best school custodian and the recognition given by the custodian to the students with the cleanest classroom. As I traveled across the mid-west streets, sidewalks, parks, nature preserves even city centers were pleasant and absent of scattered trash. I was struck over and over how nice it was not to see trash scattered everywhere. Trash cans were conveniently located and people used them. Contrast that with Berkeley. It only takes a short walk outside.

Kelly Hammargren

Resident

222 Page 47 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 38 of 65

Date: Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 3:43 PM Subject: Proposed Berkeley City litter reduction ordinance To: [email protected] Cc: ryan , [email protected]

Hi Stuart,

I am the owner of Yogurt Park, Berkeley, (41 yrs. and counting)! I would like to address the new city ordinance proposal to charge a .25 cent surcharge to customers to reduce waste/litter for cup/containers that are used in or taken out of our business. I am not sure if I understand the scope of this ordinance, but would like to give some thoughts for consideration.

We have 3 specific sizes of Yogurt Park logo cups/containers that are priced by-the-cup size (mini-6.oz./small-12oz./large-16oz.). We cannot allow customers to bring in their own reusable cups/containers as our 3 YP size choices reflect the price of each sale. Additionally, we feel customers who would bring back our YP cups to have refilled could cause health/sanitary issues, as our yogurt product contains live yogurt cultures/milk and if not sanitized properly, could cause customers to become ill, which would directly reflect on our business. Essentially, all of our sales are considered take-out, as customers may or may not choose to sit on our limited bench seating for a short time after purchasing our product at the counter. Adding .25 cents to every cup/container sale would have a tremendous negative effect on our customers, as there is a product/cup price that becomes "too pricey" for a cup of yogurt. The student market is very conscientious of pricing, as well they should be (we already offer a lower cash discount). Oct. 1, we must increase our pricing as Berkeley's employee living wage law becomes effective. By adding the .25 cent cup surcharge would make purchasing our product a negative one. We have not been able to raise our prices in years to cover increases in food costs/ taxes/ rents/ wages/ compostable cups....to list a few.

I encourage the City of Berkeley to again put the small business community back on it's radar....I feel they have "taken their eye off the ball" on the South side. As an example, until recently there were 4 yogurt permits/businesses within 1 1/2 blocks of my long established location (the 3 other stores have gone out of business). Competition can be good for consumers, when not overdone. Also, it seems there are more chain stores being issued permits on the South side than were allowed many years ago....which again does not help the small business establishments.

Stuart, thank you for your help. I may not be able to attend the Thurs. meeting, but if you have any questions of me, I can be reached. I would appreciate any information you receive from the meeting if I cannot attend.

Sincerely, Marty Piscovich, owner Yogurt Park

223 Page 48 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 39 of 65

Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 6:59 PM To: Obermeit, Heidi Subject: Please ban plastic silverware and single use take out meal containers Ms. Heidi Obermeit (Zero Waste Commission) Berkeley Recycling Program Manager I advocate for Berkeley to step forward with a law to reduce "food served with a side of garbage". Please ban single-use plastic items like plastic silverware, plastic beverage cups, plastic condiment or dip cups, and plastic salad containers, and the cardboard surrounding grilled cheese type sandwich that gets greasy. 67% of Bay Area street litter is disposable foodware. I support reusables and I want to help restaurants feel supported in knowing that this can, and does work! I support making reuse the norm and reducing throwaway items when eating out. I much prefer using a steel fork and spoon which is sturdy and reuseable, I would prefer also dip or condiments served in dishes that can be used many times by many customers. And I much prefer drinking from glass glasses which can be washed and reused. On a global basis, only 14% of plastic is collected for recycling. The reuse rate is terrible compared to other materials -- 58% of paper and up to 90% of iron and steel gets recycled.

Research shows there will be more plastic than fish by weight in the world's oceans by 2050, which has spurred policy makers, individuals and companies into action.

Last month 40 companies including Coca- Cola (KO), Nestle (NSRGF), Unilever (UL) and Procter & Gamble (PG) pledged to slash the amount of plastic they use and throw away in the United Kingdom. It is time for Berkeley to take a similar pledge to reduce throw away plastic silverware and meal containers. -- Beth Schmaltz, 1006 High St., Madison, WI . 53715

224 Page 49 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 40 of 65

Melissa Hatheway Director of Marketing and Community Relations Rialto Cinemas ® Elmwood Berkeley’s Best Neighborhood Movie Theater

2966 College Avenue at Ashby Berkeley, CA 94705 Tel 707 829-3456 [email protected]

Thank you to the City of Berkeley, this commission and all the organizations that have been working on this ordinance. We agree wholeheartedly with its goals but the hardship that this ordinance would present to us is onerous.

We are the only independently-owned movie theatre in Berkeley. We are also a movie theatre without a kitchen nor any room for a kitchen. Our more than 100-year-old building has limited space. We have 275 seats – on a Friday or Saturday night let’s say we have three sets of close to sold out shows – and half those folks purchase a drink or popcorn we’d need to have 400+ cups in 3 sizes to keep up as well as the same number of bowls in three sizes. We will never have enough room for a dishwasher nor the storage space necessary. Additionally, this would add to our overhead and therefore our ticket prices. Our patrons are cost conscious and would travel to Emeryville, Piedmont and even farther afield. Complying with this program will put us at a great business disadvantage due to the cost.

Again, we applaud the spirit of this ordinance but it is our opinion that it needs to consider the users and how they do business.

Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 6:14 PM To: Obermeit, Heidi Subject: Berkeley Commission on Disability Letter to Zero Waste Commission with related attachments

Hi Heidi,

I have been sent here tonight by the Berkeley Commission on Disability.

Our Statement follows along with attached letter and documents.

Helen Walsh Berkeley Commission on Disability

Creating an environmentally conscious place for all cities across the state of California, including San

225 Page 50 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 41 of 65 Francisco and Berkeley, the Commission on Disability recognizes that single use plastic cause hazardous effects to our plants and animals on land and in the ocean. However, we also recognize that people who are in hospice care, seniors, small children, and those with disabilities depend on straws to drink, eat, take medications, etc. in daily use. A straw is a tool not a convenience. Many people with disabilities, have a clear need for straws as tools to drink beverages at home and in restaurants. By leaving this community out of the conversation, commissioners are making decisions that may dramatically impact quality of life without gathering input on impacts, recommendations and alternatives from the very group that is most affected by access to straws (or lack thereof). The disability communities voice therefor should be considered and included in the conversation. The Berkeley Commission on Disability is requesting that the Zero Waste Commission take proactive efforts to reach the disability community, host a forum or specific meeting session, and continually gather input

226 Page 51 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 42 of 65 from disability stakeholders before finalizing any ordinances and proposing them to City Council. We are submitting this letter to the Zero Waste subcommittee that will provide both recommendations and information to support a more inclusive process. Thank you.

Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 2:00 PM To: Obermeit, Heidi ; Martin Bourque ; Arreguin, Jesse L. ; Hahn, Sophie Subject: Proposed City of Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Heidi, Martin, Jesse, Sophie,

Sorry to be late to be meeting yesterday at Sports Basement

I am writing for myself, and not the DBA (which has not taken position on issue.)

Personally, I support the 25 cent charge on coffee/beverage cups, but think it should be done as a Phase 1.

I think the City should wait to do a Phase 2. Take-out food container should come later after we have some experience re coffee/beverage cups in Phase 1 and figured logistics for returning food containers.

Specifically, I do quite a bit of take-out for dinners where I call ahead and food is waiting for me to pick up. I always wash out and save plastic containers but have not figured out how to return them.

Martin, thanks for telling me about GO-BOX which look promising. Perhaps we could a voluntary pilot program and see how it works?

Cheers, John

John Caner 2215 Roosevelt Ave. Berkeley CA 94703

227 Page 52 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 43 of 65

Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 4:32 PM To: Obermeit, Heidi Subject: Disposable-free dining!

Hello,

I just wanted to write in support of this. My family spent this summer learning how to life without buying single-use plastic, or things wrapped in single-use plastic, and once you've set up some new routines it's really not that hard. Grocery shopping and eating out were the biggest two hurdles. I understand that citizens can be resistant to having ideas imposed upon them, but I really think the situation is already so awful that we need regulation to make significant shifts in consumer and company behaviour. I wholeheartedly support this and would be happy to help in whatever way would be useful.

I also wrote about my family's plastic-free mission for the Chronicle a few weeks ago, if that's useful.

All the best,

Jemima

-- Jemima Kiss // jemimakiss.com

228 Page 53 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 44 of 65

September 6, 2018 Special Meeting of the Foodware Subcommittee to solicit public input on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance 30 members of the public attended; 14 public comments. Summary of Public Comments:

1. Jim Trevor – Artichoke Basille’s Pizza  The proposed Ordinance is well-intentioned  Our business only serves to-go; they do not have a dine-in option due to City regulations  A $0.25 fee shouldn’t be imposed on restaurants that aren’t allowed by the City to accommodate a dine-in option  We do not want to produce more trash from disposable foodware  Health Department frowns upon individuals bringing their own containers (BYOC)  It is important to consider the impact of this proposed Ordinance to local businesses

2. Paul – GoBox SF Bay Area  GoBox offers reusable cups and containers  Vendor resources should be made available to businesses  There should be incentives for use of reusable to-go containers  There should be incentives for businesses to get a dishwasher  The City could bundle vendor services/resources for businesses  To support BYOC, I suggest itemizing the “charge” for BYOC with a “$0.00” on the receipt so customers see that the financial benefit of bringing their own container instead of paying the $0.25.

3. Melissa Hatheway - Rialto Cinemas Elmwood  We are the only independently owned theater in Berkeley  We are in a 100yr old building; they do not have a kitchen or have room for a kitchen  We do not have room for a dishwasher or storage space for reusables  We have 275 seats; we don’t have the capacity to collect, wash or store that many cups or dishes  Patrons are cost conscious  NOTE: Melissa submitted written comments

4. Helen Walsh – representing the City of Berkeley Commission on Disability  Single Use Disposables impact the environment

229 Page 54 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 45 of 65

 People with medical issues, in hospice, seniors, and children may depend on straws to eat or take medication  Straws are a tool, not a convenience  NOTE: The Commission on Disability submitted written comments

5. Jamie Smith – Clean Water Action  Through Clean Water Action’s ReThink Disposable Program, over 100 Bay Area businesses have collectively:  saved an average of $3,000/year  prevented 122,000 pounds of waste  eliminated the use of over 10 million pieces of trash  Businesses accomplished this feat by switching to reusable foodware for on-site dining  Although some businesses voluntarily eliminate/reduce use of disposables, it will take leadership of this City Council to make an effective impact.  Cost of increased water use from washing reusables is a common concern from businesses; in reality, the increase in cost is insignificant.  The use of disposables wastes water; the water used to produce, distribute and manage disposables is significantly greater than the water needed to wash a reusable item thousands of times.  I ask City Council to adopt this Ordinance

6. Sam – Third Culture Bakery  I am a Business Owner and UCB graduate with an Environmental Science background  Support intent of proposed Ordinance  Not sure how this will work in practice at a bakery with sauces, whipped cream, etc.  Hygiene/safety is a big concern  Have seen problems with people BYOC when he worked for a coffee shop; people would bring in moldy cups and cups containing spoiled milk  Need a balanced approach  Need to have health department and other stakeholders involved  Most logical progression would be to promote compostables  Disappointed that compost isn’t emphasized  Recommend the City rethinks the Ordinance and moves in a more natural progression

7. Business Owner from Top Dog  Recommends compostable containers be adequate to dodge the to-go fee  The fee is an administrative hassle  BYOC is problematic – have to comply with Health Department regulations  We do not have space for a dishwasher

230 Page 55 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 46 of 65

 Concern about reusables (especially glass or porcelain) being used as projectiles  We currently bolt everything down (napkin holders, etc.) because this has been a problem; it is dangerous/a safety concern for his staff.

8. UC Berkeley Student  The work Clean Water Action is doing is very important  Should inform businesses about compost bins/encourage participation in the compost program  Is 9 auditors enough? Should encourage Clean Water Action to work with local groups and hire more auditors or interns  Information is going to be very important in this process

9. Tom – Farm Burger  We are in Berkeley because we care about Berkeley  Sales volume in Berkeley is 30% of our East Coast locations  Our business has been using compostable foodware  It is important to consider unintended consequences  Worried businesses will move away from compostable foodware  Staff live on tips; concerned that the impact of the fee will be a reduction in tips for staff  The minimum wage law is already a major impact  I support inclusion of health inspector in this process  Businesses spend a lot of time figuring out how to comply with health regulations

10. Farhad Salehian – DishJoy  Our company seeks to profit off of the problems raised tonight (i.e. lack of dishwasher capability)  The only solution is to share dishwashing services  We already do it for corporate campuses and we could easily transition to help businesses

11. Ed - Super Duper Burger  Ask that the City helps business owners with costs  The City should work with manufacturers of disposables to purchase compliant foodware in bulk so businesses can pass savings on to consumers

12. John Hanscom – Berkeley resident  It is not enough to say, “go recyclable” or “go compostable”. It is important to figure out how to reduce waste, not focus on how to recycle and compost the waste that is generated.

231 Page 56 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 47 of 65

 There is an excess of plastics when ordering food to-go. You often end up with a handful of utensils, straws, etc. put in the bag.  We need to be more thoughtful about what is going out the door.

13. Jack Macy – Berkeley Resident  Appreciate all the comments from businesses  It is much more environmentally preferable to use reusables over compostables  If using fiber, half is going to be released as carbon dioxide in the compost process  PLA often gets screened out at the compost facility or doesn’t fully break down  There is a huge difference in resources used with disposables vs. reusables.  Businesses are saving money by switching to reusables; it is a win/win  SF just passed a similar law  This is a model that will spread to other cities  Health Department doesn’t say that businesses can’t refill containers; they just need to follow certain handling practices.  It can work; I fully support this ordinance.

14. Miriam Gordon – UpStream  Has researched the health code extensively re: BYOC and created a fact sheet  CA Department of Health controls local health inspectors  Health Dept allows refilling of containers, but requires contamination-free practices  UpStream is working on a guidance document for how to refill customer’s BYOCs  There is a hardship exemption for businesses in the proposed Ordinance; businesses can make the case if they don’t have the ability to wash dishes onsite.  $0.25 creates a level playing field  There is cost savings for businesses if not purchasing disposables  Need a reliable external system for to-go containers to make this easier for businesses and customers

232 Page 57 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 48 of 65

To: To the Secretary and to the members of the Zero Waste Commission From: Commission on Disability Submitted by: Commission on Disability, Chairperson: Leeder Subject: Plastic Straws Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION Conduct a public hearing and Inviting people with disabilities / Medical conditions from the Public to a stakeholder meeting partnered with the Zero Waste Commission for further recommendations regarding plastic straws. We, the Commission on Disability request that both the Zero Waste Commission and our Commission hold sessions with community members, similar to the meeting that the San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability hosted along with SF Environment Department.

SUMMARY: Creating an environmentally conscious place for all cities across the state of California, including San Francisco and Berkeley, the Commission on Disability recognizes that plastic straws and plastic cups with lids cause hazardous effects to our plants and animals on land and in the ocean. However, we also recognize that people who are in hospice care, seniors, small children, and those with disabilities depend on straws to drink, eat, take medications, etc. in daily use. While some might think the answer is simply to ditch plastic straws altogether, small children or people with certain disabilities rely on them to drink and even eat. It is important to engage this community as a whole (and not just individual agencies or nonprofits) when developing ordinances around single-use plastics and plastic straws specifically, because these ordinances may dramatically impact the independence, health, and quality-of-life for people who require straws to drink. We are requesting that the Zero Waste Commission take proactive efforts to reach the disability community, host a forum or specific meeting session, and continually gather input from disability stakeholders before finalizing any ordinances and proposing them to City Council.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION: Minimal.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS: The Berkeley’s Zero Waste Commission is tasked with writing up an ordinance to finding an alternative solution to using plastic straws to recommend to the city council. In general, Berkeley’s Zero Waste Commission held public meetings geared toward

233 Page 58 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 49 of 65

environmental and business stakeholders, but did not specifically engage with stakeholders with disabilities. Many people with disabilities, though, have a clear need for straws as tools to drink beverages at home and in restaurants. By leaving this community out of the conversation, commissioners are making decisions that may dramatically impact quality of life without gathering input on impacts, recommendations and alternatives from the very group that is most affected by access to straws (or lack thereof). Some of the reasons why straws are so important for people with disabilities include:

 “It's important to recognize that, for some people, the use of straws is a necessity. Due to deficits in manual dexterity and various other factors, a significant number of folks require straws to drink beverages” (ref. CIL letter to the Zero Waste Commission 06/2018, attached)  For these people with disabilities, straws are not a “convenience” for drinking beverages, but rather a “tool” to do so.  Lack of access to beverages is not just frustrating – it can impact independence as well as health. If individuals cannot drink water or other beverages with food, they may have trouble swallowing and then choose to avoid eating out altogether. If they are in the community during the day and get thirsty or dehydrated, a lack of access to beverages (using straws as tools) threatens dehydration and related health impacts. There are many other concerns which could be brought up by the community during forums and communication with the Zero Waste Commission.  People with disabilities choosing to avoid Berkeley’s businesses because they cannot drink beverages may have a negative impact on those businesses’ economic success, as well.  Some alternatives to straws that have been suggested to people with disabilities are unreasonable or impossible to do reliably. For example, the suggestion that people use coffee cups (as they have handles) still does not work for many with limited strength or dexterity, and many businesses also do not carry cups with handles. Asking a friend or personal care attendant to hold a cup may result in spills and violates the very principles of independence for many people with disabilities. Other alternatives pose similar problems.  Certain alternatives to plastic straws specifically have their own issues. For example, paper straws may begin to dissolve in hot or carbonated beverages and can even lead to choking for people with existing difficulty swallowing. Businesses providing reusable straws and then cleaning them is also unreliable and potentially unhealthy, especially as the most widely-used type of reusable straws (Silicone) are porous and have concerns about cleanliness.  Asking people with disabilities to purchase their own straws (whether single-use or “reusable”) and bring them to restaurants presents an undue burden toward simply being able to have beverages outside the home. Somebody may forget a straw and be unable to drink beverages during the day, and cleaning reusable

234 Page 59 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 50 of 65

straws can be unreliable or difficult to do midday (especially for individuals with dexterity difficulties). Purchasing straws is yet another financial burden for a community that is disproportionately low income, many of whom rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under $1000 per month.  Proposals to charge extra for straws at restaurants themselves similarly place a financial burden on individuals who require them to drink. Even $.25 per item – similar to the charges suggested in the Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance draft for to-go cups and containers – could add up to easily $20 or $30 per month, or more. Individuals on SSI may have well under $100 in flexible disposable monthly income, so this is significant. The Commission on Disability recognizes that environmental concerns in general are extremely important. As the Center for Independent Living noted in its letter, “Just like responsible citizens without disabilities, responsible people with disabilities recognize the importance of maintaining (or, better yet, increasing) our planet’s health. In fact, the disability community arguably has a heightened interest in environmental integrity as toxic environments can exacerbate disability-related medical conditions and can even, in some cases, lead to the acquisition of disabilities.” However, we remain concerned that people with disabilities have not been provided sufficient opportunity to give input on Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance or similar measures. Nonprofits such as CIL are already inundated with existing work supporting individuals’ independent living needs and cannot be expected to be the go-to advocates in city proceedings, as it goes beyond their scope of work. The Zero Waste Commission and related Subcommittees should take concerted efforts to reach community stakeholders with disabilities at all levels, gather input through forums or other means, and take those considerations into effect when drafting any policy. The members of the Commission on Disability are open to assisting in these efforts.

BACKGROUND: California restaurants could only provide plastic straws to customers upon request if Gov. Jerry Brown signs a measure now headed to his desk. Assembly Bill 1884 covers full-service dining, but not takeout establishments like fast-food restaurants. Further information on this bill is available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=2017 20180AB1884

Either way, as California is currently working on passing the bill above, now each city within the State of California has to come up with its own ordinance with taking a stance on plastic straws and other plastic containers.

235 Page 60 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 51 of 65

As others have noted (see attached Berkeleyside pieces from June 2017 and April 2018, and CIL’s letter), there are multiple options – but regardless, it is imperative that any City stakeholders include everybody who may be affected by disposable foodware ordinances. We generally agree with CIL’s following statement:

“As the [June 2017] Berkeleyside article makes clear, there are various ways that Berkeley could reduce or eliminate the use of disposable plastic straws while simultaneously accommodating the needs of those for whom straws are not a luxury. ‘Soft bans,’ biodegradable disposable straws, and reusable steel straws are some potential solutions mentioned in the article. Although we are not currently advocating any particular solution, we are urging the City of Berkeley to ensure that those who need straws will continue to have access to them.”

A few suggestions include:

 The city of Berkeley and other cities must make some expectation for those individuals who really rely on straws on a daily basis.  Perhaps coffee shops and restaurants could make plastic straws available only on request – just like when California had a water drought crisis and people asked for a cup or glass of water upon request.  The cities could give out reusable plastic straws to those who need them and have these people keep these reusable straws in order to reuse them over and over again. As noted earlier, though, cleaning and reusing straws may be difficult for some of our community members.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

This community involvement strives to protect the environment while either making an exception for individuals with disabilities and medical chronic conditions upon request or come up with an alternative solution to using plastic straws that works for everyone.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED: Get the business community and members of the disability community from various Bay Area cities to partner and create a subcommittee between the Zero Waste Commission, the Commission on Disability and groups such the Ecology Center to come up with solutions that fits everyone’s needs. Berkeley could also sponsor an “innovation competition” to come up with straw alternatives that meet people with disabilities’ needs as well as environmental concerns.

236 Page 61 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 52 of 65

CONTACT PERSON

Ella Callow, JD Disability Services Specialist Public Works, Engineering City of Berkeley 1947 Center Street, Ste. 525 Berkeley, CA 94704 P: 1.510.981.6418 TDD: 1.510.981.6347 F: 1.510.981.6320 E: [email protected]

Attachments: 1: Statement from Center on Independent Living (CIL) on plastic straws and people with disabilities. (Zero Waste Commission Agenda Packet Regular Meeting June 25, 2018, pages 24-25) 2: Berkeleyside NOSH - “What you should know about the Berkeley straw band proposal” (June 6, 2017) 3: Berkeleyside NOSH - Berkeley considers charging restaurant customers a fee for disposable foodware (April 26, 2018)

237 Page 62 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 53 of 65

September 5, 2018

Ms. Heidi Obermeit City of Berkeley 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Ca 94704

RE: Comments on City of Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Dear Heidi,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide comments to the City of Berkeley’s forward thinking Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. Below are our comments based on our experience in adopting and implementing various ordinances, including the Reusable Bag Ordinance (Ordinance 2016-2, attached here as a reference). We also based our comments on our work in the food reduction and recovery areas.

Section 1

1C. Definition of “Takeout Meal”

Includes several different entrée/item configurations and “up to three disposable Food Containers”. If the intent is to charge $.25 for every 3 disposable containers, these charges could be difficult to interpret and implement by food vendors, complicated to monitor for enforcement, and confusing to customer.

Would Reusable Cups and Reusable Containers have their own separate definitions?

1E. Disposable Foodware Definition– includes all bags, sacks, wrappers.

We recommend removing the word bags from the definition of Disposal Foodware to avoid confusion between the Countywide Reusable Bag Ordinance 2016-2 and the proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance.

Including bags in the definition of Disposable Foodware creates a conflict with the Alameda County Reusable Bag Ordinance 2016-2. The definition for a compliant reusable bag under Ordinance 2016-2 is different from the standards set forth in Section 3 under the Disposable Foodware Standards. The Foodware Standards in Section 3 in the proposed ordinance allow for compostable bags; however, the majority of non-paper compostable bags will not meet the durability standards set forth in Ordinance 2016-2 and therefore the two ordinances conflict. Removing bags from the definition resolves the conflict.

238 Page 63 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 54 of 65 Section 2

2A. Consider phasing in the requirements for utilizing Reusable Foodware and compliant Disposable Foodware. These are two significant changes for a business to comply with at the same time.

2C. Request of Waivers

Waivers may be granted for up to three years – some questions to consider:

What would a partial waiver include?

What happens after 3 years?

What constitutes “make every effort to become compliant”? What type of activities/efforts would the city consider?

What types of thresholds would be considered allowable under “space constraints?”

Who will review/approve waivers? Will there be an online system set up?

Consider requiring Prepared Food Vendors that do request a waiver to, at a minimum, place all disposables in dispensers that are designed to limit consumption such as straws napkins, etc. ReThink Disposable has found that this practice helped reduce waste.

With over 500 restaurants in the City of Berkeley, many who currently are not using reusable ware, the City may have many requests for waivers. You might want to consider creating a specific webpage that clearly outlines the process, allowances and some type of database/electronic system to handle requests.

2E - There is a reference: “to meet the Disposable Food Packaging Standards in Section 3. There is no definition of Disposable Food Packaging in Section 3 or in the definition section of the proposed ordinance. Consider referencing Disposable Foodware instead.

Section 3. Disposable Foodware Standards

3A – City to maintain list of approved Disposable Foodware source and types and where physically available.

Consider referring to organizations that maintain regularly updated lists of products that meet ordinance requirements. With the rapidly changing products in the market, creating and updating a list can be a very time consuming activity for staff; and this type of list can become outdated very quickly if only updated annually.

3Bai Will Prepared Food Vendors have the adequate infrastructure (front of the house) for patrons to compost and/or recycle the foodware required by the ordinance?

239 Page 64 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 55 of 65

3Bb Disposable Foodware approved by the City shall meet the following standards:

Confirming requirement 3Bb “Free of all intentionally added Fluorinated Chemicals as certified by the Biodegradable Product Institute (BPI) or other third party certifying agency “ aligns with BPI’s schedule to certify these products. Per the BPI website: https://www.bpiworld.org/Fluorinated-Chemicals a complete list of these certified products will not be available until December 2019.

Section 4 Disposable Foodware Charges.

Customers shall be charged for Disposable Foodware used for dining off premises.

4A and 4B. Please note, if the “to go” meal is served in a compliant reusable bag, an additional minimum $0.10 will need to be charged to comply with Ordinance 2016-2, which could increase total “Takeout Meal” charges to be greater than $0.25. There is no charge for carryout food given to customers in compliant paper bags.

4B –Lack of alternatives (to disposable foodware) might not change consumer behavior in the way that the ordinance intended, e.g. consumers will still have to pay for containers that may end up in the trash can.

4C – Income from charges shall be retained by the Prepared Food Vendor. However, Section 6C stated that the City Manager will collect and receive all fees imposed by this section. While we understand that Section 6 relates specifically to enforcement, it might benefit from some clarification.

4D – Under Ordinance 2016-2, carry out of leftover food given to customers in a bag (“doggie bag”) are subject to a minimum $0.10 charge if the bag is a reusable bag (which can be a thick, durable plastic bag compliant with Ordinance 2016-2). There is no charge for carryout food given to customers in compliant paper bags.

4F – If the intent of the language is to require vendors to provide a line item for both cups and foodware on the receipt, please note that requiring separate line items with charges can be problematic for a vendor as many cash registers are not able to create specific line items for these types of additional charges.

The Reusable Bag Ordinance implementation shows that many cash registers do not have the capacity to make individual line item descriptions. The Reusable Bag Ordinance requires a minimum $.10 per compliant reusable bags distributed at eating establishments and that charge needs to be itemized on the receipts. However, we allow the utilization of a general category such as Misc. with the appropriate charges to make implementation feasible for affected entities.

240 Page 65 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 56 of 65

A note regarding consumer’s reusable containers.

Consider potential concerns regarding consumers wanting to bring their own reusable containers for takeout food to avoid charges (and protect the environment).

In our experience, food service operators are wary of health code violations that will result in a citation if they allow anything beyond reusable cups, which can be sanitized with hot water before filling. Many restaurants will not accept reusable containers brought from home for takeout food, which in essence requires a patron to pay for disposable foodware despite bringing their own container. Vendors cite health code violations that stem from Code ambiguity described below:

The Current California Retail Food Code is clear on the allowance of consumer’s reusable cups (Article 7 114075 if 2018 Code) for beverages and use of consumer’s personal reusable containers for leftovers from consumer’s plates. Where the code is not clear is regarding the use of reusable food containers from home for food to go. Specifically in the scenario where a bring your own (BYO) container passes from customer over the counter to back of kitchen to be filled with food and handed back to customer. Has the Berkeley Environmental Health Dept. confirmed that consumers are allowed to bring their own containers from home to be used for take-out food? If the City Health Dept. determines this type of activity is permitted, consider providing food vendors with outreach materials confirming these activities are allowed by law.

Section 5 Signage Requirements for Takeout Food Vendors

5A – Require vendors to post signage. Consider providing small postcard sized signage, as many vendors do not have space to post signage. Experience with Reusable Bag Ordinance shows less than a quarter of the affected eating establishments posted outreach materials provided by ACWMA, which should be a consideration if this is the main outreach vehicle for the City to notify customers of the law.

We hope that these comments are helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Regards,

Meri Soll Senior Program Manager

241 Page 66 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 57 of 65

5 Gyres t Algalita Marine Research Foundation t Break Free From Plastic Californians Against Waste t Center for Environmental Health t Clean Water Action t Judith Enck t Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives t Institute for Local Self Reliance t Plastic Pollution Coalition Seventh Generation Advisors t Story of Stuff t Surfrider t UPSTREAM t Zero Waste USA

September 17, 2018

Berkeley Zero Waste Commission 2180 Milvia Street 5th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704

Re: Single Use Foodware Reduction Ordinance- STRONG SUPPORT

Dear Zero Waste Commission:

The undersigned organizations applaud the proposed ordinance (Item #34, introduced April 24, 2018) to reduce single use food-ware and litter. This measure will help Berkeley reduce plastic and packaging waste in food service and ensure disposable food-ware is safer for health and the environment. It represents a brave step forward in tackling a tough problem.

We are at a pivotal moment in time. The China National / Green Sword is leaving many U.S. cities without options for recycling mixed paper and plastic. Meanwhile, the petrochemical industry is putting in place infrastructure aimed at increasing plastics production by 400% over the next 30 years.1 Cities all across the U.S. are drowning in single use packaging, primarily plastic, that is hard to recycle and compost. These are products- typically used in a manner of minutes- that have huge environmental impact, regardless of whether they are made from petroleum based plastic, bio-plastic, paper, or agricultural waste. From the devastation caused by extraction of natural resources or industrial agricultural production, to the energy, toxic chemicals, water use, and pollution associated with production, to the greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in the environment when they are disposed, single use products - no matter what materials they are made of- significantly harm the environment and human health.

It’s time to choose the 2Rs- Reduce and Reuse. It’s clear that we can’t recycle and compost our way out of this deluge of plastic and packaging waste. Berkeley is wise to seek solutions at the top of the waste management hierarchy (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) to drive reduction and reuse. If local government is to reach the 75% diversion from landfill goal of AB 341, it will have to do more than recycle and compost. Similarly, to achieve the storm-water permit requirements established by the state and regional water boards, Berkeley and other jurisdictions will need to

1 Geyer, R., Jambeck, J., Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made, Science Advances (2017), Vol. 3, no. 7, e1700782.

242 Page 67 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 58 of 65 do more than capture and cleanup trash. In both cases, a prevention / source reduction approach is needed.

Local jurisdictions should prioritize food and beverage packaging reduction because packaging represents a quarter of the solid waste stream, as does plastic,2 and because food and beverage packaging is 67% of the trash on Bay Area streets.3 This ordinance represents a comprehensive approach to tackling the disposable food packaging problem. It folds in the increasingly-popular straws and utensils on request policies being enacted at the local and national levels, with more forceful measures to evolve from a throw-away culture to one where reusable, durable products are used to deliver food and beverages.

We support reusables for on-site dining, as it makes a lot of sense. Too many restaurants nowadays are serving customers on-site with disposables, thanks to the fast food model, brought to us by fast food leaders like McDonalds. This throw-away culture doesn’t fit in communities seeking to be climate-friendly and zero waste. We must push these industries to find a more sustainable way to provide fast food without a big pile of garbage generated with each meal. We know that McDonald's CAN do this. They are already providing reusables on site in McCafes all across Europe. If they can cater to European taste for croissants served on a real plate, they need to be pushed to serve Americans our burgers on real plates too.

We support charging customers for take-out in disposables, with a delay on charges for food containers, and city support for innovation. Charging for disposables to encourage the reusable alternative works, as evidenced by government-mandated bag charges in jurisdictions all across the globe. We’ve seen a 60-90% reduction in single bag use and plastic bag litter in these jurisdictions. It’s not difficult for customers to Bring Your Own (BYO) reusable cup. For food containers, BYO isn’t a great way to introduce reusables, since customers are unlikely to carry the containers with them and we understand that BYO containers can significantly slow down operations during a busy lunch or dinner rush. Therefore, we believe it is important to create a reusable container system that restaurants can provide to their customers and would support a delayed implementation period for the charge on disposable food containers. Furthermore, we urge the City to consider supporting the development of innovation in developing reusables systems that are convenient and lower cost than the container charge.

We support banning PFAS substances in disposable food packaging. There is ample 4 evidencepackaging demonstratito provide moistureng that p ander- and grease polyfluoroalkyl-proof barriers, substances are among (PFAS), the most widely health used and in food environment-threatening, persistent, and indestructible chemicals currently in use. They migrate out of the package, into our food and beverages, leach into ground and surface water,

2 Id. 3 https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/06/19/survey-pinpoints-sources-of-trash-in-san-francisco-bay/ 4 Blum A,et al, 2015. The Madrid statement on poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Environ Health Perspect 123:A107–A111; Schaider LA, et al, Fluorinated compounds in U.S. fast food packaging. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2017; 4(3): 105-111; Trier X, Granby K, Christensen Polyfluorinated surfactants (PFS) in paper and board coatings for food packaging. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2011; 18: 1108-1120; Begley TH, Hsu W, Noonan G, Diachenko Migration of fluorochemical paper additives from food-contact paper into foods and food simulants. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2008; 25(3): 384-390. .

243 Page 68 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 59 of 65 contaminate compost, and can be up-taken by crops. Banning their use in food packaging is essential.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important measure.

Sincerely,

Miriam Gordon Program Director Judith Enck UPSTREAM Former EPA Regional Administrator

Leslie Mintz Tamminen Sue Chiang Oceans Director Pollution Prevention Program Director Seventh Generation Advisors Center for Environmental Health

Ruth Abbe Shilpy Chhotray President Senior Communications Officer Zero Waste USA Break Free From Plastic

Angela T. Howe, Esq. Samantha Sommer Legal Director Waste Prevention Program Manager Surfrider Foundation Clean Water Action, California

Eva Holman Anna Cummins Rise Above Plastics Program Lead Founder and CEO Surfrider San Francisco Chapter 5 Gyres

Kelly McBee Stiv Wilson Policy Analyst Director of Campaigns Californians Against Waste Story of Stuff

Michael Doshi Brenda Platt Youth Leadership Programs Manager Co-Director Algalita Marine Research & Education Institute for Local Self Reliance

Dianna Cohen Monica Wilson Executive Director Research and Policy Coordinator Plastic Pollution Coalition Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

244 Page 69 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 60 of 65

Chrise De Tournay, Chair Zero Waste Commission City of Berkeley

September 20, 2018

Re: Strong Support for Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

Dear Chair and Commissioners,

As you know, the Ecology Center is an originator of curbside recycling and the long-term operator of the City of Berkeley’s Residential Curbside Recycling Collection Program. We have worked with the Commission, City Staff, and City Council members to address the growing problems associated with disposable food ware in our city and across our waterways, oceans, and planet.

We believe that the approach developed in collaboration with a broad and experienced group of experts in this arena and referred by Council for review to the Zero Waste Commission is the most comprehensive ordinance yet proposed by any city. As proposed we are convinced this ordinance would dramatically reduce single-use disposable foodware and the related impacts on our streets, storm drains, creeks, and shoreline. We also believe it can reduce ocean pollution both here and internationally. We see immediate benefits for improving our shopping districts, cutting costs to the Business Improvement Districts for street clean up and allowing them to focus on events, promotions, and other priorities. We also see immediate benefits to the City in reducing waste collection costs, storm water clean up, and of course to recycling and compost programs by lowering direct expenses and contamination.

Expert opinion and field experience shows that some of the key elements of this program, while individually challenging for some businesses, will be achievable and produce net savings and an increase in revenue for local businesses. We sincerely appreciate the thorough, open, and inclusive work of the Foodware Subcommittee and have benefited from participating in all meetings as well as numerous related calls, meetings, and other communications which have given us greater insights to the business impacts of the proposals.

ENVIRONMENT • COMMUNITY • JUSTICE 2530 San Pablo Ave, Berkeley California 94702 [email protected] • www.ecologycenter.org • (510) 548-2220 245 Page 70 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 61 of 65

We have the following recommendations to further improve on the proposed ordinance:

1) Make an exception for plastic straws that allows and encourages restaurants to provide them without condition, upon request, such that people who need them for medical or other reasons have full and easy access to them as needed;

2) Include direction to health department staff to develop guidance for a contamination-free process for serving food in customer-owned foodware

3) Include funding for free citywide technical support to businesses through a third party provider;

4) Include funding to pilot a reusable takeout foodware program;

5) Require all takeout foodware be compostable in accordance with the city’s program;

6) Phase in the container fee following the implementation of the cup fee to give more time for businesses and customers to adapt.

Thank you for all your hard work and consideration of this proposal. Sincerely,

Martin Bourque Executive Director

246 Page 71 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 62 of 65

M E M O R A N D U M

Date: 12 September 2018

To: The Zero Waste Commission

From: The Parks and Waterfront Commission

Subject: Responding to request for feedback on draft of the Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

The Parks and Waterfront Commission would like to commend the Zero Waste Commission for its work in helping to develop a Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance (Attachment A). We support the Ordinance, which will reduce waste from single use food containers in Berkeley through the development of disposable foodware standards, fees of $0.25 per cup or container for disposable items and mandatory educational signage at the point of sale. We are pleased that extensive outreach was done to craft the legislation (including surveying 59 local businesses) and that several local case studies have demonstrated the economic benefits and feasibility of the ordinance1,2 We are also pleased that the Ordinance makes some accommodations, including fee exemptions for customers using WIC or SNAP and allowing biodegradable (paper) straws “on request”.

The Ordinance will help reduce waste in Berkeley’s parks and along the waterfront, which is badly needed. The 2017 Coastal Cleanup Day in Berkeley, Albany and Emeryville picked up 4,300 lbs of trash and recyclables, including 7,241 food wrappers, 2,217 foam packaging items, 2,505 straws and stirrers, 1,891 plastic bags and 1,577 plastic utensils.3,3a This waste detracts from residents’ enjoyment of the coast and harms bay-loving species. The Ocean Conservancy says that single-use packaging is the biggest source of trash found in or near oceans and bays, that over 600 species are threatened from the ingestion of plastics, and that 90 percent of seabirds are eating plastics on a regular basis.4 There will be a transition period and some push- back to the Ordinance at first, but the need to significantly reduce single-use packaging is real. Berkeley can help lead the way to a healthier future for our planet and local waterfront.

Footnotes: (1) http://reusablebagsac.org/news/successful-results-bag-ordinance (2) https://serc.berkeley.edu/paying-the-price-of-disposable-cups-at-caffe-strada/ (3) https://www.cityofberkeley.info/shorelinecleanup/. See also (3a) www.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/ca/Curr_CA_12%2012%2011final.pdf; California Coastal Cleanup Results 1989- 2014 showing Food and Beverage packaging items are 7 out of the top 10 items collected and account for 34% of the total trash https://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/ccd/history.html#top10; BanList 2.0 shows food and beverage packaging items are 74% of top 20 littered items among 6 different beach cleanup datasets https://upstreampolicy.org/ban-list-20 (4) https://oceanconservancy.org/our-work/marine-debris/2015-data-release/2015-data-release-pdf.pdf)

247 Page 72 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 63 of 65

To Whom it May Concern:

Waste is an out of sight, out of mind problem. The average person doesn’t think about how much waste they’re throwing away, but there is no “away”. All of the non-recyclable and non-compostable take-out containers from food establishments we’ve ever had is still on Earth. All the single-use plastic that we used for 30 minutes has hurt wildlife, contributed to air and water pollution, and increased greenhouse gases. We cannot afford to not think about it any longer.

Strong action is necessary and this Ordinance is a great step in the right direction. In ten years, it will be common sense that all take-out containers are recyclable or compostable and that “for here” items are reusable, just as it is common sense now to have curbside recycling. Berkeley has been a leader in waste by being the first municipality to ban single-use polystyrene. We should continue to lead by passing this Ordinance. This can be the groundbreaking policy that represents Berkeley’s progressive and forward-thinking ideals.

For the reasons above, CALPIRG UC Berkeley Chapter has voted to endorse the Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. Our waste problem is mounting, and we have the power, and duty, to do something about it.

Sincerely,

Nicole Haynes Zero Waste Co-Campaign Coordinator CALPIRG UC Berkeley Chapter

248 Page 73 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 64 of 65

October 3, 2018

Honorable Mayor and City Council members:

I would like to propose these additional changes to the draft ordinance:

1. If businesses are given exemptions from the requirement to provide reusable foodware for in-house dining, they should have to comply with the section of the ordinance that requires them to charge customers for the single use foodware – beverage and meal containers - for in- house dining. As the ordinance is currently drafted they only have to comply with the compostable/recyclable foodware section and I think the requirement to provide straws and other items upon request only. My suggestion is that these exempted businesses should still have to comply with the other aspects of the ordinance.

2. But if my recommendation in #1 is incorporated into the draft ordinance, the council should also consider the fiscal implications of the proposed change in #1 - the taxable sales implication if they cannot use all of the increased revenue from the collected charges (this increased revenue could be significant for a business that only sells food in single use to-go foodware packaging and does not offer in-house dining or has no way of washing any foodware for in- house dining) for implementing the requirements of the ordinance such as education of customers on composting, increased cost of providing compliant compostable to-go containers, signage etc. Perhaps these exempt businesses could be required to use some of those increased charge-related income to fund a city-wide pilot or a reusable foodware system on their own – their choice – which could be considered a form of EPR – extended producer responsibility or in this case Extended Retailer Responsibility - ERR. Perhaps non-exempt businesses could also be required to do this as well as part of their required uses of the increased income from the collected foodware charges. I’ve added an item (d) in #3 below for this reason.

3. The following language should be considered for inclusion to ensure that the charges collected by the businesses are not considered taxable by the state board of equalization:

“All moneys collected pursuant to this article shall be retained by the store and may be used only for the following purposes:

(a) Costs associated with complying with the requirements of this article.

(b) Actual costs of labor, equipment and materials for washing foodware and providing customers with washable foodware; costs of providing customers with compliant compostable single-use foodware; costs for reducing litter; and other costs associated with reducing the use of single-use foodware and litter.

249 Page 74 of 88

Public and Stakeholder Comment on the proposed Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Page 65 of 65

(c) Costs associated with a store’s educational materials or educational campaign for reducing and/or encouraging the reduction of single-use foodware and litter.

(d) Costs associated with supplying customers with reusable to-go foodware that can be returned to the business for washing or as part of a city-wide system of reusable to-go foodware.

Sincerely, Peter Schultze-Allen

<>------<>------<>------<>------<>------<>------<>------<>------<>------<> Peter Schultze-Allen, CPSWQ, QSP/QSD, Bay-Friendly QP, LEED-AP Senior Scientist

1410 Jackson Street, Oakland, CA 94612 510-832-2852 x128, [email protected]

250 PagePage 75 1 of of 14 88

Berkeley City Council 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 ACTION CALENDAR April 24, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn and Mayor Jesse Arreguin, and Councilmembers Linda Maio and Susan Wengraf

Subject: Referral to the Zero Waste Commission: Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

RECOMMENDATION 1. Refer the proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance to the Zero Waste Commission to invite input from key stakeholders, including restaurants and other food retailers and zero waste, plastics, oceans and other environmental experts, and hold public meetings to obtain input on the proposed Ordinance.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The only added cost of the referral, beyond normal staff time to support the Zero Waste Commission’s review of the proposed ordinance, is potential staffing of one or more community meetings to obtain stakeholder and other public input.

Reducing use and disposal of products that make up the majority of Berkeley’s street and storm-drain litter has the potential to significantly lower City expenses including costs related to collection of debris from over 400 city trash receptacles, from clearing of clogged stormwater intakes city-wide, and from daily street sweeping and litter management.

251 PagePage 76 2 of of 14 88

food and beverage packaging free of charge fails to incorporate the environmental and social costs of these products into the price of food and beverage service. As a result, customers and food business operators pay little attention to the quantity of single use packaging products consumed and quickly thrown away. Reducing the use of SUDs in the City of Berkeley is a key strategy to achieve the City’s Zero Waste and Climate Action goals, and to address the many environmental impacts and costs associated with the use and disposal of single-use foodware and packaging.

Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Disposables The production, consumption, and disposal of SUDs contributes significantly to the depletion of natural resources. It is a major component of litter on streets and in waterways, and of the plastic polluting our air, food, drinking water and oceans.

● Food and beverage SUDs make up approximately 25% of all waste produced in California1 ● Bay Area litter studies have found that food and beverage packaging comprises the majority of street litter, half of which comes from fast food and take-out food establishments2 ● Eighty percent of marine plastic pollution originates from trash in urban runoff3 ● In the year 2000, half of all plastic packaging in the UK was comprised of SUDs4 ● Nearly 700 species of marine wildlife are impacted by ingestion and entanglement of plastics, causing starvation, disease, and death5 ● Without dramatic systems change, by 2050, there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish6 ● Based on Berkeley’s population of approximately 120,000 people, it is estimated that almost 40 million single use cups are used in the City of Berkeley every year ● Paper cups alone generate 2.2 billion pounds of waste per year nationwide, consuming over 11 million trees, resulting in 4 billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions, and requiring the consumption of 35 billion gallons of water to manufacture7

1 https://www.wastedive.com/news/are-the-packaging-wars-coming-to-california/508491/ 2 See Clean Water Action’s “Taking out the Trash” Bay Area Litter study (2011) http://www.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/ca/Curr_CA_12%2012%2011final.pdf ; California Coastal Cleanup Results 1989- 2014 showing Food and Beverage packaging items are 7 out of the top 10 items collected and account for 34% of the total trash - https://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/ccd/history.html#top10 ; BanList 2.0 shows food and beverage packaging items are 74% of top 20 littered items among 6 different beach cleanup datasets- https://upstreampolicy.org/ban-list-20 3 80% from land based sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Public and Constituent Affairs, (1999) “Turning to the Sea: America’s Ocean Future,” p.5. Re: most of land-based ocean litter comes from trash in urban runoff: Trash TMDLs for the Los Angeles River Watershed, (September 19, 2001):17. 4 Hopewell, et Al. Royal Society Biological Sciences Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Jul 27; 364(1526): 2115–2126. 5 Gall & Thompson, The Impact of Marine Debris on Marine Life, Marine Poll Bull, 2015 Mar 15:93(1-2);170-179 6 Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016) 7 Clean Water Action Disposable vs. Reusable Cups Fact Sheet

252 PagePage 77 3 of of 14 88

Most SUDs are used for just a few minutes before becoming waste, while the plastics many are made of last for hundreds and even thousands of years, and have broad, long-lasting negative impacts. Plastics in waterways and oceans break down into smaller pieces (but do not biodegrade) and are present in most of the world’s oceans, at all levels (surface, water column, and bottom).8 Among other hazards, plastic debris attracts and concentrates ambient pollutants in seawater and freshwater9, which can transfer to fish, other seafood, and salt that is eventually sold for human consumption.10 Certain SUDs, including food contact papers and compostable paperboard containers, can also contain harmful fluorinated chemicals that are linked to serious health effects including kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disruption, delayed puberty and obesity.11

Berkeley as a Zero Waste Leader The City of Berkeley has a long history of leadership in sustainability and environmental protections including the adoption of an ambitious Climate Action Plan in 2009, with a goal of achieving Zero Waste by 2020; the nation’s first curbside recycling program and styrofoam foodware ban; and one of the first commercial organics collection programs. 75% of the City’s discarded material is diverted from landfill, and there has been a 50% reduction in solid waste disposal between 2000 to 201312. Despite these achievements, Berkeley has not addressed the significant increase in takeout food packaging littering city streets, filling storm drains, requiring management in the waste stream, polluting our waterways, Bay and ocean, and threatening both human and animal health.

In addition, SUDs are particularly costly and challenging to divert from landfill. Non- recyclable food and beverage packaging is costly to remove from the waste stream and reduces the quality and value of recyclables, while non-compostable food packaging (some of which is advertised as “compostable”) contaminates compost, adding costs and reducing the quality of compost13. With China’s recent rejection of mixed recycled plastic imports, the value of recyclable plastics has dropped sharply and the final destination for these plastic SUDs is uncertain. This adds significant costs to the City’s collection, sorting, and processing of compostables and recyclables. To reach its Zero

8 D. Barnes et al, 2009, Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., 364-1985- 98. 9 Rochman, C.M., et al,. 2013, Long-Term Field Measurement of Sorption of Organic Contaminants to Five Types of Plastic Pellets: Implications for Plastic Marine Debris. Environmental Science and Technology. 47, 1646−1654. 10 Rochman C Met al, 2015a Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption Sci. Rep. 5 14340. 11 In 2015, the FDA barred from use three such fluorinated chemicals from food contact materials due to safety risks associated with cancer, toxicity, and other health effects; other fluorinated chemicals have similar chemical structures and pose similar risk. 12 Berkeley Climate Action Plan: Tracking our Progress Waste Reduction & Recycling – Total Landfilled, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Energy_and_Sustainable_Development/PDF%20total%20landfilled%20final.pdf 13 Clean Water Action, What’s in the Package? 2016 https://www.cleanwateraction.org/features/what%E2%80%99s-package

253 PagePage 78 4 of of 14 88

Waste goals, the City must reduce use of unnecessary single-use food and beverage packaging.

Strategies to Regulate SUDs Alameda County implemented its reusable bag ordinance in January 2013, and has seen dramatic results. Countywide, bag purchases by affected retail stores have declined by 85 percent. The number of shoppers bringing a reusable bag to affected stores, or not using a bag at all, has more than doubled during this time14. Globally, a number of strategies have been implemented to reduce the use of SUDs. Charges for single-use plastic bags have proven to decrease plastic bag consumption. When Ireland instituted a “Plas-Tax” in 2002 equivalent to about 20 cents per bag, plastic bag use declined by 90% and litter from plastic bags declined by 40%15. Similar charges have been implemented in Taiwan, Washington D.C., and the United Kingdom, resulting in decreases in plastic bag use of up to 80%. A 2016 plastic bag ban in California reduced the number of plastic bags found on beaches by half.16 Studies have also shown that customers in areas with taxes on single use bags were more likely to use reusable bags.17

There appears to be growing support for reducing the use of other single use disposables. Ireland is considering banning single use coffee cups, with 50% of the population surveyed in support.18 The European Union announced in 2018 that it is implementing a policy for all plastic packaging to be recyclable or reusable by 2030.19 Taiwan will be imposing charges for straws, plastic shopping bags, disposable utensils, and beverage cups by 2025, and will impose a complete ban on single-use plastic items, including straws, cups, and shopping bags, by 2030.20

Economic Advantages for Businesses Businesses in the Bay Area spend between $0.25 and $0.85 per meal on disposable foodware.21 Reducing the use of SUDs can provide significant cost savings, even

14 “Successful Results from Bag Ordinance”, 2014, Alameda County Waste Management authority, http://reusablebagsac.org/news/successful-results-bag-ordinance 15 Mauro Anastasio and James Nix, Plastic Bag Levy in Ireland, Institute European Environmental Policy, 2016. https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/7f91cb97-8cb7- 49c39cf0d34062a9192e/IE%20Plastic%20Bag%20Levy%20conference%20draft.pdf?v=63673818840 16 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-plastic-bag-ban-anniversary-20171118-story.html 17 T. A. Homonoff, Can Small Incentives Have Large Effects? The Impact of Taxes versus Bonuses on Disposable Bag Use National Tax Association Proceedings, Princeton University- http://ntanet.org/wp-content/uploads/proceedings/2012/008-homonoff- can-small-incentives-2012-nta-proceedings.pdf 18 http://www.thejournal.ie/coffee-cups-poll-3642333-Oct2017/ 19 European Commission, EU Plastics Strategy-http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/plastic_waste.htm 20 “Taiwan to ban disposable plastic items by 2030,” February 22, 2108- https://phys.org/news/2018-02-taiwan-disposable-plastic- items.html 21 Id.

254 PagePage 79 5 of of 14 88

considering the costs associated with making the transition to reusables. The Rethink Disposable program of the Clean Water Fund, in partnership with STOP WASTE in Alameda County, has conducted a number of case studies showcasing businesses that have voluntarily minimized SUDs and incorporated reusables22. These businesses saw annual net cost savings (after accounting for costs of reusables, dishwashing, etc.) from $1,000 - $22,000 per year.23

In addition, recent surveys completed by the City of Berkeley’s Office of Economic Development found that neighborhood cleanliness, including trash collection, was a major concern of business owners interviewed. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and the Clean Cities Program work to keep Berkeley’s business districts clean, but at great expense. The Telegraph Business Improvement District (TBID), for example, reported collecting over 22 tons of street litter in one year.

Reducing SUDs in the City of Berkeley Through the leadership of Berkeley’s Ecology Center, working closely with UpStream, Clean Water Action, the Clean Water Fund, Story of Stuff, Surfrider Foundation, GAIA (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives), the Green Science Policy Institute, Excellent Packaging, and numerous active residents and volunteers, a proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance has been drafted. This visionary Ordinance combines proven strategies for reducing SUDs including promotion of reusable foodware, fees when SUDs are used, and creation of a list of approved, truly compostable or recyclable SUDs for use City-wide.

The Ecology Center and Clean Water Action also undertook an extensive research and public outreach process, including surveys of local food businesses, discussions with business owners and environmental experts, and assessment of a charge-based cup reduction pilot project completed by Telegraph Green and Cafe Strada24. This level of research, outreach and field testing represents study and consultation of an intensity and duration rarely undertaken in conjunction with new proposals in Berkeley, and has resulted in a proposed ordinance incorporating extensive expert, community and real- world data.

22 https://cleanwater.org/publications/participating-business-testimonials 23 Data provided by Clean Water Action’s ReThink Disposable program, March 2018. See attached fact sheet. 24 https://serc.berkeley.edu/paying-the-price-of-disposable-cups-at-caffe-strada/

255 PagePage 80 6 of of 14 88

the City’s commercial districts. Of these businesses, 58% would support a customer charge for cups, and 67% would support a charge for disposable food containers.

These and other findings inform the proposed ordinance, which was written to be both aspirational and achievable. More complex proposals and bans were rejected in favor of a simplified set of recommendations that offer cost savings for restaurants and small businesses, a stream of revenue for the City to implement and enforce the ordinance, and a major step forward in reducing pollution and litter, and in meeting the City’s Zero Waste and Climate Action Goals.

Proposed Ordinance Elements The purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to reduce litter and waste associated with single use food and beverage packaging in the City of Berkeley. The proposal requires that food consumed on-site be served in reusable, durable dishes, cups, and utensils. Foil, wrappers, and tray liners are still allowed, and provision is made for waivers under specific circumstances.

The ordinance also provides that food businesses charge customers for take-out cups, clamshells and other take-out foodware, similar to the charge for paper bags associated with California’s plastic bag ban (SB 270). Charges for disposables will encourage customers to bring their own reusable cups and containers. $0.25 will be charged for disposable cups, and $0.25 for food containers. Food establishments will keep the proceeds from these charges, and the City will collect an “at cost” fee for administration of the program. As with charges for bags, customers using SNAP & WIC will be excluded from paying these fees. The ordinance also provides that single use straws, utensils, and stirrers (which will have to be compostable) be provided only “by request”.

Finally, the policy will require that all disposable foodware be free of certain highly toxic chemicals known to migrate into food and beverages, and be recyclable or compostable in the City’s waste management programs.

The City will be responsible for creating and updating an accessible list of approved foodware so that food retailers can easily identify products that conform to requirements. This will protect public health and the environment from some of the most toxic and persistent chemicals used in food and beverage packaging, and ensure that “compostables” furnished in Berkeley are actually compostable within the City’s program. The City will be responsible for administration and enforcement.

256 PagePage 81 7 of of 14 88

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The production, consumption and disposal of single use food and beverage packaging is a major contributor to litter in our streets, plastic in landfills, pollution in waterways and oceans, GHG emissions, and harm to wildlife. This environmental ordinance represent a huge step forward in reducing the use of disposable foodware in Berkeley, fulfilling Berkeley’s Zero Waste and Climate Action Goals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, and meeting State trash load level mandates.

CONTACT Councilmember Sophie Hahn, District 5 | (510) 981-7150 | [email protected] Mayor Jesse Arreguin | (510) 981-7100 | [email protected]

ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance 2. CaseStudy: Caravaggio Gelateria Italiana 3. Clean Water Action Disposable vs Reusable Cups Fact Sheet

257 PagePage 82 8 of of 14 88

Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE XXXX CITY CODE BY ADOPTING CHAPTER XXXX SECTIONS XXXX TO REDUCE SINGLE USE DISPOSABLE FOODWARE

Findings and Purpose The council finds and declares as follows: [ ]

Section 1. Definitions

A. "Prepared Food" means foods or beverages which are prepared on the vendor’s premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, squeezing, or other processing and which require no further preparation to be consumed. "Prepared Food" does not include raw uncooked whole fruits or vegetables which are not chopped, squeezed, or mixed or raw uncooked meat products. B. "Takeout Food" means Prepared Food requiring no further preparation which is purchased to be consumed off a Prepared Food Vendor’s premises. Takeout Food includes Prepared Food delivered by a Prepared Food Vendor or by a third party delivery service. C. “Takeout Meal” means Takeout Food consisting of an entree, or a full size salad, or a breakfast, lunch or dinner item (such as a sandwich, burrito, pizza, soup) served in up to three Disposable Food Containers.

D. "Prepared Food Vendor" means any establishment located within the City of Berkeley, including a Bakery, Cafeteria, Drive In, Food Products Store, Food Service Establishment (Carry Out, Quick Service, Full Service), Drugstore or Theater, as defined in BMC 23F.04, Mobile Food Facility, Temporary Food Facility (CA Health and Safety Code Sections 113831 and 113920), bar and other similar establishment, selling Prepared Food to be consumed on and/or off its premises.

E. "Disposable Foodware" means all bags, sacks, wrappers, paper or foil liners, containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, boxes, pizza boxes, cups, utensils, straws, lids and any other food contact items used to hold, serve, eat, or drink Prepared Food, which are designed for single use and in which Prepared Food is placed or packaged on a Prepared Food Vendor’s premises.

F. “Disposable Food Container” is a container designed for single use that holds 16 oz. or more (for containers with lids) or is 62 cubic inches or larger (for boxes and clamshells).

G. “Disposable Cup” is a beverage cup designed for single use to serve beverages, such as water, cold drinks, hot drinks, alcoholic beverages and other drinks.

1 258 PagePage 83 9 of of 14 88

H. “Reusable Foodware” shall mean all foodware, including plates, bowls, cups, trays, glasses, straws, stirrers, and utensils, that is manufactured of durable materials and that is specifically designed and manufactured to be washed and sanitized and to be used repeatedly over an extended period of time, and is safe for washing and sanitizing according to applicable regulations.

I. “Plastic” means a synthetic material made from fossil fuel based polymers such as polyethylene, polystyrene, polypropylene, and polycarbonate that can be molded or blown into shape while soft and then set into a rigid or slightly elastic form. J. “Fluorinated Chemicals” means perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or fluorinated chemicals, which for the purposes of food packaging are a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

Section 2. Reusable Foodware for Dining on the Premises (i.e. “Eating-in”) This section applies to Prepared Food served for consumption on the premises of a Prepared Food Vendor.

A. As of [Effective Date], Prepared Food Vendors shall only sell or provide food and beverages for consumption on the premises using Reusable Foodware, except as provided in Section 2(C).

B. Prepared Food Vendors offering Takeout Food shall ask customers whether they will consume their purchased food or beverage on the premises (i.e. “for here”) or off the premises (i.e. “to go”). If the purchased food or beverage is intended for consumption on the premises, the Prepared Food Vendor shall serve such food or beverage in Reusable Foodware.

C. Prepared Food Vendors that do not have on-site or off-site dishwashing capacity to wash, rinse and sanitize Reusable Foodware in compliance with the California Health Code may request a full or partial waiver from the requirements of Section 2(A) if they can demonstrate inability to comply due to space constraints and financial hardship, such as investments and costs that take more than a year to be paid for through savings. Waivers may be granted for up to three years, during which time the Prepared Food Vendor shall make every effort to become complaint. If a waiver is granted, all Disposable Foodware used for eating on the premises must conform to the Disposable Food Packaging Standards in Section 3.

D. As of [Date - 1 year after Effective Date?], new zoning permits and business licenses for Prepared Food Vendors shall only be granted to Prepared Food Vendors that have adequate onsite or offsite dishwashing capacity to comply with section 2(A).

2 259 Page 1084 of 1488

E. Disposable food wrappers, foil sheets, napkins and paper or foil basket and tray liners shall be allowed for dining on the premises so long as they meet the Disposable Food Packaging Standards in Section 3.

Section 3. Disposable Foodware Standards This section provides standards for the types of Disposable Foodware that may be used for Takeout Food, or for Prepared Food eaten on the premises of a Prepared Food Vendor with a valid waiver, as provided for in Section 2(C).

A. The City shall maintain a list of approved Disposable Foodware sources and types that shall be available at [physical location] and on the City’s website. The City shall update annually the list of approved Disposable Foodware types and sources. No other Disposable Foodware may be used by any Prepared Food Vendor.

B. Disposable Foodware approved by the City shall meet the following standards: a. Beginning [Date], all Disposable Foodware used to serve or package Prepared Foods that are prepared in the City of Berkeley: i. Must be accepted by City of Berkeley composting or recycling municipal collection programs, and ii. If compostable, must be certified compostable by the Biodegradable Product Institute or another independent third party certifying organization or agency recognized by the City. b. Beginning [Date - one year from Effective Date], compostable Disposable Foodware containing paper or other natural fiber material shall be free of all intentionally added Fluorinated Chemicals as certified by the Biodegradable Product Institute or other third party certifying organization or agency recognized by the City. c. The City may adopt regulations that require Disposable Foodware to have minimum post-consumer recycled content, and any other Disposable Foodware specifications that support the goals of this Ordinance.

Section 4. Disposable Foodware Charges Customers shall be charged for Disposable Foodware used for dining off the premises.

A. Beginning [Effective Date] , Prepared Food Vendors selling Takeout Food shall charge a customer twenty five cents ($0.25) for every Disposable Cup provided. B. Beginning [Effective Date], Prepared Food Vendors selling Takeout Food shall charge a customer twenty five cents ($0.25) per Disposable Food Container and no more than twenty-five-cents ($0.25) per Takeout Meal. C. Income from charges for Disposable Cups and Disposable Food Containers shall be retained by the Prepared Food Vendor. D. The charges set forth in A and B apply to all Takeout Food and Takeout Meals prepared and sold in the City of Berkeley and served in Disposable Food Containers and Disposable Cups, except for Prepared Food Vendors providing Disposable Food

3 260 Page 1185 of 1488

Containers and Disposable Cups for carry-out of leftovers from Prepared Food eaten on the premises (i.e. “doggie bags”). E. All customers demonstrating, at the point of sale, a payment card or voucher issued by the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the California Health and Safety Code, or an electronic benefit transfer card issued pursuant to Section 10072 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, shall be exempt from the charges specified in this Section. F. Charges for Disposable Cups, Disposable Food Containers and Takeout Meals shall be identified separately on any receipt provided to the customer. G. Disposable straws, stirrers, cup spill plugs, napkins, condiment packets, utensils and other similar Disposable Foodware accompanying Disposable Cups, Disposable Food Containers and Takeout Meals shall be provided free of charge, and only upon request by the customer or at self-serve stations.

Section 5. Signage Requirements for Takeout Food Vendors

A. The City shall provide text explaining Disposable Foodware Charges and specifications for signage that Takeout Food Vendors must post in plain view of customers at the point of sale. B. Takeout Food Vendors shall also include Disposable Foodware Charges on their printed and electronically available menus. C. Takeout Food Vendors shall inform customers of Disposable Foodware Charges for orders taken by telephone. D. Third-party delivery services shall include on their electronic platforms text pursuant to subsection A explaining Disposable Foodware Charges and include Disposable Foodware Charges on their menus and billing interfaces.

Section 6. Duties, Responsibilities and Authority of the City of Berkeley

A. The City Manager is hereby charged with the enforcement of this Chapter, except as otherwise provided herein, and shall prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules and regulations relating to the administration and enforcement of this Chapter. B. The Master Fee Schedule shall be amended to include a fee to cover City expenses of inspection and enforcement of this ordinance. C. It shall be the duty of the City Manager to collect and receive all fees imposed by this Section, and to keep an accurate record thereof. D. Within three years of the effective date of this Ordinance, the City shall evaluate and report to City Council on the effectiveness of this ordinance.

4 261 Page 1286 of 1488 CASE STUDY: T Caravaggio Gelateria Italiana STOP WASTE BEFORE IT STARTS

BUSINESS PROFILE Packaging Practices prior to Rethink Disposable: ccAll gelato and beverages served in disposable packaging Name: Caravaggio Gelateria ccDisposable tasting spoons used for samples Italiana Business Type: Gelato Shop ccIndividually wrapped sugar packets used for coffee service Location: Berkeley, CA Emiliano, the owner of Caravaggio, is from Italy On-site dining: 22 seats Take-out: Yes and strove to replicate many practices in his Ware washing: Dishwasher shop that one can find in his home country — purchased during everything except for the disposable products implementation he was using, like the 91,250 disposable spoons Employees: 4 used every year for tastings and the 24,333 individually wrapped sugar Caravaggio Gelateria is an packets to cater to the “to-go” coffee service culture. The owner authentic Italian Gelateria believes that the taste of the handmade gelato is much improved by located in North Berkeley that eating it with a real spoon from a real glass bowl. makes all of their Gelatos in house and also serves Italian Recommendations Implemented: Panini sandwiches, coffee ccReusable water cups, gelato bowls and spoons for on-site dining and espresso. About 50% of their orders are dine-in. They ccReusable spoons utilized for gelato tastings employ four staff and do ccNapkin dispensers and bulk sugar for coffee service anywhere between 100 and cc 200 transactions per day. Purchased and installed a dishwasher to save water and reduce labor costs

Implementing ReThink Disposable recommendations helped significantly reduce waste and achieved Emiliano’s goal to elevate the experience of eating handmade gelato and the ambiance in the shop. Emiliano purchased an efficient ware washing machine that provided energy and water savings, reduced labor time, and created a sanitary work environment. The Four efficient napkin dispensers new dishwasher and set-up cost replaced the old dispensers. $2,100, which made the full set- up cost to implement the program $2,411. The high up-front cost of the dishwasher made the payback period for each item longer, yet there is Reusable spoons for tastings and on-site dining replaced 75% of still a significant annual cost savings of $2,301 after the payback period disposable spoons that were used. was met to cover and exceed the set-up costs in the future.

Emiliano Cecchetti, owner: “Eating our gelato from a paper cup is like drinking champagne from a paper cup! The idea to change to reusables started with a ReThink Disposable visit.”

262 Page 1387 of 1488 Results:

Recommendation Product % Disposable Payback Payback Annual Annual Replaced or Reduction Period Period Savings Waste Minimized (including (excluding (after payback Reduction dishwasher) dishwasher) period)

Implement a reusable 6 oz Gelato 67% 7.6 months 3 months $608 73 lbs. gelato cup for dine-in paper cup customers

Implement a reusable Plastic tasting 75% 4.1 months 21 days $821 137 lbs. spoon for tasting and for spoons dine-in customers

Implement an efficient Napkins 50% 2.7 months $183 146 lbs. napkin dispenser

Implement a bulk sugar Sugar packets 75% 12 days $365 218 lbs. dispenser

Replace disposable water 7 oz Water 100% 9.2 months 18 days $324 91 lbs. cups with a reusable glass cups

TOTAL $2,301 665 lbs. THE BOTTOM LINE

•• 151,577 disposable items reduced per year •• $2,301 annual savings after payback period •• 655 pounds of annual waste reduction •• Improved presentation •• Increased customer satisfaction •• No additional labor required

Disposable spoons and paper cups were replaced by metal spoons and glass bowls for on-site dining.

ReThink Disposable is a Clean Water Fund program conducted in partnership with local businesses and government agencies. Generous support for the program is provided by a changing list of public and private funders. To learn more about the program, its partners, and funders, visit: www.rethinkdisposable.org.

T Tel. 415.369.9174 [email protected] STOP WASTE BEFORE IT STARTS www.rethinkdisposable.org

Placed end to end these could circle 108,000,000,000 the equator almost disposable cups are used by Americans each year 300 times!

THE COMBINED GENERATES WEIGHT OF 108 EVERYONE IN BILLION = = HOUSTON, 3.5BILLION LBS TEXAS! OF WASTE

Annually the American disposable cup habit uses:

CO2

22 Billion Gallons 26 billion pounds of CO2 20+ Million Trees! enough to fill more than 33,000 equal to the emissions from Olympic swimming pools! 2.5 million cars annually!

MOST CUPS AREN’T RECYCLED: almost all disposable cups are made of non-recyclable materials like plastic-coated paper or foam food ware

By replacing one disposable cup LET’S COMPARE every day for one year you prevent: What happens if you replace one disposable CO2 87.6 lbs cup a day with a reusable mug for one year? greenhouse gas emissions 76 gallons water usage 126 trees vs. from being chopped down 12 lbs of solid waste $ $ and Save 36 *assumes 10¢ discount per use

ReThink Disposable is a project of Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund in coordination with City of Cupertino Department of Public Works, City of Oakland Department of Public Works, City of Sunnyvale Environmental Services Department, County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, San Francisco Department of the Environment, San Jose Department of Environmental Services, South San Francisco Department of SUPPORTED BY

Public Works, and StopWaste. Support for ReThink Disposable has been provided by the Altamont Education Advisory Board, Klean Kanteen, WHALE TAIL the LIsa and Douglas Goldman Fund, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, STOP WASTE, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PROGRAMS

CALIFORNIA COSTAL COMMISSION http://www.internationalpaper.com/documents/EN/Foodservice/ecotainer_FAQ_Brochu.pdf www.rethinkdisposable.org http://www.epa.gov/region9/psa/psa-usecups.html http://www.thebetacup.com/about/

264 Page 1 of 3

ACTION CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Harrison Subject: Referral to Planning Department to Update the Housing Pipeline Report to Address Timeline between Planning Entitlements and Submission of Building Permit Applications and Consider Reasons for Delay

RECOMMENDATION Referral to the Planning Department to include in the Housing Pipeline Report an analysis of the timeline between planning entitlements and building permit requests for all projects of five units or greater over the past five years. On an ongoing basis, refer to the Planning Department and Commission to propose changes to current Planning approval process to address any delays between entitlements and building permits for construction or substantial rehabilitation of five or more dwelling units.

BACKGROUND Berkeley’s ability to provide housing and amenities is dependent on city development proceeding in a timely and prompt manner. Once development agreements are approved by the Planning Department and, if appealed, the Zoning Adjustments Board and City Council, the onus to move forward with building projects falls to the project developer. Some projects that have been granted planning permission in the past few years have not turned in applications for building permits. For example, there are at least 3 projects with 376 units that have been approved by Planning but have yet to submit a building permit application.

There are many reasonable hardships that building projects face, leading to delays in the building permit application process. This includes increases to costs, for example the unusual increase in construction costs in recent years. In addition, land speculation by developers, including the speculative use of planning permits as profit-seeking behavior, hinders housing construction in Berkeley. This is particularly true in the Downtown where only five buildings over 75 feet can be constructed, making those planning permits especially valuable.

It is incumbent on the Council to know the status of these projects so as to address these issues and expedite their construction. For cases of delays without reasonable mitigating circumstances, the City should have means to encourage developers to promptly proceed with construction.

We refer to the Planning Department to draft a proposal to address this issue. The proposal from Planning should a similar one year deadline from final planning permission for developers of projects of five or more units to submit building permit applications, with an automatic one-year extension, as is common practice in the Downtown Plan, outlined in BMC 23E.68.070.B.3. Beyond an initial extension, all

265 Page 2 of 3

subsequent extensions would require an explanation of the valid mitigating circumstances through an information item to the City Council, as occurs with projects executed under the Downtown Plan.

In addition, as the Planning Department updates its Housing Pipeline Report, it should include an analysis of the delays between the entitlement and submission of building permit requests for all projects of five units or greater over the past five years.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Consistent with the City’s climate and environmental goals.

ATTACHMENTS 1: BMC 23E.68.070

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Kate Harrison, Council District 4, 510-981-7140

266 Page 3 of 3

Berkeley Municipal Code 23E.68.070.B.3

3. Application process for buildings over 75 feet in height:

a. Applications for any of the five buildings over 75 feet in height may be submitted on July 1,

2012. If no applications that satisfy the submittal requirements as determined by the Zoning Officer

are submitted on that date, then the next deadline to submit applications will be no later than six

months from that date, with application opportunity dates at six month intervals until the first

application has been submitted. Once the first application has been submitted, then the application

opportunity date will occur once yearly on the anniversary of the date of the first submittal.

b. A project shall secure a position as one of the five allowed buildings over 75 feet in height

following final Use Permit approval. Such Use Permits shall include a condition of approval that

establishes a schedule for: submittal of a building permit application, timely response to plan check

comments, payment of building permit fees such that a building permit can be issued, and

commencement of construction. The process for allowing extension of the timeline requirements, if

any, shall be specified in the condition.

c. Failure of a permittee to strictly comply with the schedule established by the Use Permit shall

be grounds for revocation of the Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 23B.60.

267 268 Page 1 of 26

ACTION CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn and Mayor Jesse Arreguín Subject: Single Use Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

RECOMMENDATION 1. Accept the Zero Waste Commission’s recommendations for the proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance, and convey the Council’s gratitude to the Foodware Subcommittee for conducting a thorough community process.

2. Adopt a first reading of the Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance.

3. Refer to the City Manager to: a. Establish a mini-grant program to help Prepared Food Vendors with one- time costs associated with conversion to Reusable Foodware for eating on the premises (“eating-in”), to be launched by January 1, 2020 (six months before the date Reusable Foodware requirements become effective). b. Establish a program to provide technical assistance to Prepared Food Vendors implementing the Single Use Foodware Ordinance, provided on a free or sliding-scale fee basis, to be launched by July 1, 2019. c. Create a Reusable Takeout Foodware program for launch July 1, 2021, in collaboration with community partners such as the Ecology Center, Rethink Disposables and Stop Waste d. Draft for approval amendments to the Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance to implement the Reusable Takeout Foodware program as an alternative to Compostable Takeout Foodware, and impose a charge, similar to or the same as the Disposable Cup charge, on Disposable Foodware. e. Create a program to expand and support composting, to ensure Single Use Disposable Foodware is actually composted.

4. Refer to the City Manager to determine funding needs and sources of funds for each program/phase, and submit funding allocations or requests to the budget process.

269 Page 2 of 26

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Reducing use and disposal of products that make up the majority of Berkeley’s street and storm-drain litter has the potential to significantly lower City expenses including costs related to collection of debris from over 400 city trash receptacles, from clearing of clogged stormwater intakes city-wide, and from daily street sweeping and litter management. Even for “recyclable” items that are properly placed in a recycling bin, these items are costly to sort and process and have limited markets resulting in additional costs to the City. Many of these items result in contamination to the composting program which increase the cost of composting.

Staff time will be required to launch programs related to the Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. Some programs and services may be provided by community partners at relatively low cost. Once launched, staff time for administration and enforcement of the Ordinance will be limited.

Costs, sources of funding and community partnerships to be determined by the City Manager.

BACKGROUND Single use disposable foodware and packaging (SUDs) - including plates, cutlery, cups, lids, straws, “clamshells” and other containers - is a major contributor to street litter, ocean pollution, marine and other wildlife harm and greenhouse gas emissions. The use of disposable foodware has grown exponentially over the past few decades. Because the environmental costs of these products is largely hidden to the business operator and consumer, little attention is paid to the quantity of packaging consumed and quickly thrown away. Reducing the use of SUDs in the City of Berkeley is a key strategy to achieve the City’s Zero Waste and Climate Action goals, and to address the many environmental impacts and costs associated with the use and disposal of single-use foodware and packaging.

Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Disposables The production, consumption and disposal of SUDs contributes significantly to the depletion of natural resources. It is a major component of litter on streets and in waterways, and of the plastic polluting our air, food, drinking water and oceans.

● Food and beverage SUDs make up approximately 25% of all waste produced in California.1

1 https://www.wastedive.com/news/are-the-packaging-wars-coming-to-california/508491/

270 Page 3 of 26

● Bay Area litter studies have found that food and beverage packaging comprises the majority of street litter.2 ● Without dramatic systems change, by 2050, there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish.3 ● Based on Berkeley’s population of approximately 120,000 people, it is estimated that almost 40 million single use cups are used in the City of Berkeley every year.

Most SUDs are used for just a few minutes before becoming waste, while most are made to last for hundreds and even thousands of years, and have broad, long-lasting negative impacts. Plastics in waterways and oceans break down into smaller pieces (but do not biodegrade) and are present in most of the world’s oceans, at all levels (surface, water column, and bottom).4

Among other hazards, plastic debris attracts and concentrates ambient pollutants in seawater and freshwater5, which can transfer to fish, other seafood, and salt that is eventually sold for human consumption.6 Certain SUDs, including food contact papers and compostable paperboard containers, can also contain harmful fluorinated chemicals that are linked to serious health effects including kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disruption, delayed puberty and obesity.7

2 See Clean Water Action’s “Taking out the Trash” Bay Area Litter study (2011) http://www.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/ca/Curr_CA_12%2012%2011final.pdf ; California Coastal Cleanup Results 1989- 2014 showing Food and Beverage packaging items are 7 out of the top 10 items collected and account for 34% of the total trash - https://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/ccd/history.html#top10 ; BanList 2.0 shows food and beverage packaging items are 74% of top 20 littered items among 6 different beach cleanup datasets- https://upstreampolicy.org/ban-list-20 3 Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016) 4 D. Barnes et al, 2009, Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., 364-1985- 98. 5 Rochman, C.M., et al,. 2013, Long-Term Field Measurement of Sorption of Organic Contaminants to Five Types of Plastic Pellets: Implications for Plastic Marine Debris. Environmental Science and Technology. 47, 1646−1654. 6 Rochman C Met al, 2015a Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption Sci. Rep. 5 14340. 7 In 2015, the FDA barred from use three such fluorinated chemicals from food contact materials due to safety risks associated with cancer, toxicity, and other health effects; other fluorinated chemicals have similar chemical structures and pose similar risk. 8 “Successful Results from Bag Ordinance”, 2014, Alameda County Waste Management authority, http://reusablebagsac.org/news/successful-results-bag-ordinance

271 Page 4 of 26

declined by 90% and litter from plastic bags declined by 40%9. Similar charges have been implemented in Taiwan, Washington D.C., and the United Kingdom, resulting in decreases in plastic bag use of up to 80%. A 2016 plastic bag ban in California reduced the number of plastic bags found on beaches by half.10 Studies have also shown that customers in areas with taxes on single use bags were more likely to use reusable bags.11

There is growing support for reducing the use of other single use disposables. Ireland is considering banning single use coffee cups, with 50% of the population surveyed in support.12 The European Union announced in 2018 that it is implementing a policy for all plastic packaging to be recyclable or reusable by 2030.13 Taiwan will be imposing charges for straws, plastic shopping bags, disposable utensils, and beverage cups by 2025, and will impose a complete ban on single-use plastic items, including straws, cups, and shopping bags, by 2030.14

Reducing SUDs in the City of Berkeley The City of Berkeley has a long history of leadership in sustainability and environmental protections including the adoption of an ambitious Climate Action Plan in 2009, with a goal of achieving Zero Waste by 2020; the nation’s first curbside recycling program and styrofoam foodware ban; and one of the first commercial organics collection programs. The city reached a height of 78% waste diversion by to AB 939 standards, and there has been a 50% reduction in solid waste disposal between 2000 to 201315. Despite these achievements, Berkeley has not addressed the significant increase in takeout food packaging littering city streets, filling storm drains, requiring management in the waste stream, polluting our waterways, Bay and ocean, and threatening both human and animal health.

In addition, SUDs are particularly costly and challenging to divert from landfill. Non- recyclable food and beverage packaging is costly to remove from the waste stream and

9 Mauro Anastasio and James Nix, Plastic Bag Levy in Ireland, Institute European Environmental Policy, 2016. https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/7f91cb97-8cb7- 49c39cf0d34062a9192e/IE%20Plastic%20Bag%20Levy%20conference%20draft.pdf?v=63673818840 10 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-plastic-bag-ban-anniversary-20171118-story.html 11 T. A. Homonoff, Can Small Incentives Have Large Effects? The Impact of Taxes versus Bonuses on Disposable Bag Use National Tax Association Proceedings, Princeton University- http://ntanet.org/wp-content/uploads/proceedings/2012/008-homonoff- can-small-incentives-2012-nta-proceedings.pdf 12 http://www.thejournal.ie/coffee-cups-poll-3642333-Oct2017/ 13 European Commission, EU Plastics Strategy-http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/plastic_waste.htm 14 “Taiwan to ban disposable plastic items by 2030,” February 22, 2108- https://phys.org/news/2018-02-taiwan-disposable-plastic- items.html 15 Berkeley Climate Action Plan: Tracking our Progress Waste Reduction & Recycling – Total Landfilled, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Energy_and_Sustainable_Development/PDF%20total%20landfilled%20final.pdf

272 Page 5 of 26

reduces the quality and value of recyclables, while non-compostable food packaging (some of which is advertised as “compostable”) contaminates compost, adding costs and reducing the quality of compost16. With China’s recent rejection of mixed recycled plastic imports, the value of recyclable plastics has dropped sharply and the final destination for these plastic SUDs is uncertain. This adds significant costs to the City’s collection, sorting, and processing of compostables and recyclables. To reach its Zero Waste goals, the City must reduce use of single-use food and beverage packaging.

Thanks to the leadership of Berkeley’s Ecology Center, working closely with UpStream, Clean Water Action, the Clean Water Fund, Story of Stuff, Surfrider Foundation, GAIA (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives), the Green Science Policy Institute, Excellent Packaging, and numerous active residents and volunteers, the City Council unanimously referred a proposed Single Use Disposable Foodware ordinance to the Zero Waste Commission on April 24, 2018.

The Zero Waste Commission was tasked with review of the proposed ordinance and the conduct of community meetings to gather feedback on the proposed ordinance, and make recommendations. Since that time, the Zero Waste Commission Foodware Subcommittee conducted 4 community meetings between June and September of 2018, and collected comments from over 60 restaurateurs, environmental advocates, members of the disability community, and other community members. Meetings were held on different days and times of the day, at locations throughout Berkeley, and were noticed to the restaurant and food service community with the help of the City’s Economic Development staff. The Commission analyzed comments received in writing and through public testimony, and on September 24, 2018 unanimously referred their findings to the City Council (Attachment 2).

In addition, Councilmember Hahn met on-site with the owners of three restaurants that expressed concerns about implementation of the proposed ordinance, reviewing their current practices and challenges. All three are have already implemented important measures to reduce the use of harmful Single Use Disposables, and shared important insights.

Ordinance Elements The attached ordinance (Attachment 1) incorporates many of the Zero Waste Commission’s recommendations and makes a number of changes to accommodate concerns and questions that were discussed as part of the Commission’s public process. Changes include:

16 Clean Water Action, What’s in the Package? 2016 https://www.cleanwateraction.org/features/what%E2%80%99s-package

273 Page 6 of 26

● Phasing-in elements of the ordinance, to allow Prepared Food Vendors time to adjust practices. ● Opportunities for limited exemptions, based on demonstrated hardship or extraordinary circumstances. ● Establishment of mini-grant and technical assistance programs, to help Prepared Food Vendors transition to Reusable and Compostable Foodware. ● Elimination of fees for all Single Use Foodware, except for cups, pending establishment of a Reusable Takeout Foodware program. ● Addition of standards for Prepared Food Vendors to reject customer-supplied cups that appear inappropriate or unsanitary. ● Addition of a recommendation that Prepared Food Vendors customarily offering straws keep a supply of compostable bioplastic straws for use by individuals specifically requesting “plastic” straws. ● Enforcement with notice and opportunities to cure, either by adopting practices or obtaining a waiver, if warranted, prior to imposition of fines or other penalties.

City Manager Referral Components To complement the roll out of the Single Use Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance, the Zero Waste Commission recommends a number of City-sponsored programs to support implementation of the Ordinance’s requirements, including:

● A mini-grant program to help cover one-time costs associated with the transition to Reusable Ffoodware for on-site dining; ● Technical assistance to support implementation of ordinance requirements.

Both programs must be operative by June 2019, six months before the key elements of the ordinance take effect.

It is incumbent upon the City to further expand composting resources - including compost receptacles - for residents and customers. Many restaurants do provide composting receptacles in-store currently, but many residential composting bins are too small to accommodate a significant increase in compostable foodware which is expected with widespread adoption of the Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. This item refers the expansion of composting efforts to ensure that compostable Single Use Foodware can actually be composted in accordance with new state requirements under AB1821.

274 Page 7 of 26

and oceans, GHG emissions, and harm to wildlife. This environmental ordinance represent a huge step forward in reducing the use of disposable foodware in Berkeley, fulfilling Berkeley’s Zero Waste and Climate Action Goals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, and meeting State trash load level mandates.

CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Sophie Hahn, District 5, (510) 981-7150 Mayor Jesse Arreguín, (510) 981-7100

Attachments 1. Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance, amended to incorporate Zero Waste Commission recommendations 2. Zero Waste Commission recommendations to City Council, September 24, 2018 3. Referral to the Zero Waste Commission: Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance, April 24, 2018

275 Page 8 of 26

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

ADDING CHAPTER 11.64 TO THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT A SINGLE USE FOODWARE AND LITTER REDUCTION ORDINANCE

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

Section 1. That a new Chapter 11.64 is hereby added to the Berkeley Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 11.64

SINGLE USE FOODWARE AND LITTER REDUCTION ORDINANCE

Sections:

11.64.010 Purposes 11.64.020 Definitions 11.64.030 Accessory disposable foodware items 11.64.040 Reusable customer cups 11.64.050 Compostable disposable foodware 11.64.060 Reusable foodware for dining on the premises 11.64.070 Disposable foodware standards 11.64.080 Separate disposable foodware waste receptacles 11.64.090 Waivers 11.64.100 Regulations applicable to all food vendors 11.64.110 Duties responsibilities and authority of the City of Berkeley 11.64.120 City of Berkeley: purchases prohibited 11.64.130 Liability and enforcement 11.64.140 Severability 11.64.150 Ordinance supersedes existing laws and regulations

11.64.010 Purposes. The council finds and declares as follows:

A. Single use disposable foodware and packaging (SUDs) - including plates, cutlery, cups, lids, straws, “clamshells” and other containers - is a major contributor to street litter, ocean pollution, marine and other wildlife harm and greenhouse gas emissions.

1 276 Page 9 of 26

B. The production, consumption and disposal of SUDs contributes significantly to the depletion of natural resources, and plastics in waterways and oceans break down into smaller pieces that are not biodegradable, and are present in most of the world’s oceans.

C. Among other hazards, plastic debris attracts and concentrates ambient pollutants in seawater and freshwater, which can transfer to fish, other seafood and salt that is eventually sold for human consumption. Certain SUDs, including food contact papers and compostable paperboard containers, can also contain harmful fluorinated chemicals that are linked to serious health conditions.

D. Food and beverage SUDs make up approximately 25% of all waste produced in California. In the Bay Area, food and beverage packaging comprises the majority of street litter, and is a significant contributor to the total amount of waste entering the City’s waste stream.

E. It is in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of all who live, work and do business in the City, that the amount of litter on public streets, parks and in other public places be reduced.

F. The City of Berkeley must eliminate solid waste at its source and to maximize recycling and composting in accordance with its Zero Waste Goals. Reduction of single-use food and beverage packaging furthers this goal.

G. This Chapter is consistent with the City of Berkeley’s 2009 Climate Action Plan, the County of Alameda Integrated Waste Management Plan as amended in 2017.

11.64.020 Definitions.

A. "Prepared Food" means foods or beverages which are prepared on the vendor’s premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, squeezing, or other processing and which require no further preparation to be consumed. "Prepared Food" does not include raw uncooked whole fruits or vegetables which are not chopped, squeezed, or mixed or raw uncooked meat products. B. "Takeout Food" means Prepared Food requiring no further preparation which is purchased to be consumed off a Prepared Food Vendor’s premises. Takeout Food includes Prepared Food carried out by the customer or delivered by a Prepared Food Vendor or by a Takeout Food Delivery Service. C. "Prepared Food Vendor" means any establishment located within the City of Berkeley, including a Bakery, Cafeteria, Drive In, Food Products Store, Food

2 277 Page 10 of 26

Service Establishment (Carry Out, Quick Service, Full Service), Drugstore or Theater, as defined in BMC 23F.04, Mobile Food Facility, Temporary Food Facility (CA Health and Safety Code Sections 113831 and 113930), bar and other similar establishment, selling Prepared Food to be consumed on and/or off its premises.

D. "Disposable Foodware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, boxes, pizza boxes, cups, utensils, straws, lids, sleeves, condiment containers, spill plugs, paper or foil wrappers, liners and any other items used to hold, serve, eat, or drink Prepared Food, which are designed for single use and in which Prepared Food is placed or packaged on a Prepared Food Vendor’s premises.

E. “Disposable Cup” is a beverage cup designed for single use to serve beverages, such as water, cold drinks, hot drinks, alcoholic beverages and other drinks.

F. “Accessory Disposable Foodware Item” means any Disposable Foodware item such as straws, stirrers, napkins and utensils; condiment cups and packets; cup sleeves, tops, lids, and spill plugs; and other similar accessory or accompanying Disposable Foodware items used as part of food or beverage service or packaging.

G. “Reusable Foodware” means all foodware, including plates, bowls, cups, trays, glasses, straws, stirrers, condiment cups and utensils, that is manufactured of durable materials and that is specifically designed and manufactured to be washed and sanitized and to be used repeatedly over an extended period of time, and is safe for washing and sanitizing according to applicable regulations.

H. “Takeout Food Delivery Service” is a third party delivery service which picks up Takeout Food from a Prepared Food Vendor and delivers it to the customer for consumption off the premises.

11.64.030 Accessory Disposable Foodware Items A. Accessory Disposable Foodware items shall be provided only upon request by the customer or at self-serve stations, except that Disposable Cups for delivery by a Prepared Food Vendor or a Takeout Food Delivery Service may include tops, spill plugs and sleeves without request.

B. Prepared Food Vendors and Takeout Food Delivery Services must provide options for customers to affirmatively request Accessory Disposable Foodware Items separate from orders for food and beverages across all ordering/point of

3 278 Page 11 of 26

sale platforms, including but not limited to web, smart phone and other digital platforms, telephone and in-person.

C. Prepared Food Vendors that customarily offer straws are encouraged to maintain a small supply of plastic-type straws which meet the Disposable Foodware Standards set forth in section 11.64.070, which may be provided to customers upon specific request for a “plastic” straw.

D. Prepared Food Vendors offering condiments are encouraged to use dispensers rather than pre-packaged disposable condiment packets.

11.64.040 Reusable Customer Cups Customers may provide their own Reusable Foodware cups for beverage service in accordance with California State Health Code 114075(e). Prepared Food Vendors may refuse, at their sole discretion, any customer-provided Reusable Foodware cup that is cracked, chipped or corroded, appears inappropriate in size, material, or condition for the intended beverage, or that appears to be excessively soiled or unsanitary, and instead require use of a Reusable Foodware cup for a beverage consumed on the premises, or a Disposable Cup for a beverage to be consumed off the premises, with any charge required pursuant to subsection 11.64.050.D.

11.64.050 Compostable Disposable Foodware Effective January 1, 2020: A. Takeout Food shall only be served in Disposable Foodware that conforms to the Disposable Foodware Standards at section 11.64.070. B. Accessory Disposable Foodware Items shall conform with the Disposable Foodware Standards at 11.64.070. C. Takeout Food Delivery Services shall only deliver Takeout Food from a Prepared Food Vendor that is served in Disposable Foodware and with Accessory Disposable Foodware Items, if any, that conform to the Disposable Foodware Standards at 11.64.070. D. Prepared Food Vendors shall charge customers twenty five cents ($0.25) for every Disposable Cup provided. a. Income from the Disposable Cup charge shall be retained by the Prepared Food Vendor.

b. All customers demonstrating, at the point of sale, a payment card or voucher issued by the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the

4 279 Page 12 of 26

California Health and Safety Code, or an electronic benefit transfer card (EBT) issued pursuant to Section 10072 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, shall be exempt from the Disposable Cup charge.

c. Charges for Disposable Cups shall be identified separately on menus, ordering platforms and menu boards and on any receipt provided to the customer. Customers placing orders by telephone shall be informed verbally of Disposable Cup charges.

E. Notwithstanding the requirements at subsections 11.64.050(A)-(C), a Prepared Food Vendor may request a waiver or waivers pursuant to section 11.64.090 for specific Disposable Foodware items. To obtain a waiver for a Disposable Foodware item, the Prepared Food Vendor must demonstrate that: a. No Disposable Foodware item exists with substantially similar size, performance and/or utility that conforms with the Disposable Foodware Standards at section 11.64.070 or, if such an item exists, that costs of using that item would cause undue financial hardship, and; b. The non-conforming Disposable Foodware item to be used in lieu of a conforming item is recyclable. c. The Prepared Food Vendor must provide documentation of efforts to obtain a substantially similar compliant item at a non-prohibitive price. d. Records of attempts to obtain a compliant item shall include: i. Emails, letters or other correspondence with two or more vendors that furnish Compostable Disposable Foodware, seeking the compliant item. ii. Responses from such Compostable Disposable Foodware vendors including, where applicable, specifications and pricing for such item. iii. Specifications and pricing for the recyclable non-conforming item sought to be used, demonstrating its substantial superiority and/or affordability, and iv. Any other records which demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with Disposable Foodware Standards for such item.

e. Reasonable added cost for a conforming item as compared to a substantially similar recyclable non-conforming item shall not by itself constitute adequate grounds to support a waiver for such item.

11.64.060 Reusable Foodware for Dining on the Premises (i.e. “Eating-in”) Effective July 1, 2020:

5 280 Page 13 of 26

A. Prepared Food served for consumption on the premises of a Prepared Food Vendor shall only be served using Reusable Foodware, except that disposable paper food wrappers, foil wrappers, paper napkins, straws and paper tray- and plate-liners shall be allowed for dining on the premises, so long as they meet the Disposable Foodware Standards in section 11.64.070.

B. Notwithstanding the requirements at section 11.64.060(A), Prepared Food Vendors that do not have on-site or off-site dishwashing capacity or are unable to contract for services to wash, rinse and sanitize Reusable Foodware in compliance with the California Health Code may request a waiver or partial waiver pursuant to 11.64.090. To obtain a waiver, the Prepared Food Vendor must demonstrate inability to comply due to insurmountable space constraints and/or undue financial hardship.

C. All Disposable Foodware used on the premises by Prepared Food Vendors that are operating under full or partial waivers obtained pursuant to 11.64.090 shall conform to the Disposable Foodware Standards in 11.64.070.

D. Zoning permits and Business Licenses for Prepared Food Vendors applied for and/or deemed complete on or after January 1, 2019 shall only be granted to Prepared Food Vendors that demonstrate compliance with subsection 11.64.060(A). Maintenance of dishwashing capacity in conformance with subsection 11.64.060(A) shall be included as a specific condition of approval for such permits and licenses.

11.64.070 Disposable Foodware Standards A. Disposable Foodware must be accepted by City of Berkeley municipal compost collection programs and be free of all intentionally added fluorinated chemicals, as certified by the Biodegradable Product Institute or other independent third party certifying organization or agency recognized by the City, except that non- compostable foil wrappers that are accepted in the City of Berkeley recyclable collection program may be used for burritos, wraps, and other items that require foil to contain and form the food item.

B. The City shall maintain on its website a list of suppliers that offer Disposable Foodware that complies with these Disposable Foodware Standards.

C. Changes, if any, to Disposable Foodware Standards shall become effective on January 1 of each calendar year, and the City of Berkeley shall provide written

6 281 Page 14 of 26

notice of any such changes to Prepared Food Vendors at least 90 days prior.

11.64.080 Separate Disposable Foodware Waste Receptacles All Prepared Food Vendors, except Full Service Restaurants as defined in Chapter 23F.04 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, must provide at least one easily accessed receptacle each for waste items to be composted or recycled, and for refuse.

A. To the extent possible given space constraints, all three receptacles should be placed together in the same location.

B. The City shall identify materials accepted for each collection program on the City’s website, and signage must be posted on and/or above each receptacle, indicating the materials to be deposited into such receptacle. Receptacles and signage shall be color-coded as follows: a. Blue for recyclables b. Green for compostables c. Black or gray for refuse

C. Prepared Food Vendors that share premises may share receptacles.

11.64.090 Waivers A. The City Manager shall prescribe and adopt rules, regulations and forms for Prepared Food Vendors to obtain full or partial waivers from any requirement of this ordinance that is explicitly subject to waiver. B. Waivers shall be granted by the City Manager or his or her agents, based upon documentation provided by the applicant and, at the City Manager’s discretion, independent verification, including site visits. C. The City Manager or his or her agents shall act on a waiver application no later than 180 days after receipt of such application, including mailing written notification of the City Manager's decision to the address supplied by the applicant. D. Waivers may be granted for a specified period of up to two (2) years. During the waiver period, the Prepared Food Vendor shall make diligent efforts to become compliant. E. Under extraordinary circumstances, should a Prepared Food Vendor demonstrate that, at the close of a granted waiver period, and with ddiligent efforts to become compliant, compliance remains infeasible, additional waivers of up to two (2) years each may be granted. It shall be the Prepared Food Vendor’s responsibility to apply for any subsequent waivers in a timely manner.

7 282 Page 15 of 26

11.64.100 Regulations applicable to all Prepared Food Vendors A. Each Prepared Food Vendor shall maintain written records evidencing compliance with this Chapter. B. All records required by this Chapter shall be made available for inspection by the City Manager or his or her designated representative. It shall be unlawful for anyone having custody of such records to fail or refuse to produce such records upon request by the City Manager or his or her designated representative.

11.64.110 City Manager’s Powers A. The City Manager shall prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules and regulations relating to the administration and enforcement of this chapter and is hereby authorized to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter including, but not limited to, inspecting any Prepared Food Vendor’s premises to verify compliance. B. In June of 2021 the City shall report to the City Council on progress towards full implementation of and compliance with this ordinance.

11.64.120 City of Berkeley: purchases prohibited The City of Berkeley shall not purchase any Disposable Foodware that does not comply with the Disposable Foodware Standards at Section 11.64.070, nor shall any City- sponsored event utilize non-compliant Disposable Foodware.

11.64.130 Enforcement A. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any requirement of this chapter may be subject to an Administrative Citation pursuant to Chapter 1.28 or charged with an infraction as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the Berkeley Municipal Code; however, no infraction may be charged for violation of a requirement of this chapter until one year after the effective date of such requirement. B. Enforcement shall include written notice of noncompliance and a reasonable opportunity to correct or to demonstrate initiation of a request for a waiver or waivers pursuant to 11.64.090. C. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this chapter. D. The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive.

11.64.140 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

8 283 Page 16 of 26

and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this chapter are severable.

11.64.150 Ordinance supersedes existing laws and regulations The provisions of this chapter shall supersede any conflicting law or regulation restricting the use of polystyrene foam.

9 284

Attachment Not Received

This attachment has not been received from the submitting office.

City Clerk Department 2180 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-6900

The City of Berkeley, City Council’s Web site: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil/

285

Page 17 of 26

Berkeley City Council 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 ACTION CALENDAR April 24, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn and Mayor Jesse Arreguin, and Councilmembers Linda Maio and Susan Wengraf

Subject: Referral to the Zero Waste Commission: Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

BACKGROUND Single use disposable foodware and packaging (SUDs) - including plastic bottles, caps, lids, straws, cups, and containers - is a major contributor to street litter, ocean pollution, marine and other wildlife harm and greenhouse gas emissions. The use of disposable foodware has grown exponentially over the past few decades. The practice of providing food and beverage packaging free of charge fails to incorporate the environmental and social costs of these products into the price of food and beverage service. As a result, customers and food business operators pay little attention to the quantity of single use packaging products consumed and quickly thrown away. Reducing the use of SUDs in the City of Berkeley is a key strategy to achieve the City’s Zero Waste and Climate Action goals, and to address the many

286

Page 18 of 26

environmental impacts and costs associated with the use and disposal of single-use foodware and packaging.

287

Page 19 of 26

in seawater and freshwater9, which can transfer to fish, other seafood, and salt that is eventually sold for human consumption.10 Certain SUDs, including food contact papers and compostable paperboard containers, can also contain harmful fluorinated chemicals that are linked to serious health effects including kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disruption, delayed puberty and obesity.11

In addition, SUDs are particularly costly and challenging to divert from landfill. Non-recyclable food and beverage packaging is costly to remove from the waste stream and reduces the quality and value of recyclables, while non-compostable food packaging (some of which is advertised as “compostable”) contaminates compost, adding costs and reducing the quality of compost13. With China’s recent rejection of mixed recycled plastic imports, the value of recyclable plastics has dropped sharply and the final destination for these plastic SUDs is uncertain. This adds significant costs to the City’s collection, sorting, and processing of compostables and recyclables. To reach its Zero Waste goals, the City must reduce use of unnecessary single-use food and beverage packaging.

9 Rochman, C.M., et al,. 2013, Long-Term Field Measurement of Sorption of Organic Contaminants to Five Types of Plastic Pellets: Implications for Plastic Marine Debris. Environmental Science and Technology. 47, 1646−1654. 10 Rochman C Met al, 2015a Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption Sci. Rep. 5 14340. 11 In 2015, the FDA barred from use three such fluorinated chemicals from food contact materials due to safety risks associated with cancer, toxicity, and other health effects; other fluorinated chemicals have similar chemical structures and pose similar risk. 12 Berkeley Climate Action Plan: Tracking our Progress Waste Reduction & Recycling – Total Landfilled, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Energy_and_Sustainable_Development/PDF%20total%20landfilled%20final.pdf 13 Clean Water Action, What’s in the Package? 2016 https://www.cleanwateraction.org/features/what%E2%80%99s-package 14 “Successful Results from Bag Ordinance”, 2014, Alameda County Waste Management authority, http://reusablebagsac.org/news/successful-results-bag-ordinance

288

Page 20 of 26

about 20 cents per bag, plastic bag use declined by 90% and litter from plastic bags declined by 40%15. Similar charges have been implemented in Taiwan, Washington D.C., and the United Kingdom, resulting in decreases in plastic bag use of up to 80%. A 2016 plastic bag ban in California reduced the number of plastic bags found on beaches by half.16 Studies have also shown that customers in areas with taxes on single use bags were more likely to use reusable bags.17

Economic Advantages for Businesses Businesses in the Bay Area spend between $0.25 and $0.85 per meal on disposable foodware.21 Reducing the use of SUDs can provide significant cost savings, even considering the costs associated with making the transition to reusables. The Rethink Disposable program of the Clean Water Fund, in partnership with STOP WASTE in Alameda County, has conducted a number of case studies showcasing businesses that have voluntarily minimized SUDs and incorporated reusables22. These businesses saw annual net cost savings (after accounting for costs of reusables, dishwashing, etc.) from $1,000 - $22,000 per year.23

Reducing SUDs in the City of Berkeley

15 Mauro Anastasio and James Nix, Plastic Bag Levy in Ireland, Institute European Environmental Policy, 2016. https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/7f91cb97-8cb7- 49c39cf0d34062a9192e/IE%20Plastic%20Bag%20Levy%20conference%20draft.pdf?v=63673818840 16 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-plastic-bag-ban-anniversary-20171118-story.html 17 T. A. Homonoff, Can Small Incentives Have Large Effects? The Impact of Taxes versus Bonuses on Disposable Bag Use National Tax Association Proceedings, Princeton University- http://ntanet.org/wp-content/uploads/proceedings/2012/008-homonoff- can-small-incentives-2012-nta-proceedings.pdf 18 http://www.thejournal.ie/coffee-cups-poll-3642333-Oct2017/ 19 European Commission, EU Plastics Strategy-http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/plastic_waste.htm 20 “Taiwan to ban disposable plastic items by 2030,” February 22, 2108- https://phys.org/news/2018-02-taiwan-disposable-plastic- items.html 21 Id. 22 https://cleanwater.org/publications/participating-business-testimonials 23 Data provided by Clean Water Action’s ReThink Disposable program, March 2018. See attached fact sheet.

289

Page 21 of 26

Through the leadership of Berkeley’s Ecology Center, working closely with UpStream, Clean Water Action, the Clean Water Fund, Story of Stuff, Surfrider Foundation, GAIA (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives), the Green Science Policy Institute, Excellent Packaging, and numerous active residents and volunteers, a proposed Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance has been drafted. This visionary Ordinance combines proven strategies for reducing SUDs including promotion of reusable foodware, fees when SUDs are used, and creation of a list of approved, truly compostable or recyclable SUDs for use City-wide.

The survey, conducted in 2017-2018 by Clean Water Action, the Ecology Center, and other partners, covers 59 Berkeley food businesses (about 10% of affected food businesses) of various sizes and service styles, and includes respondents from all of the City’s commercial districts. Of these businesses, 58% would support a customer charge for cups, and 67% would support a charge for disposable food containers.

24 https://serc.berkeley.edu/paying-the-price-of-disposable-cups-at-caffe-strada/

290

Page 22 of 26

provides that single use straws, utensils, and stirrers (which will have to be compostable) be provided only “by request”.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The production, consumption and disposal of single use food and beverage packaging is a major contributor to litter in our streets, plastic in landfills, pollution in waterways and oceans, GHG emissions, and harm to wildlife. This environmental ordinance represent a huge step forward in reducing the use of disposable foodware in Berkeley, fulfilling Berkeley’s Zero Waste and Climate Action Goals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, and meeting State trash load level mandates.

CONTACT Councilmember Sophie Hahn, District 5 | (510) 981-7150 | [email protected] Mayor Jesse Arreguin | (510) 981-7100 | [email protected]

ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance 2. CaseStudy: Caravaggio Gelateria Italiana 3. Clean Water Action Disposable vs Reusable Cups Fact Sheet

291

Page 23 of 26

Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE XXXX CITY CODE BY ADOPTING CHAPTER XXXX SECTIONS XXXX TO REDUCE SINGLE USE DISPOSABLE FOODWARE

Findings and Purpose The council finds and declares as follows: [ ]

Section 1. Definitions

B. "Takeout Food" means Prepared Food requiring no further preparation which is purchased to be consumed off a Prepared Food Vendor’s premises. Takeout Food includes Prepared Food delivered by a Prepared Food Vendor or by a third party delivery service. C. “Takeout Meal” means Takeout Food consisting of an entree, or a full size salad, or a breakfast, lunch or dinner item (such as a sandwich, burrito, pizza, soup) served in up to three Disposable Food Containers.

F. “Disposable Food Container” is a container designed for single use that holds 16 oz. or more (for containers with lids) or is 62 cubic inches or larger (for boxes and clamshells).

G. “Disposable Cup” is a beverage cup designed for single use to serve beverages, such as water, cold drinks, hot drinks, alcoholic beverages and other drinks.

1 292

Page 24 of 26

Section 2. Reusable Foodware for Dining on the Premises (i.e. “Eating-in”) This section applies to Prepared Food served for consumption on the premises of a Prepared Food Vendor.

A. As of [Effective Date], Prepared Food Vendors shall only sell or provide food and beverages for consumption on the premises using Reusable Foodware, except as provided in Section 2(C).

2 293

Page 25 of 26

Section 4. Disposable Foodware Charges Customers shall be charged for Disposable Foodware used for dining off the premises.

3 294

Page 26 of 26

Section 5. Signage Requirements for Takeout Food Vendors

Section 6. Duties, Responsibilities and Authority of the City of Berkeley

4 295 296 Page 1 of 7

Housing Advisory Commission INFORMATION CALENDAR December 11, 2018

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Housing Advisory Commission Submitted by: Marian Wolfe, Acting Chairperson, Housing Advisory Commission Subject: Measure U1 Reporting

INTRODUCTION Measure U1 passed in November 2016 and included an increase in the Business License Tax charged on properties that consist of five or more residential units. In addition and separately, Measure U1 provided that the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) will make recommendations on housing policy to the City Council. After the measure passed, it was incorporated into Berkeley's Municipal Code and specified that the recommendations to the Council could be made annually or biennially. This information item is an attempt to meet that obligation of the HAC under Measure U1.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS A total of $4 million was received from Measure U1 during the FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019.

On October 4, 2018, the HAC voted as follows:

Action: M/S/C (Johnson/Owens) to send Commissioner Wolfe’s draft Measure U1 report to City Council with amendments dictated by Commissioner Johnson and including Commissioner Tregub’s Record of Recommendations as an attachment. Vote: Ayes: Johnson, Lewis, Owens, Wolfe, and Wright. Noes: Kesarwani and Lord. Abstain: None. Absent: Amezcua (excused) and Tregub (excused).

BACKGROUND In November 2016, the City of Berkeley voters approved Measure U1. Since the passage of this measure, new language has been added to BMC 19.44.020(B)(10), assigning the HAC with the following responsibility: “The Housing Advisory Commission shall review and advise the City Council on housing policy, housing programs, and related issues. In particular, the Commission shall make recommendations on how and to what extent the City should establish and fund programs to increase the supply of affordable housing and protect residents of Berkeley from homelessness. These recommendations may be made annually or biannually, as the Commission deems appropriate in light of the City’s budget cycle and other relevant funding cycles.”

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 297 Page 2 of 7

Measure U-1 Reporting INFORMATION CALENDAR December 11, 2018

For the purpose of brevity, the HAC will refer to these as “B-10 reports” for short. B-10 reports are the first opportunity for the Commission to report on HAC activities, review existing policies and programs in depth, recommend allocation of U-1 funds, and to develop innovative recommendations of its own. This is a significant new responsibility and opportunity.

At the July 2018 meeting, the Housing Advisory Commission took its first step to implement the B-10 reporting requirement by adopting an April/October biannual reporting schedule. These months were chosen in consideration of the City’s budget cycles.

At this time, the HAC does not have a summary report, but it has adopted the attached record of 2017-2018 Recommendations. In the future, B-10 reports will be briefer, but since it is now October 2018, the HAC concluded that it makes sense to submit this longer record of HAC actions and recommendations.

Vote on U1 Reporting Calendar (July 11, 2018):

Action: M/S/C (Lord/Owens) to establish an April/October publication schedule for the Commission’s B-10 recommendations.

Vote: Ayes: Amezcua, Holman, Johnson, Lewis, Lord, Owens, and Winters. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Kesarwani (unexcused), Tregub (excused), Wolfe (excused), and Write (excused)

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

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Provide a second report in April 2019.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION There are no direct fiscal impacts to this recommendation.

CONTACT PERSON Amy Davidson, Commission Secretary, HHCS, (510) 981-5406

Attachments: 1: Record of 2017-2018 Recommendations

Page 2 298 Page 3 of 7

HAC item: Record of 2017-2018 Recommendations

Introduction and Recommendation Recommendation: That the Housing Advisory Commission submit the following status report of 2017-2018 recommendations to the Berkeley City Council.

Background Consistent with BMC 19.44.20(B)(10)] and the custom of commissions providing annual reports to the Berkeley City Council, we summarize below the work that the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) has conducted thus far.

HAC recommendations from 2017  January 5, 2017

Selecting from a list of options developed by a previous HAC membership, the HAC advised City Council to prioritize these City Council Referrals:

 Permit Service Center improvements

 limited use of eminent domain on vacant and blighted properties

 Create an ordinance to prohibit housing discrimination based on the source of a tenant's income (including Section 8 benefits).

 workforce housing for BUSD / implement Senate Bill 1413

The HAC also recommended that the City Manager be directed to meet with the Rent Stabilization Board to revisit whether the issuance of a new Certificate of Occupancy is required upon conversion of units from unpermitted nonresidential to permitted residential uses.

 February 2, 2017

The HAC agreed with staff to recommend a $691,394 unplanned but urgent reservation of County Measure A1 funds for the Grayson Street Apartments projects in response to a post-election collapse in the amount of money that could be raised through the sale of Low Income Housing Tax Credits.

299 Page 4 of 7

 March 2, 2017

 The HAC recommended (additional) reservations of CDBG funding for the Bread Project, Inter-City Services, and Rising Sun Energy Center.

 The HAC also recommended that registration fees be charged for below-market rate units to pay for the regulation of BMR compliance and gave advice regarding the structure and amount of those fees.

 May 5, 2017

 The HAC recommended against appropriating U1 revenues for the purchase of the properties at 1001, 1007, and 1011 University Avenue and 1925 Ninth St (the "Premier Cru" properties). The HAC also recommended a temporary suspension of efforts to appropriate U1 funds.

 Finally, the HAC recommended that the Affordable Housing Mitigation fee be updated every two years based on the Construction Cost Index.

 June 6, 2017

 The HAC recommended a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) reservation of $285,464 for Satellite Affordable Housing Associates' Harper Crossing Project.

 The HAC recommended an exceptional circumstances reservation of $569,692 from the HTF and a refinancing of outstanding HTF loans and a waver approving the Northern California Land Trust as an eligible receiver of HTF funds for the NCLT scatter sites project.

 The HAC recommended providing HOME CHDO1 operating funds to Resources for Community Development and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018.

 The HAC recommended changes to the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (BMC 22.20.065) to adopt a fee of $37,000 if paid at certificate of occupancy, or $34,000 if paid at issuance of building permits and to recommend that for developers opting to private units, 20% of the total units be below market rate.

 The HAC recommended an exemption from the necessity of Council Approval of the use of CDBG funds for construction projects at or below $200,000, and that the HAC CDBG subcommittee be authorized to make recommendations for such projects.

1 "HOME": The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Home Investment Partnership Program; "CHDO": Community Housing Development Organization.

300 Page 5 of 7

 Lastly, the HAC expressed "conceptual support" for allocating up to $1.07 million, with no source of funding specified, and no specific funding levels for various anti- displacement programs then under consideration by council.

 July 6, 2017

 The HAC approved an HTF reservation of $50,000 for a pre-development loan for the Bay Area Community Land Trust's 1638 Stuart Street project and approved a waiver of a "recent experience" eligible developer requirement.

 The HAC recommended that City Council reserve up to $3,131,651 in Housing Trust Funds for pre-development for BRIDGE Housing's Berkeley Way Project and that certain permit fees be deferred.

 The HAC recommended several specific general allocations for the following anti- displacement programs: the Housing Retention Program, the Flexible Housing Subsidies Pool, the Eviction Defense Center, and the East Bay Community Law Center.

 September 7, 2017 The HAC recommended that City Council conduct a public hearing for a substantial amendment to the federal Program Year (PY) 2017 Annual Action Plan which included revised allocations of CDBG funding and that, upon conclusion of that hearing, that Council adopt a Resolution approving revised CDBG funding recommendations for City of Berkeley projects; and authorizing the City Manager to submit the Substantial Amendment to the PY 2016 AAP to HUD. The substance of these changes was to shift certain indirect internal costs, associated with administering CDBG projects, to project-specific allocations.

 December 7, 2017

 The HAC agreed to communicate certain recommendations to Council regarding general guidelines for appropriating U1 funds.

 The HAC also communicated to the Council a statement of principles that places housing as a priority over parking, including support with respect to the Berkeley Way Project.

 January 18, 2018

 The HAC referred certain inquiries into the enforcement practices and history of the Smoke-Free Housing Ordinance and requested that the Berkeley Considers facility be used to solicit public comment regarding that ordinance. This action is a first step towards revising the ordinance in response to citizen reports of its ineffectiveness in some situations.

301 Page 6 of 7



 February 1, 2018

 The HAC asked the Council to make a number of referrals to commence developing a comprehensive plan for disaster preparedness and post-disaster rebuilding with respect to multi-family housing.

 March 1, 2018

 The HAC recommended a second substantial change to the PY 2017 Annual Action Plan. The proposed change will reserve approximately $1.26 of CDBG community facility improvement funds to the rehabilitation of the City's Mental Health Clinic building at 2640 Martin Luther King Jr. Previously, these funds were planned for small community facility improvement projects to be determined as needs arose. The large, single allocation to the Mental Health Clinic was proposed because initial cost projections for the project were significantly too low.

 The HAC recommended to the Berkeley City Council consideration of funding a Home Share Pilot Program. The program as envisioned would offer background checks as a City Service provided to qualifying homeowners who wish to offer space in their home to a tenant. Similar programs are operating in some other Bay Area Cities. The UC Berkeley Retirement Center has also started a program.

 The HAC also recommended to City Council that as the Small Sites Program is implemented, it be structured so as to allow (though not require) the City itself to purchase eligible small sites. The program would leave open the possibility of implementing non-traditional ownership models for permanently affordable housing.

 April 4, 2018 The HAC responded with comments to an earlier referral from City Council regarding an accessory dwelling unit pilot program to house low-income households.

 May 3, 2018 The HAC voted to draft a letter to the City Council with recommendations dictated by the Commission for the FY 2020-2021 Community Agency Request for Proposals. Specifically, the HAC noted support for the following elements of the proposal: publishing agency outcomes, increasing the contract threshold to be considered for Request for Proposals (RFP) bids to $20,000 (while recommending consultation with outside agency partners prior to making this change), enhanced outreach to prospective applicants, and providing a hardship exemption for applicants who miss the deadline to apply. The HAC noted strong opposition to a proposal to extend the current 2-year contract cycle to a 4-year contract cycle and identified a 3-year cycle as a possible alternative.

302 Page 7 of 7

The HAC also adopted Measure U1 funding recommendations for the FY2017/ 2018 and FY2018/2019 cycles. The recommendations for the remaining $3.45 million in revenues (after $550,000 per cycle was already allocated, following the HAC’s earlier recommendation, to fund anti-displacement assistance efforts to tenants) were as follows:

Anti-Displacement (already reserved) $550,000 Small Sites Program $1,000,000 Housing Trust Fund $2,000,000 Reserve for housing programs in the pipeline (ADU Pilot program, home share, etc.) $400,000 Administrative Costs $50,000 Total $4,000,000

On June 26, 2018, the City Council voted to take these recommendations under consideration.

The HAC also voted to direct Commissioners to submit ideas for the annual work plan (FY19) and submit for inclusion in the June 2018 agenda. Finally, the HAC discussed, but took no action, on recommendations to revise the Housing Retention Program.

 June 7, 2018

The HAC discussed and recommended to the City Council uses for the City of Berkeley’s 2018 allocation of federal HOME funds and proposed request for proposals process. Specifically, it recommend that the City Council direct staff to create a rehabilitation RFP for CHDOs with the City’s 2018 HOME funds and to start looking into a HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance program for future consideration. The HAC heard a staff presentation on ongoing efforts to develop a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Ordinance and provided feedback. It also took action on a recommendation to the City Council in response to a referral to the HAC and city staff regarding an Accessory Dwelling Unit Pilot Program. Finally, the HAC continued its discussion of the FY19 Commission work plan. 

303 304

Upcoming Workshops – start time is 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise noted Scheduled Dates 1. Climate Action Plan Update Dec 6* 2. Measure T1 Update 3. Strategic Plan Update

1. Berkeley Ballot Measure Follow-up Jan 15, 2019 2. North Berkeley BART Zoning and Future Development

1. UC Berkeley Student Housing Plan (tentative) Feb 5 2. OED Update 3. Wildfire Risk Reduction and Planning

1. FY 2020 – FY 2021 Budget Update March 19 2. Crime Report

1. Proposed FY 2020 – FY 2021 Budget May 7 2. Zero Waste Rate Review

1. Transfer Station Feasibility Study June 18 2. Staff Presentation - TBD

*Thursday (other Tuesdays in December are 12/18 and 12/25)

Unscheduled Workshops 1. Cannabis Health Considerations

Unscheduled Presentations (City Manager) 1. Digital Strategic Plan/erma/Website Update 2. Measure T1 Project Prioritization (Action Calendar) 3. Arts and Culture Plan 4. Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront CIP Update 5. Public Works CIP Update

305

City Council Referrals to the Agenda Committee and Unfinished Business 1. 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 2. 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 3. 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. Agenda Committee to revisit in April 2019.) 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 4. 4. Disposition of City-Owned, Former Redevelopment Agency Properties at 1631 Fifth Street and 1654 Fifth Street (Referred from the September 25, 2018 agenda) 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

306 5. 19. Adopt the Sanctuary Contracting Ordinance proposed by the Peace and Justice Commission (Referred from the November 13, 2018 agenda) From: Councilmembers Worthington, Davila, Harrison, and Bartlett Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the attached Sanctuary Contracting Ordinance proposed by the Peace and Justice Commission. This ordinance prohibits the award of city contracts to vendors acting as ICE data brokers, or those providing extreme vetting services. Financial Implications: Minimal Contact: Kriss Worthington, Councilmember, District 7, 981-7170

307 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 2580 Bancroft Way (The Standard) LPC 11/27/2018 2546-2580 Bancroft Way (The Standard) ZAB 11/27/2018 2714 Alcatraz Ave (alter existing residential building) ZAB 11/29/2018 59 The Plaza Dr (alter existing single-family dwelling) ZAB 11/29/2018 1722 Walnut St (permit a ninth dwelling unit) ZAB 11/29/2018 Public Hearings Scheduled 3000 Shattuck Ave (construct mixed-use building) ZAB 11/27/2018 1155-73 Hearst Ave (develop two parcels) ZAB 1/29/2019 2190 Shattuck Ave (Shattuck Terrace Green Apartments) ZAB 2/26/2019

Remanded to ZAB or LPC

Notes

Last Updated: 11/20/2018

308 Agenda & Rules Committee Budget & Finance Facilities, Infrastructure & (City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk) (Budget Office, Finance, Human Transportation Resources) (Public Works, IT, Parks) • Review items for completeness • Send items either to council • Investment Policy • Streets, sidewalks, public space agenda, policy committee, or • Budget Development • Parks back to author • Revenue Development • Traffic safety • Set agendas • Expenditures • Bikes, pedestrians, transit • Review rules and procedures • Fiscal Planning and Policy • Capital Improvements and open government policies • Taxes and Fees • Facilities and Infrastructure • Consider items not readily • Large-scales fiscal investments • Technology Infrastructure and assignable to a policy Security committee • Maintenance • Zero Waste

Public Safety, Environment & Land Use, Housing & Economic Health, Life Enrichment, Sustainability Development Equity & Community (Police, Fire, Planning/OESD) (Planning, OED) (HHCS, Parks, City Manager)

• Seniors and Youth • Police, Fire, dispatch, etc. • Land Use • Mental Health • Disaster preparedness • Preservation • Public Health • Resilience Plan • Development standards • Homelessness • Climate Action Plan • Housing & Affordable Housing • Health equity and outcomes • Sustainability • Disability/Universal Access • Recreation • Energy and Water • Business and economic growth • Berkeley’s 2020 Vision Conservation • Business retention, attraction, and development • Events • Civic arts and culture • Neighborhood Services • Animal control/care • Code Enforcement/livability

309 310

Sophie Hahn 11/21/2018 – 01:30 am DRAFT DRAFT Guidelines for Developing & Writing Agenda Items

These proposed Guidelines are derived from the requirements for Agenda items listed in the Berkeley City Council Rules of Procedure and Order, Chapter III, Sections B(1) and (2), reproduced below. In addition, Chapter III Section C(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure and Order allows the Agenda Committee to request that the author of an item provide “additional analysis” if the item as submitted evidences a “significant lack of background or supporting information” or “significant grammatical or readability issues.”

These guidelines would provide a more detailed and comprehensive overview of elements of a complete Council item. While not all elements would be applicable to every type of Agenda item, they would prompt authors to consider presenting items with as much relevant information and analysis as possible.

Chapter III, Sections (B)(1) and (2) of Council Rules of Procedure and Order:

2. Agenda items shall contain all relevant documentation, including the following as Applicable: a. A descriptive title that adequately informs the public of the subject matter and general nature of the item or report and action requested; b. Whether the matter is to be presented on the Consent Calendar or the Action Calendar or as a Report for Information; c. Recommendation of the City Manager, if applicable (these provisions shall not apply to Mayor and Council items.); d. Fiscal impacts of the recommendation; e. A description of the current situation and its effects; f. Background information as needed; g. Rationale for recommendation; h. Alternative actions considered; i. For awards of contracts; the abstract of bids and the Affirmative Action Program of the low bidder in those cases where such is required (these provisions shall not apply to Mayor and Council items.); j. Person or persons to contact for further information, with telephone number. If the author of any report believes additional background information, beyond the basic report, is necessary to Council understanding of the subject, a separate compilation of such background information may be developed and copies will be available for Council and for public review in the City Clerk Department, and the City Clerk shall provide limited distribution of such background information depending upon quantity of pages to be duplicated. In such case the agenda item distributed with the packet shall so indicate.

311

Proposed Guidelines for “complete” City Council Items:

1. Title 2. Consent/Action/Information Calendar 3. Recommendation 4. Summary Statement/”Current situation and its effects” 5. Background 6. Review of Existing Plans, Policies and Laws 7. Actions/Alternatives Considered 8. Consultation Plan and Results 9. Rationale for Recommendation 10. Implementation, Administration and Enforcement 11. Staffing and Fiscal Impacts 12. Outcomes and Evaluation 13. Contact Information 14. Attachments/Supporting Materials

______

1. Title A descriptive title that adequately informs the public of the subject matter and general nature of the item or report and action requested.

2. Consent/Action/Information Calendar Whether the matter is to be presented on the Consent Calendar or the Action Calendar or as a Report for Information.

3. Recommendation Clear, succinct statement of action(s) to be taken. Recommendations can be further detailed within the item, by specific reference.

Common action options include: ● Adopt first reading of ordinance ● Adopt a resolution ● Short/90 day (“Direction”) or normal Referral to City Manager ● Referral to a Commission or to a Standing or Ad Hoc Council Committee ● Referral to the budget process ● Send letter of support ● Accept, Approve, Modify or Reject a recommendation from a Commission or Committee ● Designate members of the Council to perform some action

4. Summary Statement/ “Current situation and its effects” A short resume of the circumstances that give rise to the need for the recommended action(s). ● Briefly state the opportunity/problem/concern that has been identified, and the proposed solution.

312

● Example (fictional): Winter rains are lasting longer than expected. Berkeley’s winter shelters are poised to close in three weeks, but forecasts suggest rain for another two months. If they do not remain open until the end of the rainy season, hundreds of people will be left in the rain 24/7. Therefore, this item seeks authorization to keep Berkeley’s winter shelters open until the end of April, and refers to the Budget Process $40,000 to cover costs of an additional two months of shelter operations.

5. Background A full discussion of the history, circumstances and concerns to be addressed by the item. ● For the above fictional example, Background would include information and data about the number and needs of homeless individuals in Berkeley, the number and availability of permanent shelter beds that meet their needs, the number of winter shelter beds that would be lost with closure, the impacts of such closure on this population, the weather forecasts, etc.

6. Review of Existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws Review, identify and discuss relevant/applicable Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws, and how the proposed actions conform with, compliment, are supported by, differ from or run contrary. What gaps were found that need to be filled? What existing policies, programs, plans and laws need to be changed/supplemented/improved/repealed? What is missing altogether that needs to be addressed?

Review of all pertinent/applicable sections of: ● The City Charter ● Berkeley Municipal Code ● Administrative Regulations ● Council Resolutions ● Staff training manuals ● [other?] Review of all applicable City Plans: ● The General Plan ● Area Plans ● The Climate Action Plan ● Resilience Plan ● Equity Plan ● Capital Improvements Plan ● Zero Waste Plan ● Bike Plan ● Pedestrian Plan ● Etc.

Review of the City’s Strategic Plan Review of similar legislation previously introduced/passed by Council Review of County, State and Federal laws/policies/programs/plans, if applicable

313

7. Actions/Alternatives Considered ● What solutions/measures have other jurisdictions adopted that serve as models/cautionary tales? ● What solutions/measures are recommended by advocates, experts, organizations? ● What is the range of actions considered, and what are some of their major pros and cons? ● Why were other solutions not as optimal/feasible/advisable?

8. Consultation/Outreach Overview and Results ● Review/list external and internal (staff) stakeholders that were consulted ○ External: constituents, communities, neighborhood organizations, businesses and not for profits, advocates, people with lived experience, faith organizations, industry groups, people/groups that might have concerns about the item, etc. ○ Internal: staff who would implement policies, the City Manager and/or deputy CM, Department Heads, City Attorney, Clerk, etc. ● What reports, articles, books, websites and other materials were consulted? ● What was learned from these sources? ● What changes or approaches did they advocate for that were accepted or rejected?

9. Rationale for Recommendation A clear and concise statement as to whether the item proposes actions that: ● Conform to, clarify or extend existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws ● Change/Amend existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws in minor ways ● Change/Amend existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws in major ways ● Create an exception to existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws ● Reverse/go contrary to or against existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws

Argument/summary of argument in support of recommended actions. The argument likely has already been made via the information and analysis already presented, but should be presented/restated/summarized. Further elaboration of terms for recommendations, if any.

10. Implementation, Administration and Enforcement Discuss how the recommended action(s) would be implemented, administered and enforced. What staffing (internal or via contractors/consultants) and materials/facilities are likely required for implementation?

11. Fiscal Impacts Review the recommended action’s potential to generate funds or savings for the City in the short and long-term, as well as the potential direct and indirect costs.

12. Outcomes and Evaluation State the specific outcomes expected, if any (i.e., “it is expected that 100 homeless people will be referred to housing every year”) and what reporting/evaluation is recommended.

13. Contact Information

14. Attachments/Supporting Materials

314