more hours per week, or with regard to the City of Berkeley, to avoid a the granting of any benefits that an employee earns based on hours worked. (c) A part-time employee may, but is not required to, accept the covered employer’s offer of additional work under this section.
(1) A part-time employee shall have twenty-four (24) hours to accept an offer of additional hours of work under this section, after which time the covered employer may hire new employees to work the additional hours. (2) The twenty-four (24) hour period referred to in this subsection begins either when the employee receives the written offer of additional hours, or when the covered employer posts the offer of additional hours as described in subsection (d) of this section, whichever is sooner. A part-time employee who wishes to accept the additional hours must do so in writing.
(d) When this section requires a covered employer to offer additional hours to existing part-time employees, the covered employer shall make the offer either in writing or by posting the offer in a conspicuous location in the workplace where notices to employees are customarily posted. Covered employers may post the notice electronically on an internal website in a conspicuous location and which website is readily accessible to all employees. The notice shall include the total hours of work being offered, the schedule of available shifts, whether those shifts will occur at the same time each week, and the length of time the covered employer anticipates requiring coverage of the additional hours, and the process by which part-time employees may notify the covered employer of their desire to work the offered hours.
(e) The covered employer shall retain each written offer no less than three (3) years as required under Section 13.110.140.
(f) This section shall not be construed to require any covered employer to offer employees work hours paid at a premium rate under California Labor Code Section 510 nor to prohibit any covered employer from offering such work hours.
13.110.080 Right to Rest.
(a) An employee has the right to decline work hours that occur:
(1) Less than eleven (11) hours after the end of the previous day’s shift; or (2) During the eleven (11) hours following the end of a shift that spanned two (2) days.
(b) An employee who agrees in writing to work hours described in this section shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee’s regular rate of pay for any hours worked less than eleven (11) hours following the end of a previous shift.
13.110.090 Right to Request a Flexible Working Arrangement.
An employee has the right to request a modified work schedule, including but not limited to additional shifts or hours; changes in days of work or start and/or end times for the
shift; permission to exchange shifts with other employees; limitations on availability; part-time employment; job sharing arrangements; reduction or change in work duties; or part-year employment. A covered employer shall not retaliate against an employee for exercising their rights under this section or the rights outlined in the Berkeley Family Friendly and Environment Friendly Workplace Ordinance, Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.101.
13.110.100 Notice and Posting.
(a) The Department shall publish and make available to covered employers, in English and other languages as provided in any implementing regulations, a notice suitable for posting by covered employers in the workplace informing employees of their rights under this chapter.
(b) Each covered employer shall give written notification to each current employee and to each new employee at time of hire of their rights under this chapter. The notification shall be in English and other languages as provided in any implementing regulations, and shall also be posted prominently in areas at the work site where it will be seen by all employees. Every covered employer shall also provide each employee at the time of hire with the covered employer’s name, address, and telephone number in writing. Failure to post such notice shall render the covered employer subject to administrative citation, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The Department is authorized to prepare sample notices and covered employer use of such notices shall constitute compliance with this subsection.
13.110.110 Implementation.
(a) The Department shall be authorized to coordinate implementation and enforcement of this chapter and may promulgate appropriate guidelines or rules for such purposes. Any guidelines or rules promulgated by the City shall have the force and effect of law and may be relied on by covered employers, employees and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this chapter. Any guidelines or rules may establish procedures for ensuring fair, efficient and cost-effective implementation of this chapter, including supplementary procedures for helping to inform employees of their rights under this chapter, for monitoring covered employer compliance with this chapter, and for providing administrative hearings to determine whether a covered employer has violated the requirements of this chapter. (b) Reporting Violations. An aggrieved employee may report to the Department in writing any suspected violation of this chapter. The Department shall keep confidential, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable laws, the name and other identifying information of the employee reporting the violation; provided, however, that with the authorization of such employee, the Department may disclose their name and identifying information as necessary to enforce this chapter or other employee protection laws.
(c) Investigation. The Department may investigate any possible violations of this chapter by a covered employer. The Department shall have the authority to inspect workplaces, interview persons and subpoena records or other items relevant to the enforcement of this chapter.
(d) Informal Resolution. If the Department elects to investigate a complaint, the City shall make every effort to resolve complaints informally and in a timely manner. The City’s investigation and pursuit of informal resolution does not limit or act as a prerequisite for an employee’s right to bring a private action against a covered employer as provided in this chapter.
13.110.120 Enforcement.
(a) Enforcement by City. Where prompt compliance with the provisions of this chapter is not forthcoming, the Department may take any appropriate enforcement action to ensure compliance, including but not limited to the following:
The Department may issue an administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 1.28 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. The amount of this fine shall vary based on the provision of this chapter violated, as specified below:
(1) A fine may be assessed for retaliation by a covered employer against an employee for exercising rights protected under this chapter. The fine shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each employee retaliated against. (2) A fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) may be assessed for any of the following violations of this chapter:
(i) Failure to provide notice of employees’ rights under this chapter. (ii) Failure to timely provide an initial work schedule or to timely update work schedules following changes.
(iii) Failure to provide predictability pay for schedule changes with less than twenty-four (24) hours’ advance notice.
(iv) Failure to offer work to existing employees before hiring new employees or temporary staff or to award work to a qualified employee. (v) Failure to maintain payroll records for the minimum period of time as provided in this chapter.
(vi) Failure to allow the Department access to payroll records. (3) A fine equal to the total amount of appropriate remedies, pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. Any and all money collected in this way that is the rightful property of an employee, such as back wages, interest, and civil penalty payments, shall be disbursed by the Department in a prompt manner. (f) City Access. Each covered employer shall permit access to work sites and relevant records for authorized City representatives for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this chapter and investigating employee complaints of noncompliance,
including production for inspection and copying of its employment records, but without allowing Social Security numbers to become a matter of public record. (g) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, any entity a member of which is aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, or any other person or entity acting on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law, may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the Employer or other person violating this Chapter and, upon prevailing, shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and shall be entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, the payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, the payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50 to each Employee or person whose rights under this Chapter were violated for each day that the violation occurred or continued, reinstatement in employment and/or injunctive relief. Provided, however, that any person or entity enforcing this Chapter on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only to equitable, injunctive or restitutionary relief to Employees, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
(i) This Section shall not be construed to limit an Employee’s right to bring legal action for a violation of any other laws concerning wages, hours, or other standards or rights nor shall exhaustion of remedies under this Chapter be a prerequisite to the assertion of any right.
(j) The remedies for violation of this chapter include but are not limited to:
1. Reinstatement, the payment of predictability pay unlawfully withheld, and the payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to each employee whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this chapter or State law.
2. Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date the wages are paid in full.
3. Reimbursement of the City’s administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorney’s fees.
4. If a repeated violation of this chapter has been finally determined in a period from July 1 to June 30 of the following year, the Department may require the employer to pay an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to the City for each employee or person whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this Code or State law.
(k) The remedies, penalties and procedures provided under this chapter are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other available remedies, penalties and procedures established by law which may be pursued to address violations of this chapter. Actions taken pursuant to this chapter shall not prejudice or adversely affect any other action, administrative or judicial, that may be brought to abate a violation or to seek compensation for damages suffered.
(l) No criminal penalties shall attach for any violation of this chapter, nor shall this chapter give rise to any cause of action for damages against the City.
13.110.130 Retaliation Prohibited.
An employer shall not discharge, reduce the compensation of, discriminate against, or take any adverse employment action against an employee, including discipline, suspension, transfer or assignment to a lesser position in terms of job classification, job security, or other condition of employment, reduction of hours or denial of additional hours, informing another employer that the person has engaged in activities protected by this chapter, or reporting or threatening to report the actual or suspected citizenship or immigration status of an employee, former employee or family member of an employee to a Federal, State or local agency, for making a complaint to the Department, participating in any of the Department’s proceedings, using any civil remedies to enforce their rights, or otherwise asserting their rights under this chapter.
Within one hundred twenty (120) days of an employer being notified of such activity, it shall be unlawful for the employer to discharge any employee who engaged in such activity unless the employer has clear and convincing evidence of just cause for such discharge.
13.110.140 Retention of Records.
Each employer shall maintain for at least three (3) years for each employee a record of their name, hours worked, pay rate, initial posted schedule and all subsequent changes to that schedule, consent to work hours where such consent is required by this chapter, and documentation of the time and method of offering additional hours of work to existing staff. Each employer shall provide each employee a copy of the records relating to such employee upon the employee’s reasonable request.
13.110.150 City Access.
Each employer shall permit access to work sites and relevant records for authorized Department representatives for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this chapter and investigating employee complaints of noncompliance, including production for inspection and copying of its employment records, but without allowing Social Security numbers to become a matter of public record.
13.110.160 No Preemption of Higher Standards.
The purpose of this chapter is to ensure minimum labor standards. This chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior employment standards (including higher wages) or the expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the City. This chapter shall not be construed to limit a discharged employee’s right to bring a common law cause of action for wrongful termination.
13.110.170 Severability.
If any part or provision of this Chapter, or the application of this Chapter to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Chapter, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Chapter are severable.
Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Companion Report: Fair Workweek Ordinance; Adding Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.110
RECOMMENDATION
Direct this item to the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity, and Community Policy Committee for the following:
Review and evaluate the proposed policy; and
Evaluate resources needed to conduct the necessary analysis of impacts and costs associated with implementing the proposed policy.
POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On September 22, 2022, the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Hahn/Taplin) to forward the Commission on Labor’s item to Council with a positive recommendation to adopt the version of the ordinance dated “7/7/22” that was presented to the Committee at the July 11, 2022 meeting. Vote: All Ayes.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The costs of implementing the proposed Fair Workweek policy are currently unknown but are expected to be significant. If implemented correctly, and with an equitable approach, this important policy is expected to positively impact many low-income workers in Berkeley. The City currently does not have a full understanding of the impacted businesses, employees, and how to implement this policy for the unique needs of the Berkeley community.
A comprehensive impact analysis of this proposed policy is required to fully determine the upfront and future costs and ongoing staffing needs associated with effectively administering and enforcing the ordinance. Impacted City departments will include Health, Housing, and Community Services, Finance, Neighborhood Services, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Office of Economic Development. Resources are also needed to conduct a comprehensive impact analysis.
22b
Fair Workweek ACTION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
The cost of ongoing implementation and administration of a Fair Workweek policy depends on many factors including, but not limited to:
The final determination and consideration for which industry sectors shall be covered;
The size of employers (based on the number of global and local employees); The total number of employers covered by the policy;
The success of proactive efforts to educate affected employers; and A clear expectation of the level of technical assistance provided by City staff to employers and employees covered under the policy.
These factors will inform the breadth of the policy’s impact on City employers (how many total employers will be covered) and are necessary to determine how much staff time will be needed to effectively setup and administer the program.
Neighboring jurisdictions that have passed similar policies, including San Francisco and Emeryville, have dedicated additional funds for outreach and education to impacted employers. For the policy to be successful, these proactive efforts are essential in that they aim to reduce the number of enforcement complaints by proactively working with affected employers to build business practices that conform to the noticing and documentation standards required by the ordinance.
Further, significant staff time will be required to accurately identify which employers would be covered by this policy. This is anticipated to be a time-intensive process due to the complexity of screening local employers against the applicable criteria used to determine employer eligibility. It is also expected that the Finance Department would need to make substantial changes to the business license application to help properly identify businesses subject to the regulations; including information about an employer’s status as a franchise, their total employee counts worldwide, and employee counts within Berkeley.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Adding a Fair Workweek policy to Berkeley’s labor standards is an important consideration for the community. This policy has been contemplated for many years by Council, the Commission on Labor, and the City’s labor standards staff. Many thoughtful hours of work have already gone into drafting the proposed ordinance. Experts on the commission took public comment multiple times and discussed at length the potential impacts to local employers, given the ongoing financial, staffing, and operational struggles some businesses have faced throughout the pandemic. With that in mind, the commission moved this policy forward in consideration of the urgent need for equitable and fair treatment of Berkeley workers, and in support of the essential service workers
Fair Workweek ACTION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
who have gotten us through the pandemic, many of whom are lower-income and persons of color.
City staff have a similar approach. If adopted, the City first needs to better understand the probable impacts to the business community, employees, and City staff. This includes understanding what is really needed in order to effectively and equitably implement an important and wide-reaching policy such as this. The current economic circumstances also warrant especially careful analysis of the impacts to local employers as they continue to face ongoing challenges related to the pandemic, including compounding supply chain and inflation issues.
Additionally, adding this policy to the current labor standards and enforcement portfolio will require additional staff resources for initial outreach and education as well as ongoing administration and enforcement. However, even prior that, in order to fully understand the staffing needs and cost associated with administering and enforcing this policy, a comprehensive impact analysis of this proposed policy is required to fully determine the upfront and future costs and ongoing staffing needs associated with effectively administering and enforcing the ordinance. This approach aims to ensure the policy is implemented in the best way for Berkeley, its businesses, and local low-income workers.
The current portfolio of local labor standards and enforcement policies in Berkeley includes: 1) The Minimum Wage Ordinance, 2) The Living Wage Ordinance, 3) The Berkeley Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, and 4) The Berkeley Family Friendly and Environment Friendly Workplace Ordinance. The work to administer these policies, including providing general information as well as conducting formal investigations and enforcement of the policies is considerable. Adding the Fair Workweek Policy to this portfolio significantly expands this body of work and should be considered alongside a cost analysis.
It should be noted that Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.110 is currently dedicated to the COVID-19 Emergency Response Ordinance. If the Fair Workweek Ordinance is to proceed to a first reading, it would need a different Chapter number in Title 13. If adopted as-is, the Fair Workweek Ordinance would supersede the existing Chapter
13.110 and replace the existing language regarding COVID-19 Response.
BACKGROUND
In 2018, the City Council referred this item to the Commission on Labor and directed them to “draft an Ordinance to establish regulations governing the scheduling and hiring practices of qualifying businesses in Berkeley…” The referral included a copy of the Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance as a template for consideration.
The Commission appointed a subcommittee to work on the draft ordinance and held several public meetings which were attended by dozens of participants from the public, representing both workers and employers with interest in the policy. The Subcommittee
Fair Workweek ACTION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
ultimately presented a draft policy that took elements from both the City of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance and the Fair Workweek Ordinance from the City of Chicago that covered more business industries than the Emeryville Ordinance does.
At the November 17, 2021 Commission on Labor Meeting, The Commission approved a motion to recommend the draft policy to the City Council with the motion and vote below:
Recommend approval of draft Fair Workweek Ordinance to the Berkeley City Council.
(M/S/C: Scantlebury/Katz. Yes: Botello, Harlow, Osborne, Jones. Noes: Schriner, Berne. Abstentions: None. Absent: Medak).
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Council direct the draft Fair Workweek Ordinance to the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity, and Community Policy Committee to evaluate the Commission’s recommendations and also evaluate the availability of existing resources to conduct a more thorough analysis of the policy’s impacts.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Council could adopt the ordinance now as written, but without an evaluation of the resources needed to enforce the ordinance and commitment of those resources, the ordinance is unlikely to achieve the desired impact. Outreach, education and consistent responses will be key to achieving the goal of a fair workweek for Berkeley workers.
CONTACT PERSON
Margot Ernst, Manager of Housing and Community Services, HHCS, (510) 981-7410
ACTION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
Sophie Hahn
District 5 Councilmember
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7150 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author), Councilmember Susan Wengraf (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Reconsideration of Hopkins Corridor Plan in Light of Newly Available Material Information
RECOMMENDATION
1. Proceed with Paving of Hopkins Street from Sutter Street to San Pablo Avenue as currently scheduled for 2023.1
2. Proceed with implementation of the approved facilities from Sutter to McGee Avenue 2 (including the four-way stop sign at McGee) in accordance with the Supplemental 3 recommendations approved by the City Council on May 10, 2022, including but not limited to the requirement that Community Building/Placemaking elements be developed and implemented simultaneously with Complete Streets/Traffic elements, to the greatest extent feasible.
3. Apply up to the full $300,000 allocated between the FY 23 and FY 24 budgets towards the Community Building/Placemaking elements on the nine-block segment of Hopkins from Sutter to McGee to support their full and simultaneous implementation, as designed by a Landscape Architect.
4. Place on hold work towards implementing the changes for the three blocks of Hopkins from McGee to Gilman Street approved on May 10, 2022 pending further study of the alternatives, consideration of the specifications listed below under Alternatives to be Considered and Independent Study Specifications and additional City Council action, after the required study and community input, to either affirm the Council’s actions of May 10, 2022 or to implement a substitute or modified program. 1 City of Berkeley Paving Plan: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/Street-Repair-Plan.pdf 2 Should staff prefer to transition from the two-way cycle track East of McGee, they may do so, but should implement approved pedestrian safety measures all the way to McGee, including the four-way stop sign.
23
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements October 11, 2022
5. Refer $400,000 to the FY 2024 budget process to fund a comprehensive, independent study of the McGee to Gilman portion of Hopkins Street, as specified below under Alternatives to be Considered and Independent Study Specifications.
BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as “May 10”) after several years of public process and deliberations, with many different points of view, constructive ideas, and important concerns raised by the community, the City Council approved a conceptual plan for the Hopkins Corridor from Sutter Street to Gilman Avenue, and referred to the City Manager to consider options to extend pedestrian and bike improvements to the Gilman to San Pablo segment.3 In addition to strong interest in safer bike routes and improved pedestrian access, central to concerns raised by the community and merchants was the question of access by cars and transit to the commercial area at Hopkins/Monterey/California streets. This small commercial area is an iconic destination for many people in Berkeley and throughout the region. They come for access to some of the freshest, most varied, and low cost produce available at the Monterey Market, and frequent the many other specialty shops. including Monterey Fish Market, the Hopkins Street Bakery, Magnani Poultry, Northbrae Bottle Shop, Raxakoul Coffee and Cheese, Espresso Roma Cafe, Gioia Pizzeria, Berkeley Horticultural Nursery, Elixir Salon, Hopkins Launderette, and the newly opened Asuka Sushi & Bar, among others.
Many of these longtime small and locally owned businesses are minority or woman owned.4 All have worked hard to keep their businesses afloat and continue serving the community during the difficult pandemic years. All depend on both a local and regional clientele. Concern for the needs of these local businesses was also important to the City Council, as was articulated clearly in the original January 23, 2018 referral, which included the following as key considerations (among others) for the study:
● The busy neighborhood commercial area centered around the intersection of Hopkins Street and Monterey Ave., which attracts significant car, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on a daily basis, constant ingress and egress from parking lots and spaces, and associated delivery and other trucks;
● The area, in particular the commercial district at Hopkins and Monterey, serving as an important community gathering space; and
● Treasured local businesses along Hopkins that draw a neighborhood and regional clientele and benefit from pedestrian activity and lively café-seating and street-life.
The 2018 referral further specified for the commercial area:
3 May 10, 2022 Berkeley City Council Meeting Minutes
4 As defined by the US Small Business Administration.
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements October 11, 2022
● Explore ways to create additional community gathering spaces and increase greenery and other placemaking amenities that harmonize with existing features in the Corridor, with full access for all ages and abilities; [and]
● Ensure design and style of improvements add to the charm and character of this highly valued and historic neighborhood commercial district.5
In public forums as well as in a series of internal meetings held over the course of more than three years with staff from Public Works and the City Manager’s office, the district representative asked repeatedly about customer, delivery truck, and other vehicle access to the commercial area, in addition to a focus on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access.
The following summarized parking-loss responses were shared at various times during the course of the internal and public process:
● There are no marked spaces on most parts of Hopkins so useful parking loss counts can’t be done.
● Because there is no selected or recommended plan, there is no way to count parking loss - every small change would mean another count would have to be done. ● Actual counts, if any, can only be done after the conceptual plan has been approved. ● Total parking loss for the entire study area from Sutter to Gilman is estimated to be around 30-35 spaces.
● Parking loss around the shopping area can be mitigated with parking management of remaining spaces.
Members of the public and City Council relied on these representations. These assertions were repeated in community meetings and forums and in emails with constituents. Importantly, any conclusion that parking impacts in the shopping district could be successfully mitigated with parking management strategies is directly tied to an understanding of the quantity and impact of parking spaces lost, extrapolated from estimates and representations.
Subsequent to action taken by the City Council on May 10 to approve a conceptual plan for the study area, new information regarding loss of parking has come to light and been confirmed by City staff.6 According to a chart that was prepared as early as Mid-April but not shared with the public, the district representative, or the City Council prior to May 10, the actual number of spaces estimated to be lost across the study area from Sutter to Gilman is not 30 to 35 but 60 - almost double estimates provided. Of these, 39 of the spaces projected to be lost are concentrated in just the three-block area below McGee Avenue - more than estimated previously for the entire Corridor.7
5 January 23, 2018 Hopkins Street Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study referral. 6 See Attachment A
7 See Attachment A
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements October 11, 2022
Late discovery of this materially different parking data raises broader questions about other information that was provided to the public and the City Council, information critical to determining tradeoffs. While numerous public meetings were held by staff and the consultants with accompanying presentations, no written study was presented quantifying impacts of different options on stakeholders including streets/intersections/neighbors on and in proximity to the Corridor; business; pre-school, middle-school, and high-school bound youths; individuals with limited mobility; recreational facility users; transit riders; cyclists; and people traveling to and through the Corridor, in particular for the sensitive commercial area.
Members of the public and the City Council were left to rely on verbal representations, introducing many opportunities for misunderstandings and requiring a high level of trust that has been brought into question with the discovery of critically important information not shared with the public or Council.
Statements by several Councilmembers and the Mayor at the May 10 meeting evidence their direct and indirect reliance on estimates of parking loss around the shopping area and the potential to mitigate impacts with parking management. At one point during the May 10 meeting, a Councilmember asked explicitly about the number of parking spaces to be lost and was told by staff “We can do a count. I don’t have the exact number.” At the time this statement was made a count already existed with reliable estimates: actual expected parking loss was 200% of previous estimates. As parking was one of the key tradeoffs being considered by the Council, elements of the decision that were made in reliance on materially incorrect information must be reexamined.
This item asks that elements of the City Council’s decision that rested on incomplete information be placed on hold, and a full and independent study be undertaken to review and evaluate a variety of options for commercial vitality, pedestrian safety, vehicle access, and safe bike facilities on Hopkins below McGee.
Decisions for segments of Hopkins where actual information is not materially different from the information Council relied on when the May 10 decision was made are not submitted for reconsideration. While the actual number of spaces projected to be lost on portions of Hopkins above McGee is a bit higher (by three to six spaces) than previously implied,8 this segment spans eight to nine blocks of mostly residential and some institutional uses, while the McGee to Gilman segment spans just three-and-a-half blocks, two with a concentration of commercial uses. This is not a difference of the same magnitude or impact. 8 Loss of 15-18 spaces was reasonably inferred from previously available information, while current estimates are 21 spaces will be lost.
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements October 11, 2022
This item also directs the City Manager to proceed with the scheduled repaving of Hopkins Street from Sutter to San Pablo during the summer of 2023. Residents and cyclists have waited long enough for these simple improvements, which have been held back year after year on the premise that a broader plan needed to be in place. We can pave all of Hopkins, implement the approved changes to upper segments, add basic safety elements to lower segments this year, and consider other changes when more complete information is made available.
Implementing the approved direction for the Sutter to McGee segment likely will not preclude implementation of any of the options for lower segments of Hopkins being submitted for a more complete evaluation. If Council were to adopt a version of the Ada Bypass option, the McGee- to-Sutter two-way cycle track would be able to feed in directly. Were Council to adopt a Rose/Hopkins combined option, the two-way cycle track on the South side of Hopkins could become a one-way track with bikes traveling East only. Should Council decide to reaffirm a version of the May 10 decision, the two-way track would feed into a continuation. Additional options which may be brought forward should be able to transition from, or integrate, changes to the Sutter-to-McGee portion.
If Staff believes implementation of the Sutter-to-McGee portion alone is infeasible or problematic, pedestrian, signaling, and other standard improvements should be implemented along with the scheduled repaving, existing bike lanes and/or sharrows re-painted, and the current configuration of the Hopkins/Alameda intersection restored to more traditional bulb-outs and pavement markings.
Assuming the approved changes to the upper segments of Hopkins are implemented at the same time as paving, the requirement that high quality permanent features, including but not limited to landscaping, trees, and street furniture, be implemented simultaneously with any new bike facilities remains in place. The City Council already allocated $300,000 for these elements, to be designed by a Landscape Architect, and these funds are available to be applied to the upper portions. When further action is taken on plans for Hopkins west of McGee, additional funds likely will be required to cover costs of landscaping and community-supporting elements.
ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED & INDEPENDENT STUDY SPECIFICATIONS A major impetus for the Hopkins Corridor study and improvements is to significantly improve pedestrian and bike safety, but business and community-supporting elements were always intended to have equal and simultaneous consideration.9 Required consultation with businesses and institutions on the Corridor was only undertaken after the development and first public presentation of initial bike-lane configuration options - and pressure from the district representative to follow the direction of the original referral, which included a list of the many stakeholders whose input and concerns needed to be solicited and addressed. 9 Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study.
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements October 11, 2022
To ensure a full, complete, and independent study of alternatives for Hopkins from McGee to Gilman, a Landscape Architecture and/or Urban Design firm with in-house or subcontracted expertise in traffic engineering, preservation, and commercial district vitality shall be engaged to study and evaluate the alternatives listed below, and to design at least two proposed options.
Due to the centrality of the commercial district to this portion of Hopkins, it is suggested that the Study be managed/overseen by Economic Development or other City Manager department staff, with support from Public Works, and a new outside firm selected to carry out the Independent Study, with the appropriate expertise.
Recommended options for the complex McGee to Gilman segment must first and foremost be focused on support for local businesses and community-building spaces that invite and amplify “social infrastructure,”10 and must respond to the needs of residents as well as pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles traveling to or through the Corridor. As stated in the original referral and demonstrated throughout the process to date, the Hopkins/Monterey/California shopping area is an important “third space” for our community, and has to be considered in this light. Designing the means to access the sensitive commercial and social area should enhance and not diminish the area itself.
Proposals should present a fully landscaped and harmonious boulevard with a further enlivened commercial node that compliments and supports the current businesses, the Corridor’s remarkable alléy of mature trees, and the existing scale and features of the neighborhood.
Landscaping and/or permeable surfaces should be used in place of concrete expanses to the greatest extent possible and plastic elements, if any, used only temporarily while permanent elements are installed. The original referral and the approved May 10 supplemental includes additional information about the quality of desired outcomes that remain applicable.
Alternatives to be Considered
In addition to providing community and commerce-supporting designs, the following bike-lane options and their impacts on a wide variety of variables must be evaluated for the McGee to Gilman segment.
1. Baseline - current conditions with addition of standard pedestrian and bike safety upgrades.
2. May 10 Option - two-way cycle track on the south side of Hopkins. 10 Klinenberg, Eric. Places for the People. New York, Broadway Books, 2018. “Epidemiologists have firmly established the relationship between social connections, health, and longevity.” (P.5); “Social infrastructure is . . . the physical conditions that determine whether social capital develops. . . . People forge bonds in places that have healthy social infrastructures - not because they set out to build community, but because when people engage in sustained, recurrent interaction, particularly while doing things they enjoy, relationships inevitably grow.” (P.5); “the built environment . . . influences the breadth and depth of our associations.” (P.16); “What counts as social infrastructure? . . . sidewalks, courtyards, community gardens, and other green spaces that invite people into the public realm.” (P.16); “Commercial establishments can also be important parts of social infrastructure, particularly when they operate as . . . ‘third spaces,’ places . . . where people are welcome to congregate and linger regardless of what they’ve purchased.” (P.16)
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements October 11, 2022
3. Ada Bypass - bikes traveling in both (or potentially one) directions routed behind the shopping district via McGee, Ada, and Ordoway (or similar), connecting with both Hopkins and Gilman below the Hopkins/Gilman intersection.
4. Hopkins/Rose Combo - protected bike lanes on the south side of Hopkins for east- bound bikes, with west-bound bikes traveling in a protected bike lane on the north side of Rose St.
5. One-Way Uphill - a one-way uphill protected bike lane on Hopkins with downhill bikes in sharrows.
6. Other Options - hybrid or new recommendations that may emerge over the course of gathering public input and reviewing these alternatives.
Independent Study Specifications
The study requested likely does not fit into a standard study format. Study leads are requested to carefully review the original study referral, the March 10, 2022 approved Supplemental, and this referral. These all make clear that while studying configurations to enhance safety for cyclists is necessary and desired, bike lanes are not the only goal. The goal is to enhance the commercial district, support and expand social infrastructure, and provide a balanced suite of solutions for safe access to and passage through the Corridor, taking into account all mobility needs and transit modes - including, very importantly, safe bike facilities. Hopkins is an evacuation route as well, so emergency evacuation capacity is an important element. All of this, and more, is referenced clearly in the original referral.
Because safe bike facilities likely require some redistribution of street and curb space on Hopkins and/or on nearby streets, understanding the options available and quantifying and assessing their relative impacts to a wide variety of stakeholders is a necessary precondition to complete the study’s broader vision and goals.
In addition to studying ways to enhance commerce, community, landscaping and enjoyment of this portion of the Corridor, the study should include a formal Curb Management study11 and study of the bike lane configurations proposed above. Data to inform the study should be collected via surveys, counts, measurements, and all other objective means possible and be included in the written report along with the two or more recommended proposals. Options that were studied but are not being recommended should be addressed so the public and City Council can understand why those options were deemed less desirable or feasible.
The curb management elements of the study should assess, among other things, parking demand for customers, deliveries, and employees as well as residential parking, transit, passenger loading, blue zone, and other needs. If a written survey of businesses has not yet been completed, a Loading Study should be undertaken similar to SFMTA’s 13th Street survey.12
11 See SFMTA Curb Management Strategy for an example of what a curb management study might include. 12 https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2021/11/loading_survey_20211101.pdf
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements October 11, 2022
Recommendations should include sketches, drawings, schematics, elevations, and other representations so the public has a meaningful opportunity to understand and visualize what the finished improvements will provide from a user’s perspective, not just technical or engineering drawings. They should also include a full suite of anticipated pedestrian safety improvements; facilities for AC Transit; blue, white, green, loading, and other special parking; as well as opportunities for creation or enhancement of landscaping and social infrastructure, and all other relevant elements as described in the original referral and in the approved May 10 Supplemental.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION:
Our Council can make difficult decisions; we do it all the time. And with the breadth and strength of opinions expressed by an engaged public, we know that many of the decisions we make will delight some while frustrating others. The City Council and district representative strongly support safe bike facilities, as was evidenced by the remarks made and votes taken at the May 10 meeting.
Whether excited by the decisions made on May 10, 2022 or dismayed, everyone should support the concept that decisions our Council makes must be based on complete and accurate facts and information. In the case of the May 10 Hopkins Corridor decision, the City Council and public lacked full and accurate information on a material element impacting the decision, and incorrect information was being circulated - including during Council deliberations.
It is incumbent on us to hold our own decision-making processes to the highest possible standards.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Independent study will require allocation of funds, as referred by this item to the 2024 Budget Process. The City Manager should request appropriate amounts in her proposed budget should additional (or less) funding be necessary to complete the required study.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
A major impetus for the Hopkins Corridor study and improvements is to significantly improve pedestrian and bike safety and create more lively and inviting streetscapes for community gathering. Alternatives considered may have varying impacts, which can be described in the Independent Study.
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Sophie Hahn Council District 5 510-981-7150
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements October 11, 2022
Attachments:
A. Parking Count Spreadsheet
B. 2018 Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study referral C. May 10, 2022 Council Action on the Hopkins Corridor
D. Budget Referral 4/26/22: Hopkins Corridor Bike, Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements
Difference
From: To: N S Total N S Total
The Alameda Milvia 19 16 35 19 12 31 -4
Milvia Napa 21 11 32 19 7 26 -6
Napa Sutter 8 11 19 8 4 12 -7
48 38 86 46 23 69 -17
Existing Proposed
Difference
From: To: N S Total N S Total
McGee Carlotta 7 8 15 6 6 12 -3
Carlotta Colusa 6 8 14 6 9 15 1
Colusa Beverly 24 36 60 24 37 61 1
Beverly Josephine 8 10 18 7 10 17 -1
Josephine The Alameda 1 6 7 1 4 5 -2
46 68 114 44 66 110 -4
Existing Proposed
Difference
From: To: N S Total N S Total
Gilman Albina 3 6 9 0 0 0 -9
Albina Sacramento 5 6 11 0 0 0 -11
Sacramento Hopkins Ct 0 5 5 0 0 0 -5
Hopkins Ct Monterey 4 6 10 0 0 0 -10
Monterey McGee 3 7 10 0 6 6 -4
15 30 45 0 6 6 -39
Existing Proposed
SOPHIE HAHN
Berkeley City Council, District 5
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: (510) 981-7150
Email: [email protected]
CONSENT CALENDAR
January 23, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn
Subject: Budget Referral: Hopkins Street Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study
RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Budget Process the funds necessary to undertake a traffic and placemaking study of the Hopkins/Monterey/Sacramento
corridor; specifically, Sacramento Street from the
southern approach of Rose Street to Hopkins, Hopkins from Gilman Avenue to Sutter/Henry, and the Monterey Avenue approach to Hopkins from the North. The study should include all intersections and use a “complete streets” approach to identify improvements to be integrated into the paving and bicycle infrastructure work already scheduled for this area, and to identify additional projects to be undertaken over time, with an emphasis on pedestrian safety, bike and vehicle safety and flow, community-building and placemaking, parking, support for local businesses, green infrastructure and aesthetics. Include cost estimates, potential sources of funding and a proposed timeline for implementation of recommended improvements.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$200,000 to supplement existing funds for planning in the corridor, and staff time to complete the studies.
BACKGROUND
In 2017, the City of Berkeley experienced two fatalities as a result of car accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists. Both
occurred in the heavily trafficked Hopkins /Sacramento/Monterey corridor (the “Hopkins Street Corridor”), one at the intersection of Hopkins and Monterey involving a pedestrian1, and the other on Sacramento Avenue near Hopkins, involving a cyclist2.
These tragedies are just two of the most recent and deadly incidents in this busy area, and highlight the need for a comprehensive traffic study of the Hopkins Street Corridor. Specifically, the area of study should include Sacramento Street from the southern approach of Rose Street to Hopkins Street, Hopkins from Gilman Street to Sutter Street, and the Monterey Avenue approach to Hopkins from the North, plus all major and minor intersections.
In addition to the recent deaths in this area, there are numerous impactful conditions in the Hopkins/Monterey corridor that support
the need for comprehensive study of traffic conditions
1 http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/05/01/longtime-activist-69-dies-north-berkeley-crash-police-say- driver-failed-yield/
2 http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/02/08/cyclist-dies-north-berkeley-crash/
and placemaking including, but not limited to:
● The busy neighborhood commercial area centered around the intersection of Hopkins Street and Monterey Ave,
which attracts significant car, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on a daily basis, constant ingress and egress from parking lots and spaces, and associated delivery and other trucks;
● Numerous educational and recreational
facilities in the area that involve drop-off and
pick-up of youth, and/or youth pedestrians and bike riders, including at least four preschools (Mustard Seed at 1640 Hopkins St, Hopkins Pre-school at 1810 Hopkins, Sprouts at 1910 Hopkins, and Gay Austin School at 1611 Hopkins), King Middle School, King’s playing fields and the adjacent park, pool, and tennis courts, St. Mary’s High School and the North Branch Library;
● Two active churches;
● A high concentration of families and Senior Citizens living in the area, regularly crossing streets to access shops,
recreational and ecumenical facilities and the North Branch public library;
● Hopkins and Monterey serving as major East/West access corridors with significant vehicular traffic to and from freeways and cross-town destinations (via Sacramento, San Pablo, The Alameda/MLK and Sutter/Henry/Shattuck);
● Hopkins and Sacramento serving
as designated Emergency Access and Evacuation
Routes3;
● California Street as a bicycle boulevard, and both Hopkins and Monterey scheduled for new bike infrastructure as part of the 2017 Berkeley Bicycle Plan; ● Several AC Transit bus lines travelling through the corridor; ● One of only two gas stations in North Berkeley located at Hopkins and MLK/Alameda, with vehicles regularly
stacked in the street and intersection awaiting ingress; ● The area, in particular the commercial district at Hopkins and Monterey, serving as an important community gathering space;
and
● Treasured local businesses along Hopkins that draw a neighborhood and regional clientele and benefit from pedestrian activity and lively café-seating and street-life.
In light of all of these conditions, a comprehensive planning process is warranted - if not overdue - to improve
the safety and enjoyment of the corridor for all citizens and all uses.
The study should include robust community outreach and input, and address the following considerations, as well as
others deemed advisable by staff or the public:
Complete Streets/Traffic:
● Pedestrian safety at all intersections along the corridor, in particular at Monterey and Hopkins, the site of a fatality in April of 2017;
● Bicycle lanes, parking and infrastructure, including elements anticipated as part of the 2017 Berkeley Bicycle
Plan;
3 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedImages/Fire/Level_3_- _General/Wildfire%20Evacuation%20Map%202011.JPG?n=8697
● Traffic flow into and out of the corridor, with special attention to the Gilman/Hopkins, Sacramento/Hopkins, Hopkins/Monterey and Hopkins/MLK/Alameda intersections;
● Ingress and egress from the Monterey Market and the Hopkins/MLK/Alameda gas station;
● Parking, pick-up and drop-off
for schools, the public library, churches and recreational facilities, including consideration of traffic management at peak times; ● AC Transit and school busses, both public and private; ● Green Infrastructure
● Addition of signalized intersections and/or adjustment of timing, turning and other features of signalized intersections; and
● Parking for employees and customers and loading for commercial vehicles.
Community Building/Placemaking
● Study to include the entire neighborhood commercial area of Hopkins Street from McGee Avenue to
Hopkins Court;
● Exploration of means to create additional spaces for community gathering and to increase greenery and other placemaking amenities that harmonize with existing features in the corridor, with full access for all ages and abilities; ● Ensure design and style of improvements add to the charm and character of this highly valued and historic neighborhood
commercial district; and
● Any other considerations that may further enhance placemaking and the safe and vibrant use of public
spaces, including improvements to hardscape and greenery and enhancement of community-building and placemaking.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
This recommendation supports Berkeley’s environmental sustainability and resilience goals by encouraging biking and walking, enhancing a neighborhood shopping district with locally owned businesses that source responsibly and locally, incorporating green infrastructure, and strengthening community.
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Sophie Hahn, Council District 5, (510) 981-7150
Councilmember Sophie Hahn
City of Berkeley, District 5
1 SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 2
Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
Item Number: 33
Item Description: Hopkins
Submitted by: Councilmember Hahn, Mayor Arreguin
Artistic Rendering Upper Hopkins courtesy of Alfred Twu
2 This submittal creates an “omnibus” motion combining Staff’s proposal, Councilmember Kesarwani’s Supplemental 1 proposal, and additional changes reflective of community input to:
● Adopt the Staff Recommendation with amendments to the conceptual design
● Adopt CM Kesarwani’s Supplemental 1 proposal as a referral
● Ensure Community Building/Placemaking elements are developed and implemented simultaneous with Complete Streets/Traffic elements 1 ● Restate elements already under consideration and refer additional community suggestions for the Engineering Phase
● Consider funding sources
The Resolution shall be amended to reflect adopted recommendations.
* “TC” indicates suggestions from the Transportation Commission
1 Community Building/Placemaking and Complete Streets/Traffic elements are listed in the Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study
3 Adopt the Staff Recommendation with Amendments to the Conceptual Design:
● Replace the proposed design for Segment 1: Sutter to the Alameda (Pages 8, 9, and 10 of
20) with extension of two-way parking-protected bike lanes (cycletracks) along the entire south side of Hopkins and increase the width of parking buffers to provide approximately 10 foot islands composed of sidewalks with wheelchair access adjacent to vehicle parking and planting strips, as sketched below (TC):
● Redesign the “Alameda Intersection” (Page 11 of 20) to implement appropriate elements for the extended two-way protected bike path/cycletrack in lieu of the existing and proposed four-sided bike slip lane design and provide pedestrian safety elements using traditional bulbouts, curb extensions and pedestrian islands, with landscaping and/or green infrastructure and placemaking elements respectful of historic features of the intersection and North Branch Library, based on the concept below (TC):
4 ● End the approved Design Concept at Sacramento Street and join the segment from Sacramento to Gilman Streets to the Kesarwani referral to allow for integrated consideration of areas of Hopkins within District 1.
Adopt CM Kesarwani’s proposal as a referral
● Refer to the City Manager consideration of extending bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements west of Sacramento to San Pablo Avenue, including two community engagement meetings to discuss benefits and impacts. (TC) Direct the City Manager to develop and implement Community Building/Placemaking elements simultaneous with Complete Streets/Traffic elements2
● Engage the project Landscape Architecture firm to design the Community Building/Placemaking elements as specified in the original study referral and as stated in the 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th bullet points of staff’s restated Project Goals; and to specify high quality treatments and materials for crosswalks, sidewalks, islands, bulb-outs, and other elements of Complete Streets/Traffic design, to achieve a unified, landscaped, aesthetically pleasing, business- and community-supporting project throughout. ● To the greatest extent possible build/install Community Building/Placemaking elements simultaneously with implementation of Complete Streets/Traffic elements through use of concrete curbs and islands, metal bollards, landscaping, and other quality durable, well- designed elements, as specified by the Landscape Architect. Plastic bollards and other plastic elements, if any, shall be used only on a temporary basis to achieve safety while project is in progress.
Restate elements already under consideration and refer additional community suggestions for the Engineering Phase
The following elements important to the community are already under consideration for the Engineering Phase or are suggestions referred for consideration. ● Establish Residential Preferred Parking (RPP): Designate areas both on and/or surrounding Hopkins Street to implement RPP as needed to manage existing parking overflow and ensure preferential parking access for residents, and consider providing permits at no cost to residents for the first year of implementation. Include consideration of Hopkins Court, Albina Street, and other side-streets and work with neighbors to establish appropriate boundaries and time limitations.
● Widen Bike Lanes to a minimum of 4.5 or 5 feet each (for a total of 9-10 feet) wherever possible by narrowing traffic lanes, in consultation with the Fire Department to ensure access for public safety vehicles, without eliminating additional parking.
2 Community Building/Placemaking and Complete Streets/Traffic elements are listed in the Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study
5 ● At the Hopkins/Monterey/California intersection and on the California to McGee block-face directly in front of shops, direct the City Manager to:
○ Improve Pedestrian Safety: Consider raising the entire intersection (or at least one Hopkins crosswalk) to pedestrian level and/or the possibility of including flashing pedestrian crossing indicator lights, and/or providing a stamped concrete or other distinctive treatment to the entire intersection/raised crosswalks, to emphasize primacy of pedestrians, and to enhance aesthetics (TC)
○ Add Dedicated Handicapped Parking and Truck Delivery Zones near shops.
○ Increase Parking Availability: Implement enforced time-restricted parking, with or without meters, around the perimeter of the “Berkeley Horticulture” block, including along the Hopkins Street commercial block-face, and consider implementing in other adjacent commercial areas, to encourage turnover of spaces for customers.
■ Ensure a variety of time limits to accommodate quick deliveries and errands as well as longer shopping and services, including hair salon customers.
■ Provide designated handicapped and delivery spaces to support full access for the community and manage the commercial deliveries. ■ Explore the potential to add parking west of the Monterey/Hopkins intersection by cutting into parking-strip areas.
○ Address Employee Transit and Parking Needs: Work with business to support transit passes and other alternative modes of commuting to work and consider employee parking needs in designing RPP and other parking treatments.
○ Add Community Space including curb extensions/bulbouts and other features to the greatest extent possible to provide additional landscaping, seating and community gathering spaces.
○ Improve the Retail and Community Environment: Replace concrete sidewalks and potentially provide raised bike lanes along the shop block-face and provide a concentration of benches, café tables, trash receptacles, landscaping, and similar elements, with bike parking east of the Liquor store/driveway only, to maximize the shopping, community-building, and pedestrian experience in front of shops.
○ Increase Bike Parking and Amenities: Provide ample bike parking in a variety of locations (except as noted above), with a concentration in parking strips and other areas around or, with permission, in the Monterey Market parking lot, and
6 also consider a Bike Parking station with benches, a Bicycle Fix It station, and other amenities for bicyclists near the California Street back entrance to Berkeley Horticulture, and/or in another feasible nearby location.
● Create Dedicated Preschool and Religious Institution Drop-Off and Handicapped Facilities: Throughout the corridor, provide dedicated safe drop-off areas for preschools, churches, and other institutions if needed, and handicapped spaces serving all facilities.
● Add Crosswalks and Strengthen Pedestrian Safety Elements Throughout: Near the King Track entrance revisit possibility of a raised crosswalk mid-block as close as feasible to the entrance to enhance safety for youth and other pedestrians accessing recreation facilities, and review all intersections for potential pedestrian enhancements, including where crosswalks are currently proposed for only selected crossing including the possibility of flashing pedestrian crossing lights. (TC)
● Enhance Areas Adjacent to King Park, Tennis Courts and Track: Provide landscaping and/or benches and other community enhancements at the track entrance areas and adjacent to the pool access road and tennis courts.
●
Add Landscaping at Hopkins/Josephine Intersection: provide landscaping harmonious with the existing triangle island to the west of the North Branch Library in new median, curb extension, and island elements (4 areas currently shown) and consider possible benches and/or other community enhancements.
● Improve Ingress and Egress to Major Uses: Continue consultation with the Gas Station at the Alameda Intersection to improve flow and safety of vehicles and manage fuel deliveries as well as potential conflicts with bikes and pedestrians. Continue consultation with the Monterey Market to improve flow and capacity of parking lot.
● Regulate Speeds and Safety and Manage Potential Pedestrian Conflicts within Bike Lanes: Consider a variety of means to ensure speeds are limited within dedicated bike lanes and stop signs and other signals are respected, including but not limited to posting or painting signage and raising crosswalks to slow bikes and emphasize primacy of pedestrians.
Refer Funding Considerations:
The recommendation as proposed by staff has no fiscal impacts. Modifications introduce both savings and potential costs. To the extent amendments to the staff recommendation introduce new fiscal impacts, identify a full suite of existing and potential funding sources for implementation of the entire project, including Community Building/Placemaking and other elements to be designed/specified by the Landscape Architect. In addition, explore means to maintain landscaping, placemaking, and other elements over time. Refer to appropriate Budget processes consideration of additional funding as needed, with Vision 2050 monies as a potential source if approved by voters.
7 Additional Images - for visual reference:
Top view: artistic rendering by Brandon James Yung and Angela Clearwater.
Cross section: artistic rendering by Brandon James Yung and Angela Clearwater.
8 This is a two-way bike path/cycletrack along one side of a street with planted strips on either side. This image lacks parking and driveways but provides a sense of how the two-way cycletrack can look/feel on the Sutter to Alameda segment.
This is an example of a landscaped strip with a loading sidewalk for parked vehicles, punctuated by walkways, and is evocative of how the landscaping and parking sidewalk beyond the two- way bike path/cycletrack can look/feel on the Sutter-to-Alameda segment.
9 Image of an intersection where a two-way bike path/cycletrack crosses a street with bike lanes on either side of the street, like the Alameda Intersection. The “box” where the bike is waiting in the intersection to make a turn would be much deeper; protected by a 10 foot wide buffer zone:
Image demonstrating the significant pedestrian (and aesthetic) benefits of a wide landscaped island/buffer between a bike lane and parked vehicles. In the case of Hopkins from Alameda to Sutter, the safe area for the pedestrian would be a full ten feet wide with the crossing shortened from 60 feet to 48 feet or less, depending on bulbouts on the opposite side of the street.
10 Rendering Upper Hopkins courtesy of Alfred Twu demonstrating green buffer zone concept. Driveways would punctuate the island for access.
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
(Continued from April 26, 2022)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the conceptual design for the Hopkins Corridor Project on Hopkins Street between Sutter Street and Gilman Street, and directing the City Manager to proceed with the detailed engineering design of the project.
SUMMARY
The Hopkins Corridor design concept addresses pedestrian and bicyclist safety on Hopkins Street between Sutter and Gilman Streets. Features include a physically protected bikeway, a segment of Class II bicycle lane, bus boarding islands, and intersection safety treatments such as corner sidewalk extensions, a raised crosswalk, and high-visibility pavement markings. Another key design feature is increased public space through the provision of sidewalk bulbouts at the Hopkins/ California Street/ Monterey Avenue intersection. The proposed design concept was developed through a robust public and stakeholder engagement process that included four rounds of public meetings over a period of one and a half years.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation has no fiscal impacts.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The proposed design concept was developed through the Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study which was initiated as the result of a budget referral by Councilmember Sophie Hahn, dated January 23, 2018. The budget referral allocated funding for a traffic and placemaking study including Hopkins Street from Sutter Street to Gilman Street. It called for the study to use “a ’complete streets’ approach to identify improvements to be integrated into the paving and bicycle infrastructure work already scheduled for this area…with an emphasis on pedestrian safety, bike and vehicle safety and flow.” Complete Streets are streets that are designed and operated to accommodate the needs of all road users. Preceding this referral, the Berkeley Bicycle Plan, adopted by City Council in 2017, calls for evaluation of two-way cycle tracks (protected bike lanes) on Hopkins Street as low-stress biking facilities. More recently,
33
Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022
Hopkins Street was identified as a high-injury street for severe and fatal traffic crashes in the Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan adopted by City Council in 2020.
Project Goals
The goals developed through and for the Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study are as follows:
Improving the safety of walking along and crossing Hopkins Street, Improving bicycle and vehicular transportation safety and flow along and crossing Hopkins Street,
Transforming Hopkins Street between Sacramento Street and McGee Avenue into a community gathering place,
Managing parking to meet the needs of residents and local businesses, Supporting local businesses by creating a streetscape that attracts customers, Installing green infrastructure to protect the Bay while also providing visual enjoyment, and
Improving aesthetics all along Hopkins Street, employing a design palette consistent with its historic character.
Recommended Design Concept
An iterative design process was implemented due to extensive input from community members and institutions along the corridor. The resulting near-term design recommendations are compromises intended to meet the project’s goals while also minimizing trade-offs and accommodating needs such as on-street parking, curbside access, and bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Broadly, the project would allow for the implementation of the following features. Dedicated bicycle facilities along the corridor, ranging from a two-way protected bikeway to Class II bicycle lanes
Bus boarding islands to facilitate public transportation along the corridor Intersection treatments to improve pedestrian safety and comfort, such as sidewalk extensions (bulbouts), center median islands, pavement markings, and a raised crosswalk. Sidewalk extensions provide additional public space and opportunities for landscaping.
Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022
Sutter Street to The Alameda
The south side of the street would feature a parking-protected bicycle lane with a striped buffer zone between the bicycle lane and parked vehicles. On the north side, a Class II bicycle lane (between on-street parking and the traffic lane) would be installed with a striped buffer on each side – one next to parked vehicles and the other separating cyclists from moving vehicles. On-street parking would be retained on both sides of the street.
Modifications at the intersection with The Alameda would be made to address community input, including adjustments to north- and southbound vehicle alignment and the provision of more clearly defined aprons around the existing raised islands in the intersection, which would have beveled curbs in order to be more forgiving of driver error. Proposed modifications would be designed to aesthetically complement the surrounding area. The intersection islands would have rose coloring and landscaping that harmonize with the existing rose colored sidewalk and vegetation in front of the North Branch Library.
The Alameda to McGee Avenue
A two-way protected bikeway would be constructed on the south side of the street. A buffer zone would provide separation from parked vehicles as well as loading space.
Most on-street parking would be retained on both sides of the street.
At the Hopkins Street intersection with Josephine Street, two sidewalk corner bulbouts are proposed for the southern leg of the intersection to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians. The bulbouts would realign Josephine to intersect with Hopkins at an angle closer to 90 degrees, reducing vehicle turning speeds. A new raised crosswalk would be placed across Hopkins Street, perpendicular to the roadway, to meet the new bulbout on the southwest corner of the intersection, increasing the visibility of pedestrians while shortening the crossing distance and reducing vehicular speeds.
McGee Avenue to Gilman Street
The bi-directional protected bikeway would continue from McGee Avenue to Gilman Street. From McGee to Monterey Avenue, the bikeway would be protected by parked vehicles separating it from the vehicle travel lanes. All on-street parking with the exception of one stall would be retained along the south side of the street in this commercial block. Between Monterey Avenue and Gilman Street, the bi-directional bikeway along the south side of the street would be protected from the travel lanes with a raised concrete median. All parking would be removed on both sides of the street on these blocks in order to provide enough space for the protected bike lanes.
The project would result in safety improvements at the Hopkins Street / Monterey Avenue / California Street Intersection. A bulbout into California Street on the southwest corner would shorten the pedestrian crossing distance while expanding the sidewalk space at this currently very constrained corner. The crosswalk on the north side of the intersection across Monterey Avenue, which was the location of a pedestrian fatality, will be raised to slow vehicle speeds to and from this street onto Hopkins. Further, a
Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022
raised median would be constructed on the northeast corner to narrow this wide crossing and reduce pedestrian exposure to traffic.
The proposed modifications to the roadway would necessitate changes to the Hopkins Street / Sacramento Street intersection. Specifically, the space for the protected bike lanes would be provided by converting the existing westbound informal left turn / through lane configuration into a single lane that accommodates both through- movements and left turns. These movements would be made more efficient than existing conditions by having a dedicated signal phase for both movements, freeing up time in the signal cycle for a dedicated pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase on the south side of the intersection.
BACKGROUND
Public Engagement
A total of four sets of virtual workshops were held to get public feedback throughout the project. Each of the four workshops included over 100 attendees. The first workshop was held on October 22, 2020. The purpose of this workshop was to introduce the project as well as the concept of “complete streets” and to present an overview of existing conditions along the corridor. The workshop also included small group discussions where participants provided feedback on the draft project goals and completed a prioritization exercise for improvements that may be considered along the corridor.
Workshop #2, held on March 20, 2021, shared initial proposed corridor-wide design improvements; reviewed options for placemaking opportunities; and solicited feedback from the public on proposed measures through facilitated break-out room exercises.
About 800 comments were received during the public comment period following this meeting.
Workshop #3 was held on October 28, 2021. During this workshop, options for placemaking were reviewed and specific near- and long-term complete street corridor design options were presented. This workshop included a facilitated discussion in virtual break-out rooms where participants could provide their feedback on both the placemaking and complete streets options. A virtual crowd-sourcing platform, called Social Pinpoint, was used to solicit specific public comment on the proposed near- and long-term design options and placemaking opportunities. The public was invited to participate in the Social Pinpoint exercise for approximately five weeks after the workshop. Over 700 individual comments were recorded from the Social Pinpoint exercise over the 5-week period.
Finally, a series of three webinars was held on March 1, 7, and 14, 2022. Each of the webinars included a presentation of the City’s recommended short-term design concepts that would be implemented as part of the 2023 paving project for each of the three segments of the corridor. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions about these designs during the webinar that were addressed by staff after the presentation.
Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022
This public engagement was supplemented by direct conversations held between staff and key stakeholders in the community, including business-owners, residents, and representatives of the numerous institutions along the corridor, such as the schools, pre-schools, churches and the library, among others. This engagement resulted in a greater understanding of the needs of these stakeholders and resulted in adjustments to the design plans to accommodate these needs.
Options Previously Considered
During the course of the study, a range of options were considered, including the following.
Retain existing on-street parking along both sides of Hopkins Street for the entire length from Sutter to Gilman. This option required that bicyclists ride in the general purpose vehicular traffic lanes between McGee and Gilman, not meeting the project goal of improving bicycle transportation safety and flow. Retain existing on-street parking along both sides of Hopkins Street from Sutter to Josephine, and on the south side of Hopkins between Josephine and McGee, but eliminate all on-street parking along both sides of Hopkins from Josephine to Gilman. This option provided space for either a protected bicycle lane or Class II bicycle lane on each side of Hopkins Street for the entire length, but impacted public access to the recreational facilities between Josephine and McGee and to the shops between McGee and California Street.
After much public engagement and analysis, a hybrid design was developed that retained nearly all of the on-street parking as far west as the California/Monterey intersection. This was accomplished by providing a two-way cycle track on one side of Hopkins Street (the south side), requiring space for only one buffer or median between the bikeway and parking lane or vehicular traffic lane.
Project Timeline
Conceptual Design, Preliminary Engineering,
Public Outreach, and Environmental Review
August 2020 to April 2022
Detailed Engineering Design April-December 2022
Advertise project & award construction
contract
December 2022
Construction Summer-Fall 2023
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Installation of protected bikeways and improved pedestrian crossings is anticipated to increase walking and biking, which is consistent with the 2009 Berkeley Climate Action Plan Policy that calls for expanding and improving Berkeley’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The 2009 Berkeley Climate Action Plan sets targets of reducing
Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022
transportation emissions 33% below year 2000 levels by 2020, and 80% below year 2000 levels by 2050. The Plan further states that transportation modes such as public transit, walking, and bicycling must become the primary means of fulfilling the City’s mobility needs in order to meet these targets.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the conceptual designs will keep the project on schedule for detailed engineering design in 2022, allowing the City to award the construction contract in time to receive responsive bids and start construction in 2023.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council could opt not to approve the conceptual designs for the project or could opt to approve the proposed design concept for only a subset of project segments.
CONTACT PERSON
Farid Javandel, Deputy Director of Public Works for Transportation (510) 981-7061 Beth Thomas, Principal Planner, Public Works (510) 981-7068 Ryan P. Murray, Associate Planner, Public Works (510) 981-7056 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Hopkins Corridor Design Concept
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
HOPKINS CORRIDOR PROJECT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
WHEREAS, the project corridor includes Hopkins Street from Sutter Street to Gilman Street; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan has documented severe and fatal crashes on Hopkins Street; gaps in the low-stress protected bikeway network on Hopkins Street result in connectivity problems that discourage bicycling for transportation; and the Berkeley Bicycle Plan has recommended evaluating cycle tracks for providing a low-stress bikeway on Hopkins Street; and WHEREAS, to address these needs, the project delivers on the City’s Vision Zero, Complete Streets, and Climate Action Plan policies; and WHEREAS, with the support of an engineering and design consultant team, City staff have identified conceptual design options for the Project corridor; sought public input on and analyzed those conceptual design options; and have selected a recommended conceptual design for consideration by the Berkeley City Council; and WHEREAS, the recommended design includes physically protected bicycle lanes on the south side of Hopkins Street between Sutter and Gilman and a Class II bicycle lane on the north side of Hopkins Street between Sutter and The Alameda, in addition to pedestrian safety features, as shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, approval of the Hopkins Corridor Project recommended conceptual design will keep the project on schedule for detailed engineering design in 2022.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to proceed with the detailed engineering design of the Hopkins Corridor Project, based on the preliminary engineering of the recommended conceptual design.
CONSENT CALENDAR
April 26, 2022
Sophie Hahn
District 5 Councilmember
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7150 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author), Councilmember Susan Wengraf (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements
RECOMMENDATION
Refer $300,000 to the FY 2023-2024 budget process, with $150,000 in FY 2023 and $150,000 in FY 2024, for bike, pedestrian, and streetscape improvements to be implemented in coordination with protected bike lanes, pedestrian safety features, and re-paving of the Hopkins Corridor.
CURRENT SITUATION
City staff and their on-call consultants are currently working on a study of the Hopkins Corridor area, in response to the Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking study referral unanimously passed by the City Council in 2017, and the 2017 Berkeley Bike Plan recommending Hopkins Street for a complete streets corridor and cycle track study.
Plans for pedestrian and bike improvements, as well as a first phase of landscaping, seating, bollards, bike parking, and related amenities for the area are in the final stages of development. Work related to these plans, including repaving, raising crosswalks, and pouring of new curbs, bulb-outs, islands, and other features, is scheduled to take place in 2023. The imminent build-out of these hardscape elements provides a unique opportunity to refresh and expand bike parking, benches, bollards, and trash receptacles, plant trees, install drought tolerant landscaping in medians and bulb-outs,
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements April 26, 2022
and provide other amenities for safety, utility, and community gathering – to accomplish the letter and spirit of the Hopkins Corridor referral.
While some funds already exist for these purposes, it is anticipated that additional funds will be needed to support installation of features across the corridor that harmonize with the existing neighborhood.
The purpose of this budget referral is to provide complimentary funding to allow for simultaneous implementation of streetscape improvements not otherwise funded, including but not limited to benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, street trees, drought tolerant landscaping, bollards, and protected pedestrian crossing features, and related community and placemaking elements.
BACKGROUND
The Hopkins Corridor, defined in a 2017 referral for the Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study, encompasses Hopkins from Gilman Street to Sutter Street, Sacramento Street from the southern approach of Rose Street to Hopkins Street, and the Monterey Avenue approach to Hopkins, plus all major and minor intersections. In addition, the City’s 2017 Bike Plan recommended Hopkins Street for a “complete street corridor and cycle track study.” The studies are currently being conducted by the Public Works department and on-call consultants, to coincide with the planned repavement of Hopkins Street in 2023.
In addition to being the site of several tragic pedestrian and bike injuries and fatalities, the Hopkins Corridor encompasses a variety of impactful conditions including:
● The busy neighborhood commercial area centered around the intersection of Hopkins Street and Monterey Ave, which attracts significant car, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on a daily basis, constant ingress and egress from parking lots and spaces, and associated delivery and other trucks;
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements April 26, 2022
● Treasured local businesses that draw a neighborhood and regional clientele and benefit from pedestrian activity and lively café-seating and street-life. ● Numerous educational and recreational facilities in the area that involve drop-off and pick-up of youth, and/or youth pedestrians and bike riders, including at least four preschools (Mustard Seed at 1640 Hopkins St, Hopkins Pre-school at 1810 Hopkins, Sprouts at 1910 Hopkins, and Berkeley Little School at 1611 Hopkins), King Middle School; King’s playing fields and the adjacent park, pool, and tennis courts, St. Mary’s High School and the North Branch Library; ● Two active churches;
● A high concentration of families and Senior Citizens living in the area, regularly crossing streets to access shops, recreational and ecumenical facilities and the North Branch public library;
● Hopkins and Monterey serving as major East/West access corridors with significant vehicular traffic to and from freeways and cross-town destinations (via Sacramento, San Pablo, The Alameda/MLK and Sutter/Henry/Shattuck); ● Hopkins and Sacramento serving as designated Emergency Access and Evacuation Routes;
● California Street serving as a bicycle boulevard and AC Transit bus lines traveling through the corridor; and
● One of only two gas stations in North Berkeley at Hopkins and MLK/Alameda, with vehicles regularly stacked in the street and intersection awaiting ingress.
The Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study articulated the following Complete Streets/Traffic elements to be considered in the course of the study:
● Pedestrian safety at all intersections along the corridor, in particular at Monterey and Hopkins, the site of a fatality in April of 2017;
● Bicycle lanes, parking and infrastructure, including elements anticipated as part of the 2017 Berkeley Bicycle Plan;
● Traffic flow into and out of the corridor, with special attention to the Gilman/Hopkins, Sacramento/Hopkins, Hopkins/Monterey and
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements April 26, 2022
Hopkins/MLK/Alameda intersections;
● Ingress and egress from the Monterey Market and the Hopkins/MLK/Alameda gas station;
● Parking, pick-up and drop-off for schools, the public library, churches and recreational facilities, including consideration of traffic management at peak times;
● AC Transit and school busses, both public and private; ● Green Infrastructure;
● Addition of signalized intersections and/or adjustment of timing, turning and other features of signalized intersections; and
● Parking for employees and customers and loading for commercial vehicles.
In addition, the Study is required to address the following Community Building/Placemaking elements:
● Exploration of means to create additional spaces for community gathering and to increase greenery and other placemaking amenities that harmonize with existing features in the corridor, with full access for all ages and abilities; ● Ensure design and style of improvements add to the charm and character of this highly valued and historic neighborhood commercial district; and ● Any other considerations that may further enhance placemaking and the safe and vibrant use of public spaces, including improvements to hardscape and greenery and enhancement of community-building and placemaking.
In response to the 2017 Referral and the Bike Plan study requirements, the Public Works department is in the final stages of conducting the first phase of the required studies.
As reformatted by staff, key project study goals are:
● Improve the safety of walking along and crossing Hopkins Street, achieving zero pedestrian severe injuries by 2028;
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements April 26, 2022
● Improve bicycle and vehicular transportation safety and flow along and crossing Hopkins Street, achieving zero severe injuries by 2028; ● Transform Hopkins Street between Sacramento Street and McGee Avenue into a community gathering place with an attractive visual identity and inviting public spaces;
● Manage parking in order to meet the needs of residents and local businesses;
● Support local businesses by creating a streetscape that attracts customers:
● Install green infrastructure to protect the Bay while providing visual enjoyment wherever opportunities arise;
● Improve aesthetics along Hopkins Street, employing a design palette consistent with its historic character.
Plans for pedestrian and bike improvements, as well as a first phase of landscaping, seating, bollards, bike parking, and related amenities for the area are in the final stages of development. Work related to these plans, including repaving, raising crosswalks, and pouring of new curbs, bulb-outs, islands, and other features, is scheduled to take place in 2023. The imminent build-out of these hardscape elements provides a unique opportunity to refresh and expand bike parking, benches, bollards, and trash receptacles, plant trees, install drought tolerant landscaping in medians and bulb-outs, and provide other amenities for safety, utility, and community gathering – to accomplish the letter and spirit of the Hopkins Corridor referral.
While some funds already exist for streetscape features that support the community/placemaking elements of the Hopkins Corridor referral and staff’s project study goals relating to community gathering, attractive visual identity, inviting public
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements April 26, 2022
spaces, customer-friendly streetscape, green infrastructure and improved aesthetics consistent with historical character, it is anticipated that additional funds will be needed to support installation of features across the corridor that harmonize with the existing neighborhood.
The purpose of this budget referral is to provide complimentary funding to allow for simultaneous implementation of streetscape improvements not otherwise funded, including but not limited to benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, street trees, drought tolerant landscaping, bollards, and protected pedestrian crossing features, and related community and placemaking elements.
In addition to funds sought directly from the City of Berkeley to more fully accomplish Hopkins Corridor project goals, several community-based efforts are either underway or anticipated to support and maintain new community and place-making elements. ● Merchants have approached the City about the possibility of creating a merchant’s association, either via a formal Business Improvement District or another form of association, that could generate funds for supplemental upkeep of street furniture, sidewalks, and landscaping in the commercial areas of the Hopkins Corridor.
● Local volunteers have long maintained the triangular island behind the North Branch Library. Additional landscaping at the Hopkins/Alameda intersection and throughout the Corridor may be able to be maintained through a broader community effort such as an “adopt a spot” or other neighborhood group.
Councilmember Hahn’s office will be organizing outreach to existing community volunteers and associations - including the Friends of the Fountain and Walk, who help maintain the nearby Marin/Arlington Circle area, and Thousand Oaks Neighborhood Association - to discuss potential partnerships. Alternatively, a new, single-purpose organization may be established to supplement City maintenance of Hopkins Corridor streetscape and landscaping elements. ● Grant opportunities and other community fundraising could be another means to supplement City of Berkeley Funds, and will be explored in full once this phase of planning for the Hopkins Corridor has been completed.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Budget request for $300,000 total, $150,000 in FY2023 and $150,000 in FY2024, to realize the first phase of community/placemaking elements of the Hopkins Corridor goals relating to community gathering, attractive visual identity, inviting public spaces,
Budget Referral: Hopkins Corridor Bike, CONSENT CALENDAR Pedestrian, and Placemaking Improvements April 26, 2022
customer-friendly streetscape, green infrastructure, and improved aesthetics consistent with historical character.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
A major impetus for the Hopkins Corridor study and improvements is to significantly improve pedestrian and bike safety and create a more lively and inviting streetscape for community gathering. With these improvements, it is anticipated that many more people will choose to bike or walk to and from the Corridor’s many destinations - schools, churches, a library, a track, pool and other sports facilities, popular shops and service providers, and more.
One of the main features of the proposed plan, in its final stages of development, is a two-way cycletrack on the South side of Hopkins, designed to provide safe bike access for King Middle School students and other users of King school and park recreation facilities, including seniors and families with young children. AC Transit stops are also being reconfigured for greater access and visibility. All of the bike, pedestrian, and transit features are designed to invite a broader segment of the community to bike, walk, and take public transit on the Hopkins Corridor, significantly advancing the City’s climate action and GHG reduction goals.
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Sophie Hahn Council District 5 510-981-7150
Housing Advisory Commission
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
ACTION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Housing Advisory Commission
Submitted by: Libby Lee-Egan, Chairperson, Housing Advisory Commission Subject: Harriet Tubman Terrace Tenant Support
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend City Council take the following actions:
• Review the video created by tenants about conditions at Harriet Tubman Terrace that was shown at the July 7, 2022 Housing Advisory Commission meeting;
• Direct the City Manager to investigate health and safety violations and other grievances identified by tenants at Harriet Tubman Terrace; and • City Council request Harriet Tubman Terrace provide tenants with a dedicated tenant advocate to assist with relocation and other needs.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff time to research, investigate, report and enforce with ongoing follow up, making sure that tenants experience continued safety, protections, reparations and compliance from the contractors, vendors, management and all responsible parties.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
At the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) meeting on July 7, 2022 the Commission heard and took 2 actions on an item regarding an ongoing situation at Harriet Tubman Terrace (HTT) affecting the low income seniors and disabled tenants residing there. At the meeting the Commission heard testimony and watched video evidence that showed appalling treatment and neglect of HTT’s tenants by staff and subcontractors. Residents and community members created a video of the conditions at HTT that was presented at the July 7, 2022 HAC meeting. The video is available at the following link: bit.ly/HTT- Renewal. A Dropbox account is not required to view the video (if prompted).
24
Harriet Tubman Terrace Tenant Support ACTION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
At the July 7, 2022 meeting, the HAC took the following actions:
Action: M/S/C (Potter/Mendonca) to send a letter to the City Council requesting the following:
• City Council review the video created by tenants about conditions at Harriet Tubman Terrace that was shown at the July 7, 2022 Housing Advisory Commission meeting;
• City Council directs the City Manager to investigate health and safety violations and other grievances identified by tenants at Harriet Tubman Terrace;
• City Council request Harriet Tubman Terrace provide tenants with a dedicated tenant advocate to assist with relocation and other needs; and • Council request Harriet Tubman Terrace owners/management and tenants report back to the Housing Advisory Commission in September to report progress with addressing the grievances identified by tenants.
Vote: Ayes: Lee-Egan, Mendonca, Potter, Rodriguez, and Sanidad, and Noes: None.
Abstain: None. Absent: Calavita (excused), Fain (excused), Johnson (unexcused), and Simon-Weisberg (unexcused).
Action: M/S/C (Mendonca/Potter) to recommend City Council take the following actions:
• Review the video created by tenants about conditions at Harriet Tubman Terrace that was shown at the July 7, 2022 Housing Advisory Commission meeting;
• Direct the City Manager to investigate health and safety violations and other grievances identified by tenants at Harriet Tubman Terrace; and • City Council request Harriet Tubman Terrace provide tenants with a dedicated tenant advocate to assist with relocation and other needs.
Vote: Ayes: Lee-Egan, Mendonca, Potter, Rodriguez, and Sanidad, and Noes: None.
Abstain: None. Absent: Calavita (excused), Fain (excused), Johnson (unexcused), and Simon-Weisberg (unexcused).
BACKGROUND
Staff and contractors associated with Harriet Tubman Terrace (HTT) have been relocating residents and remodeling individual units since September 2021. The residents at HTT are low income, elderly, and many are disabled. The construction work requires residents to move out of their unit with their possessions, move to another unit in the building while their original unit is under construction. Once construction is complete they are then ideally moved back into their original move-in ready unit.
Relocation professionals have been hired to complete this work but accounts from residents have revealed that almost every step of this process has been handled poorly, which has caused undue stress on these elderly residents, many of whom are also disabled.
Harriet Tubman Terrace Tenant Support ACTION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The residents of Harriet Tubman Terrace represent multiple constituencies who need protection: all are low income and elderly but many are also disabled and people of color. People in these groups can become disenfranchised and exploited by those with more power. The hope is that the investigation recommended in this report will correct and repair all violations and act as a force that will put an end to these types of abuses in our community and a disgrace to our humanity and our society's legal structures.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Commission discussion included other avenues HTT’s tenants have to address these issues. Supplemental communication from HTT management referred to a grievance process but tenants’ testimony implied multiple barriers for disenfranchised residents to use that effectively.
CITY MANAGER
The City Manager takes no position on the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.
Staff recognize the importance of ensuring the residents of Harriet Tubman Terrace are well-supported and maintain a high-quality of living. Staff also appreciate the Commission’s work to understand and take action regarding the tenant concerns identified in an effort to improve the living conditions for vulnerable seniors. The following information is intended to provide additional context for Council’s consideration of this matter.
Harriett Tubman Terrace is an affordable development subject to requirements from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and California’s tax exempt bond program. However, it is not funded by the City through the Housing Trust Fund or other affordable housing funding and regulatory program. This means that the property is not in the Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services’ Housing and Community Services Division (HHCS/HCS) monitoring portfolio and HHCS has no oversight authority.
Following notification to the HAC of the building’s condition, HHCS/HCS immediately contacted the City’s Building Services’ Housing Code Enforcement Program, and the property ownership, Foundation Housing, to receive an update. Building Services reported that Foundation Housing complied with all of the designated City inspections and permits for the scope of rehabilitation work taking place at the property.
Harriet Tubman Terrace Tenant Support ACTION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
The Housing Code Enforcement program also indicated they conducted inspections on 17 units and the common area at this property since 2019 (Foundation Housing acquired the property in 2021 from a housing investment group that purchased the property in 2019). At the time of writing this report, there are two open cases and the remainder are closed, meaning Housing Code Enforcement found the property to be in compliance with code requirements and /or building permits related to the complaints filed. The latest request for service was received on March 2022 for Unit 401. No housing violations were observed during the inspection and the case was closed.
The two open cases are for Units 503 and 603 (both opened on July 2020) and have been assigned to a Housing Inspector. For both units, the Housing Inspector has directed the owner to correct an inoperable exhaust fan and the required building permit has been issued.
HHCS/HCS coordinated Foundation Housing representatives attendance at the July 7, 2022 to provide the HAC, Harriet Tubman Terrace residents, and public with direct updates on their work and the responses to tenant claims. Following the July meeting, Foundation Housing representatives (based in Washington, DC) flew out to visit the site and meet directly with tenants, advocates, and HAC commissioners. At the time of writing this report in August 2022, Foundation Housing representatives indicated they will attend the September 1, 2022 HAC meeting to provide additional updates on their rehabilitation work and efforts to support residents. A statement from Foundation Housing is included as Attachment 3.
All investigations into health and safety violations fall under the purview of the City’s Planning and Building Services Department. Council may endorse the HAC’s recommendation for HTT to provide tenants with an advocate but this is not an action HHCS/HCS has the authority to implement or enforce. Staff are encouraged by the actions taken by property ownership to correct the tenant complaints. Tenants may also seek out mediation and other services from the Rent Board if they feel their rights are not honored or treatment is discriminatory. At the time of writing this report in August 2022, HHCS/HCS is coordinating with HHCS/Aging Services to conduct outreach to HTT residents to connect them with City services and opportunities for support.
CONTACT PERSON
Mike Uberti, Secretary, Health, Housing and Community Services, (510) 981-5114 Attachments:
1: HAC Supplemental Communication 2022.07.07.pdf
2: HAC Letter to council July 2022.pdf
3: Statement from Foundation Housing
Date: July 6, 2022
To: Housing Advisory Commission
Submitted By: Cassandra Palanza, Foundation Housing on Behalf of Harriet Tubman Renewal LP (the “Owner”) of Harriet Tubman Apartments (the “Property”) To Whom It May Concern:
We submit this for the Housing Advisory Commission (“HAC”) to h ave in its record in response to the recommendations m ade by Ms. Mendonca of Distric t 8. We welcome open communication with any organization but ask the specifics are provided in order for us to respond appropriately. Many of the responses below are being done based on speculation of specific things we have resolved in the last few months with acknowledgement of some unresolved matters since much of the memo supplied, only intimates at things with no spe cificity. We hope that resources that can be spent on serving our residents are not mired in “investigations”, that we strongly believe will be unfounded based on the amount of time doing our own inv estigation and research in response to any previously raised issues. We recognize that sometimes, resident populations go to their local officials whom they have a relationship with and they trust. We encourage that. All we ask is that information is immediately reported to us so we may address it with as specific as possible details to ensure full resolution. Management cannot respond in generalities. We strongly feel we have a team in place tha t is responding to a myriad of circumstances at the Property and working with the residents is and will remain to be one of our top priorities. Our hope is over the next several weeks with additional resources being added, the residents will begin to feel more at ease with all the improvements and management of the Property.
Regarding many of the allegations, first and foremost, we take allegations of violating health and safety seriously. Any tenant that lives at Harriet Tubman that feels their life is in danger should report such danger to the police. Any tenant that experiences a grievance or is displeased with something, may submit a gri evance in accordance with the P roperties grievance policy attached hereto for reference. Any intimation that our residen ts are having crimes committed against them, specifically elder abuse, by anyone in Management or Ownership is categorically false and if a perceived crime is believed to be committed it should be reported immediately for a full investigation. Allegations of elder abuse are not taken li ghtly and deemed a serious matter.
Attachment 1
Residents should feel safe in reporting anything they are displeased with and if they feel strongly about these allegations then they should be written up and prov ided to a trusted person who can work with Ownership on any allegations. Again, to date, we have no reported cases of elder abuse that are being investigated by any channel of authority over su ch matter and our hope is with continued communication the relationship between management and the residents will continue to improve, which we feel has in the last several weeks.
Violations that may exist are fro m the Planning and Development Department (the “PDD”). As violations are recei ved, they are addressed. There are currently two open violations that we are aware of. We have confirmed that these matters are being repaired during the construction work and completion will be submitted to the PDD. All tenants are encouraged to report all matters to management. In order for things to be add ressed timely, management should be the first point of contact. Absent substantive violations to which we can respond, which we are happy to do so, we are not aware of the allegations alleged by Ms. Mendonca in the first paragraph of her memo.
Additionally, we are in receipt of a video produced and submitt ed to HAC regarding the ongoing construction work at Harriet Tubman Apartments. The scope of work for the accessibility units meet the federal standard for accessibility and have been signed off on by local and state officials through our application process for Bonds and LIHTC’s. We are happy to provide the City Inspection Log wherein these units were inspected ,passed, and deemed suitable for occupancy. If a resident has a mobility impairment or need for something outside the scope of their apartment or an accessible designed apartment, they should subm it a Section 504 reasonable accommodation (“RA”) request to management for management to ca rry out. Reasonable accommodations can be made at any time and if a resident cannot fill out the paperwork or does not want to, management will assi st them. Please be aware, sinc e this video was submitted to Management and some of the residents intimate in the video that t h e y m a y o r m a y n o t n e e d accommodation, Management will reach out to them to see if we can assist in any RA request they may need. This is not a retalia tory action but required by mana gement when a resident asserts a need for an accommodation.
Attachment 1
Rodent, roaches and filth should absolutely be reported to mana gement immediately. We have pest control services that can mitigate these issues. Pest control is the second Friday of the month and as needed or requested by management. We are going to schedule a 100% walk with pest control and some residents h ave requested frequent pest co ntrol in their units. We will continue to monitor the pest situation and if additional servic es are warranted we will provide them. If residents follow the grievance policy on reporting things for habitability matters and they are not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, the regulators of our property will ensure oversight so that matters are responded to. We cannot stress enough the importance of reporting all things to management first. They are our first line of defense for fixing and maintaining habitability. In addition to the Grievance Policy, if residents feel they are no t being heard, at the end of this response is a communications tree for residents to work with wh ich includes all of the contact information of management up to an owner’s representative throu ghout the duration of construction. This does not circumvent the Grievance Policy but rather provides additional points of contact for residents to try and expedite their requests. It should be noted, while Owner is committed to rectifying all issues, if residents do not go to m anagement first, then there could be continued delay of resolving their concerns.
To date, we have received inquiries from CAHI regarding asbestos abatement and security matters. Below is our official response to CAHI regarding asbestos concern:
“With respect to your inquiry – asbestos testing was completed prior to the work commencing. During the rehab work that is ongoing, whenever the scope of work being performed includes di sturbing asbestos containing ma terials the work is only performed after the resident has been temporarily relocated to another unit. While the asbestos abatement work is being performed, the unit is closed and sealed off – please see attached photos. In situatio ns in which the asbestos containing materials or suspected asbestos containing materials (“ACMs”) being disturbed are classified as “friable” ACMs, the units have air clearance testing completed by a licensed 3 rd party environmental services provider prior to the containment being removed and the unit re occupied. All ACM abatement work is being performed by contractor licensed to do this work Attachment 1
in CA. The abatement contractor posted all of the required notices with the state, local jurisdiction and residents prior to the abatement work at the property.
Attached for your reference is the notice that was posted prior to the asbestos work beginning (please note that in this word document the date is set to automatically update to the current date on the day the document is opened).”
Attachment 1
With respect to security in the building, Owner does not provide a security company. The building is controlled by controlled fob access and there are p lans to improve the camera system within the building. Simultaneously with the issuance of this response, we are working on response to CAHI regarding security.
We empathize with the disrupti on that construction can cause. It can be very taxing for residents and we understand that, truly we do. We have, for the duration of construction, funded a relocation coordinator and moving company. Residents should fee l that, while an inconvenience, they are only temporarily relocating to another apartment for t he duration of their in-unit work.
We did this plan because this property in particular has many residents with extreme quantities of contents in their apartments and it would have been challenging for our construction team to work in the units with all the belongings in there. We have consiste ntly evaluated our relocation plan and if it makes sense to adjus t it, we do. We have evaluated in recent weeks and recognize there were some hiccups and construction delays. Our accessible units, which were the most complicated to construct, were renovated first and we incurred numerous delays that we should not have going forward. Additionally, there were cosmetic issues that were not satisfactorily completed (ie. Toilet paper holder, mirror, blinds, etc) prior to returning a residen t to their unit. We acknowledge and apologize for this. We have high standards for our community and strive to meet them every day.
While I thought we were moving on from some of the displeasure we recognize some of the residents may still be upset or unhappy and we will work to fos ter that trust with more communication to them and in person meetings over the following weeks to discuss.
While we cannot address every item in the video in a written response to the Commission, at this time, we can highlight a few items that we know residen ts were upset with and work on a list of responses if the Commission would like additional matte rs answered. The electrical chord noted in the video is a cosmetic issue and not a safety issue. We are working with our construction team on a solution that limits the visibility of any chord. There is no electrical or fire hazard with respect to the chord mentioned in the video. We will communicat e to residents that a solution to the chord in the kitchen light is still being figured out to pr ovide for the best cosmetic 5oluteon this week via an FAQ that we are putting together for our residents. Management also maintains a binder of all notices sent to residents during construction and we are happy to show anyone all of the notices communicated to residents.
Attachment 1
Blinds and screens – everyone will return to their unit with blinds. Due to shipping delays, a resident may return to their unit with their existing blinds. We have been working to have all materials stored and available at each unit being constructed but may have to return to install the blinds. Screens have been ordered and arrived damaged and are being reproduced. Again, we know this is frustrating and going fo rward, while not ideal, no resi dent will return to their unit without blinds installed. While many of these are inconvenient and hass les residents should not have to deal with, we have put processes in place with management and relocation actively communicating with our residents. We are walking units prior to each resident moving back and creating a pre- inspection report to address any concerns prior to a resident m oving back as well as managing expectations. Our relocation coor dinator and management agent h ave been empowered to push back and not accept units if they are not acceptable as well as work with our contractor to determine if there are items residents are not happy with are in the scop e or routine maintenance items that should be added to the scope of work.
Additionally, we have weekly meetings with the following positi ons relevant to Harriet Tubman where we discuss all things construction and relocation:
Foundation Housing: Asset Manager, Director of Asset Management, Project Manager (Cassandra Palanza)
Development Partner: Pennant Housing Group (2-3 individuals) Precision Construction: Superintendent, General C ontractor, Project Manager FPI Management: Community Director, Portfolio Manager, Senior Director and Relocation Coordinator
Our hope is the amount of staff co mmitted to the completion of this project and its future preservation is not lost in a residents pursuit of “justice” fo r their concerns. Below is the contact information of personnel here to serve and respond to our residents through the duration of construction. The below team will reach out to the residents in the video supplied and confirm that all of their issues highlighted in the video are resolved. Cosmetic issue or things that a reasonable person who saw them should think to fix them (under the bathroo m holes, backboard of the sink) will be addressed.
LaTonya Glover, Property Management, FPI Management
[email protected], 510-843-0134
Attachment 1
Brandon Heezen, Portfolio Manager, FPI Management
[email protected]
Brandi Hutchinson, Senior Director, FPI Management
[email protected]
Tamara Couto, Relocation Specialist, Advanced Relocation Services [email protected] / 559-903-3800
Jordan Bobb, Asset Manager, Foundation Housing
[email protected]
Cassandra Palanza, Project Manager and Landlords Representative, Foundation Housing [email protected] /
Lastly, we are beginning to implement some things to try and as sist our residents further with communication and supportive services during the rehab and after conclusion of the rehab.
We have approved a TV monitor for updates and important informa t io n fo r re s id e n ts . W e a re putting our resident services under review to see how many addi tional hours of resident services we can add to the property to give our residents additional support. We are ordering computers for a computer center for the residents to utilize. We are trying t o see if we can add the layout to our scope but the approval to order these computers was granted and we look forward to giving residents access to these as soon as possible. In addition to moving assistance during the rehab, we are offering appointments with a ssistance for residents to go t hrough their things and eliminate/donate unwanted items. See attached flyer. This service is completely voluntary but we recognize that there are many of our residents who lack the cap ability or physical strength to resolve the building amount of contents in their homes. To date, we have had three residents utilize the services and will look to establish this as an annual or se mi-annual event. Rounding out all of the things we continue to work on, Management is sending out a survey to residents asking for feedback. It is voluntary and vital that we hear from everyone. Despite some of the challenges we also have many residents who are pleased with the progress this community is making and as we move forward we feel it is important to share all the informati on so that those stake holders involved can make informed decisions.
Attachment 1
We recognize that in elderly populations, packing, moving, moving, unpacking is stressful.
We are working to find additional resources for additional packing assistance and unpacking. No resident is asked to move anything except for their things they consider extremely valuable (jewelry, passport, documents and any other valuables that they do not want touched). If a resident feels they are not getting the assistance they need, then they should immediately notify the relocation coordinator. If the responsiveness is not there then Management should be notified followed by the Owners Representative.
To date we have completed 22 units. As of July 6, we have 5 tenants who have been temporarily relocated
to other units. These residents are scheduled to return to their homes Friday, July 8, subject to management inspection and approval.
Thank you for your time. We look forward to completing this pro ject and the residents being able to enjoy their improved community in a peaceful manner.
Attachment 1
FPI Managem
ent, Inc.
G:\Word\Grievance Procedure (HUD, Tax Credit with Section 8) November 2017
Management Relations
Grievance Procedures
Our goal at this apartment community is to provide outstanding customer service, responsive management and build good resident/management relations.
On occasion a dispute or problem may arise between a resident(s) and management. If there is a dispute, a discussion is encouraged on a one-to-one basis. If discussion does not provide a resolution, a resident may use the Grievance Procedure outlined in an effort to provide resolution.
The Grievance Procedure is designed to ensure that there is a fair and equitable process for addressing resident concerns and to ensure fair treatment of residents in the event that an action or inaction by a management representative adversely affects the resident of this apartment community.
Individuals, who feel they have been treated unfairly, may submit a grievance to management.
Management will respond to valid requests involving concerns about conditions or quality of life at the apartment community. An informal review of issues and concerns will be conducted.
In order to clearly understand the issues, management will request a written statement of the issue for all parties to review . Management may need to obtain written statements from witness or other outside parties to fully review the concerns. An informal meeting will then be scheduled to review the concerns in an attempt to resolve the conflict . If this process does not resolve the matter, the resident may seek resolution through the process outlined below.
Example of Complaint Process
Step 1. Resident notifies
Community Director/Manager to
discuss complaint, provides
complaint in writing (Form
available),
(Reasonable
Accommodations may be made
for persons with disabilities) and
discusses possible solutions.
Step 2. Community Director/Manager
discusses matter with resident and
replies in writing to complaint within
10 working days. If dispute is not
resolved, proceed to the next step.
Step 3. Resident appeals to Portfolio
Manager in writing within 5 working
days of the receipt of the written
response. (Reasonable
Accommodations may be made for
persons with disabilities). Portfolio
Manager will contact parties within
10 working days of receiving appeal.
If dispute is not resolved, proceed to
the next step.
Step 4. Portfolio Manager will
discuss grievance with resident
and within 10 working days,
provides decision and written
statement on the grievance and
take any necessary action. If
dispute is not resolved, proceed
to the next step.
Step 5. Resident appeals to the
Contract Administrator within 10 days.
Contract Administrator responds to
the Resident. If dispute is not
resolved, proceed to the next step.
Step 6. Resident appeals to the
HUD office within 10 days. HUD
responds to the Resident
Contact Information
Step One, Two, Three
Community Director/Manager:
Step Four
Management Agent:
FPI Management, Inc.
Regional Portfolio Manager
800 Iron Point Road
Folsom, CA 95630
Step Five
Contract Administrator:
Step Six
HUD
I hereby acknowledge that I have received a copy of the Grievance Procedure and understand the process described above. I also understand that a Complaint Form is available in the Rental Office and Community Bulletin Board.
____________________________
____________________________ _________________
Resident Name Resident Signature Date
____________________________
_____________________________ _________________
Resident Name Resident Signature Date
____________________________ __________________
___
Management Representative Date
Step One & Two Step Three & Four
Attachment 1
Libby Lee-Egan (Chairperson) & Mari Mendonca (Vice Chairperson) Berkeley Housing Advisory Commission
July 15, 2022
Mayor Arreguín and Berkeley City Councilmembers,
We write to you today to express deep concern and inspire urgent action on an issue affecting some of Berkeley’s most vulnerable residents. At the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) meeting on July 7, 2022 we heard and took action on an item regarding an ongoing situation at Harriet Tubman Terrace (HTT) affecting the low income seniors and disabled tenants residing there. For reference, see item #5 on the agenda and supplemental communication here. At the meeting the Commission heard testimony and watched video evidence that showed appalling treatment and neglect of HTT’s tenants by staff and subcontractors.
Most of the grievances were related to relocation to/from and construction in individual units.
Commissioners and members of the public expressed distress at what these seniors were being subjected to, including:
● Inadequate relocation services. The video shows the home of a disabled tenant whose possessions were not unpacked from their boxes and equipment necessary to help him move about his home was not installed.
● Shoddy construction and poorly-planned improvements ill-suited to each home’s resident. The video shows a tenant whose newly-remodeled bathroom has a hole in the wall where a toilet paper holder should be and a bathtub that is not usable for her as someone who has had a hip replacement.
● Overall lack of trust between staff and tenants. It was clear from testimony and video that tenants do not feel comfortable submitting complaints or requests. There are many reasons for this discomfort, including fear of retaliation. This is the primary reason for our 3rd recommendation below for a tenant advocate to assist the HTT residents.
Members of the HAC also received supplemental communication and heard public comment from HTT’s project manager/landlord representative which insufficiently addressed some of these concerns.
During the meeting on July 7, the Commission voted unanimously to send this letter, requesting the mayor and City Councilmembers take action:
1. Review the video created by tenants about conditions at Harriet Tubman Terrace that was shown at the July 7, 2022 Housing Advisory Commission meeting;
2. Direct the City Manager to investigate health and safety violations and other grievances identified by tenants at Harriet Tubman Terrace;
Attachment 2
3. Request Harriet Tubman Terrace provide tenants with a dedicated tenant advocate to assist with relocation and other needs; and
4. Request Harriet Tubman Terrace owners/management and tenants report back to the Housing Advisory Commission at our regular meeting in September to report progress with addressing the grievances identified by tenants.
At the same meeting, the Commission also unanimously approved a motion to put together an official recommendation on this matter. This report is under development right now and is forthcoming. Staff advised that this could take time for this to get on the council's calendar and because these Berkeley residents need help now, the HAC opted to send this letter before the report is finished.
If you have any follow up questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to reach out to the submitter of the item and Vice Chair Mari Mendonca ([email protected]) and Chair Libby Lee-Egan ([email protected]).
Sincerely,
Libby Lee-Egan Mari Mendonca
Housing Advisory Commission Chairperson Housing Advisory Commission Vice Chairperson Links:
Agenda: bit.ly/HAC7722-Agenda
Supplemental Communication: bit.ly/HAC7722-SuppComm
Video: bit.ly/HTT-Renewal
Attachment 2
The following update from Foundation Housing was provided by to HHCS staff via email on August 24, 2022.
The Landlor
d [Foundation Housing] continues with the renovations in accordance with local, state and federal guidelines and does not have open code violations as it pertains to any of the renovations.
Landlord, i
n response to tenant input has addressed, in landlords opinion, most items.
Where landlord and tenant(s) differ we continue to work through those matters on an individual basis with each tenant. Landlord has added services including but not limited to more than doubling the resident services contract that will begin in September, changed the cleaning contract of the building and had the building deep cleaned twice with daily cleaning occurring in all common areas and public spaces, done a 100% unit pest inspection and begun regular pest control of units identified with housekeeping issues, offered residents 2 hours of cleaning of their apartments by a cleaning company at landlords expense, offered decluttering and unloading of residents items they do not want or want to dispose of (at landlords expense), paused relocation with the exception of deemed necessity in August, hired a new relocation coordinator (AutoTemps) set to resume tenant relocation in September and continued to focus on the completion of the much needed renovations of the building.
An open ite
m that we acknowledge and realize is not resolved is the matter pertaining to the stoves in the one bedrooms and resolution is still pending on that item. Construction continues to experience supply chain issues and we continue to accommodate as necessary to make sure units are delivered completed with little to no disruption upon returning home. The screens to the windows arrived in early August and began installation on all newly installed windows. Approximately 40% of the apartment homes are completed. Landlord and management will be available on the next Housing Advisory Council call [September 1, 2022] to take questions and give additional updates on the status of things at Harriet Tubman Apartments.
Attachment 3
Commission on Disability
INFORMATION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Commission on Disability
Submitted by: Michai Freeman Chairperson, Commission on Disability Subject: Commission on Disability Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Work Plan
INTRODUCTION
The Commission on Disability is submitting the fiscal year 2022-2023 Work Plan.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Commission on Disability ▪ Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Workplan
1. COVID Management and Recovery
Track developments and impacts from the Covid-19 pandemic, including but not limited to: disproportionate health impacts for people disabilities; consequences for health care providers; disruptions in disability supports (e.g. reduction in small businesses providing necessary products and services); increase in Berkeley residents with long-term disabilities due to post-Covid complications; and reduction in city budgets for services and infrastructure improvements (e.g. sidewalk repair efforts). Engage relevant city departments, request presentations and gather community feedback. Ensure equitable and accessible opportunities to participate in city efforts, programs, meetings and initiatives.
2. Improved Transportation and Mobility
Continue efforts related to the “navigable cities” framework for safe, accessible pedestrian pathways and other transportation infrastructure, including appropriate street layouts in redesigned transportation corridors. Also ensure universal accessibility of relevant applications, kiosks, ride-sharing services, Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), bikes and scooters (including shared mobility), and “emerging technology” such as automated vehicles (ATVs). Address public transportation concerns and safety, including budgets and onboard safety related to the Covid-19 pandemic. Ensure equitable and accessible opportunities to participate in city efforts, programs, meetings and initiatives.
3. Public Input and Public Outreach for COD
Implement communication channels with other city Commissions; pursue “cross- membership” with other commissions, where COD members request to be appointed to other commissions with vacancies; prioritize commissions whose coverage affects 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
25
Commission on Disability 2022-23 Work Plan INFORMATION CALENDAR October 11, 2022
people with disabilities (e.g. peace & justice, zero waste, planning, homelessness, etc.).
Raise awareness of COD within the disability community and relevant stakeholders (e.g. neighborhood and business associations) and invite community members and stakeholders to attend COD meetings. Outreach should include opportunities for community members to request accessibility modifications, including for remote meetings (e.g. captioning on Zoom). Develop a consistent process and timeframe for community engagement. Ensure equitable and accessible opportunities to participate in city efforts, programs, meetings and initiatives.
4. Engagement and Advisory Role for City Processes
Increase outreach and requests for timely presentations and information from City of Berkeley staff and other relevant officials (e.g. at the county or regional levels). Utilize the Commission on Disability as a public forum and oversight body, especially in the face of unprecedented challenges during the continuing Covid-19 pandemic and recovery therefrom. Utilize COD as an advisory & monitoring body to increase accessibility & accountability in city efforts and other areas of influence. Partner with other commissions; advocate for new sub-committees and cross-membership for relevant goals. Commissioners commit to actively and regularly engage with appointing Council members. Ensure that COD review city policies to avoid direct decisions by Council, City Manager, and other city entities without disability input. Ensure equitable and accessible opportunities to participate in city efforts, programs, meetings and initiatives.
5. Accessible and Affordable Housing
Explore the expansion and improved availability of accessible housing for people with disabilities, including going beyond baseline ADA access requirements in new construction (e.g. adding automatic door openers, units with roll-in showers and other universal access features, etc.). Recognize a likely slowdown in new construction and increase efforts at encouraging accessibility retrofits of existing buildings, whether single-family homes or multi-unit apartments/condominiums. Address affordability as a key factor for housing, especially given the disconnect between affordability and accessibility (given newer buildings are more accessible but also tend to have higher rents). Partner with senior community and advocates for mutual areas of interest.
Ensure equitable and accessible opportunities to participate in city efforts, programs, meetings and initiatives.
6. Homeless people with Disabilities
Support Berkeley’s population of homeless residents with disabilities. Collaborate with local service providers to address disability-related needs, such as access to healthcare or repairs of medical equipment (wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, etc.). Address timely issues, such as pandemic safety, extreme heat events and air quality (including wildfire smoke). Access to electricity and energy resources. Advocate for permanent accessible housing, including creative solutions (e.g. tiny homes). Ensure equitable and accessible opportunities to participate in city efforts, programs, meetings and initiatives.
Commission on Disability 2022-23 Work Plan INFORMATION CALENDAR October 11, 2022
7. Emergency/Disaster Preparedness
Receive information and ongoing updates, participate and make recommendations as appropriate about Berkeley’s BEACON and CERT programs. Address increasing frequency of Red Flag Warning events, wildfire danger, Public Safety Power Shutoffs, poor air quality days, and extreme heat vents. Maintain oversight and efforts around earthquake safety. Increase training opportunities for disability awareness & management, including FAST trainings. Advertise disaster resources for PWDs (e.g. information, backup supplies, organizations and designated accessible shelters), including lists of trained staff and volunteers. Ensure equitable and accessible opportunities to participate in city efforts, programs, meetings and initiatives.
8. Student Life and Disability Awareness
Improve communication and collaboration with Berkeley’s many students with disabilities, providing community engagement and leadership opportunities and supports for independent living. Address all populations including students with disabilities in elementary through high school, Berkeley City College, UC Berkeley, and private entities. Advocate for city-supported services and resources for youth, young adults and other students w/ disabilities. Increase affordability of and access to education, training, recreation and life resources (e.g. housing and transportation) for students. Ensure equitable and accessible opportunities to participate in city efforts, programs, meetings and initiatives.
9. Accessibility in City Events, Meetings, Communications & Information Technology
Work with city staff, commissions, and other relevant partners to guarantee inclusion and accessibility of events, meetings and communications. Guarantee access to multiple media, taking into account a diversity of disabilities and the overall digital divide (i.e. disproportionate access to Information Technology and related services); this can include printed (paper) communications and information items, as well as those items in accessible (e.g. Braille or large-print) format. Ensure that all meetings and events are accessible through the Internet for those who cannot attend; this is especially important considering health and wellness in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and its ongoing effects. Emphasize plain language and multiple media in city resources and initiatives to reach the widest audience possible. Utilize free media (i.e. city websites, newspapers, PSAs, Berkeley TV, social media, etc.) and partnerships (e.g. with nonprofits, community organizations, and faith-based organizations) to engage as many people as possible. Ensure equitable and accessible opportunities to participate in city efforts, programs, meetings and initiatives.
The Commission on Disability Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Work Plan supports the Strategic Plan goal to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.
Commission on Disability 2022-23 Work Plan INFORMATION CALENDAR October 11, 2022
BACKGROUND
The Work Plan was approved by the Commission on August 3, 2022 (Vote: Ayes:
Freeman, Walsh. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Singer. Motion/Second:
Freeman/Walsh)
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Unknown.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Unknown.
CONTACT PERSON
Andrew Brozyna, Deputy Director of Public Works, (510) 981-6396
Communications
All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.
City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/
To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:
1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”
2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting
3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)
4. Click the “Search” button
5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned
6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF