Berkeley City Council
December 6, 2022

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
What are some best practices for pilot design?
Along with many others in guaranteed income research, we find that pilots are most successful when they are built in consultation with community members and their specific needs. Rachel Black and Aisha Nyandoro have also advised and modeled this approach. Moreover, a clear messaging strategy is a core component of a successful pilot, rather than relying on the program to “speak for itself.” Drawing on JFI’s experiences working with multiple municipalities in the U.S. and internationally, our research team can help you evaluate appropriate guaranteed income approaches for your locality alongside community-based organizations that should fundamentally inform the design.

Many cities have also found it valuable to create a dedicated task force, assembling multiple stakeholders to define the community needs motivating the pilot and to collaborate on its vision, design, and implementation. Such a coalition of local nonprofits, community leaders, academics, and residents also can help generate public attention and strengthen the pilot’s connection to local perspectives and expertise. A task force may also provide a forum to discuss research design and any supportive programs. Task forces typically produce reports (e.g.Newark’s, or Atlanta’s) which may be of use in subsequent fundraising efforts. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
17

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Though each pilot should be designed for the specific needs of its community there are several best practices designers should consider:

Target low-income individuals
Although the ideal guaranteed income program would be universal, with the limited resources available for any pilot, targeting low-income households ensures the greatest benefit for those most in need. To target low-income populations is often to address issues of racial, gender-based and economic inequality, as communities of color are often most marginalized by the existing safety net and both historic and present economic policy. This targeting can be crucial for storytelling efforts because the stories of low-income communities, especially of color, can help amplify voices often ignored by the media and rebut harmful stereotypes about the value of cash as an anti-poverty tool.

Provide full-package services
Cash transfers can be more effective when they are accompanied by additional forms of support from local organizations such as financial coaching and job placement assistance.

Participation in these services should always be completely voluntary for recipients, consistent with the unconditional nature of guaranteed income. Understanding how guaranteed income interacts best with other support programs is also one of the pressing questions for GI research, so pilots should seek these synergies both for their immediate benefits and because they provide opportunities for learning.

Enhance individual agency
In line with the principles of unrestricted and unconditional guaranteed income, pilots should enhance individual agency by providing cash transfers with no strings attached.

This maximizes recipients’ agency by leaving it to them to decide how best to use the funds in their unique circumstances.

Promote long-term economic inclusion
A pilot is an opportunity to improve the well-being of recipients by connecting them to the resources and infrastructure they need in the long-term, not just while they are receiving benefits. For example, connecting recipients to local credit unions or nonprofits that provide low or no-cost financial services can help support the unbanked. Pilots may also offer the opportunity to rethink or newly build payments infrastructure. These improvements can persist and continue to provide benefit to residents after the pilot period.

Provide regular, not one-time, support
A pilot should be designed to provide regular cash transfers over a period of time rather than all at once. While participants might benefit from a one-time transfer, it is the predictability and long-term security provided by recurring cash transfers that are of 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
18

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
greatest interest both to researchers and value to the public. Providing payments over time has the added benefit of expanding the presence of the pilot in public discourse.

Offer simple, efficient enrollment procedures
Enrollment should involve minimal paperwork and demonstration of need. Reducing barriers like these, which currently prevent millions from receiving means-tested social benefits to which they are entitled, is one of the virtues of guaranteed income policy; this should be reflected in the pilot’s enrollment procedures.

Serve a long-term guaranteed income agenda
Guaranteed income pilots do not create impact in isolation, but rather through engagement with the broader movement for guaranteed income and economic justice.

Pilots should be designed with this context in mind, working with advocacy organizations oriented towards future policy. In addition to focusing on research questions that are likely to drive the discourse forward rather than reiterating established claims, pilots should be designed with a deliberate messaging strategy that engages with and supports the broader movement.

Involving participants in the research design and centring their agency and needs is inherent to a successful implementation of the above principles (also see Rachel Black and Aisha Nyandoro’s work on this). Likewise, participant confidentiality should be prioritized. In general, participants should understand that choosing not to participate in the research has no bearing on their pilot payments. Separating continued participation in research from continued receipt of payments is important to avoid creating a coercive situation. This should be addressed during the IRB review.

Planning a Pilot
A successful guaranteed income pilot is often a multi-year project that requires careful planning and coordination. This section will cover some of the practical questions that emerge in designing and executing a pilot, including timelines, costs, and potential obstacles. The Guaranteed Income Community of Practice (GICP, formed in 2021, of which JFI is a member, can also be a resource for emerging questions. While the details below provide a starting point for scoping out the planning needs and timeline of a pilot, a closer look at your own needs may be best served by further conversations with us or our partners. Reach out to [email protected] to chat or to be connected with another pilot.

Pilot costs
The total cost of a pilot will include both the money distributed to recipients and the costs of evaluation and administration, which can be expected to take up roughly 20% of the budget with a robust research program. For a given level of funding, program administrators and researchers must find a balance between benefit size, benefit duration, and number of recipients. For example, one million dollars could provide (a) 100 people $833/mo for a year, (b) 50 people 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
19

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
$1666/mo for a year, or (c) 200 people $833/mo for 6 months. These three parameters will be balanced based on the pilot’s objectives.

In 2020 the city of Newark, NJ
collaborated with JFI to release
a task force report which
includes a helpful breakdown
of the relative costs of a few
different pilot designs (see
right). These designs are
inspired by earlier research on
unconditional cash transfers in
Kenya by JFI senior fellow
Johannes Haushofer & Jeremy
Shapiro.

The task force report for
Atlanta’s guaranteed income
pilot provides some helpful
cost estimates for different
program sizes. JFI provided
estimates that a program with
600 recipients in which half
receive $800/mo for 36
months and half receive
$200/mo for 36 months will
total about $13 million,
including administration and
evaluation. Generally, an RCT
research program focused on quantitative impact analysis will require a cohort of at least this size to ensure that its findings are robust. On the other hand, the report also describes a potential qualitative research program with a cohort of just 200 participants in which 130 receive $800/mo for 36 months and 7 receive $200/mo for 36 months. The total for this smaller program would be about $5 million.

Developing a Timeline
A guaranteed income pilot will generally be designed to distribute benefits for at least one year in order to provide researchers with enough information to make meaningful evaluations. Many pilots are designed to run for two or more years to better understand the long-term impacts of guaranteed income. However, creating a successful GI pilot is a process that begins well before payments start going out and continues after they have stopped. It is important to start 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
20

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
developing an expected timeline early to ensure that there is enough time allotted for key prerequisites for a successful pilot launch.

Fundraising can be time consuming. A pilot may require multiple funders including foundations and high-net-worth individuals and each may be hesitant to be the first mover on the project.

Money may also come with strings attached or earmarking (reserved for program or research costs alone). While pilots with early support from funders have been able to begin administering cash on an accelerated pilot design schedule, such as within 34 months, these scenarios often rely on significant staffing capacity, existing pilot or research designs, and the structures of existing service providers and platforms to reach intended recipients or administer cash. Such programs can also be hampered by the existing limitations of the structures they employ. More likely fundraising timelines would be a year and two years to encompass both direct cash and research or administrative costs.

A successful pilot requires extensive coordinated efforts to implement. You will need to find implementation partners: organizations who can help you identify participants from the clientele roster or from other data sources (e.g. in Compton, a handful of community-based organizations alongside the City); organizations that can distribute money or that can develop a cash disbursement platform should such a system be needed (e.g. MoCaFi, or the Compton Pledge Portal with Venmo, Paypal and other financial partners); and organizations or individuals who can play the role of communications lead and interface with the media and your local community. If you are planning on exploring cash assistance as an overlay on existing benefits rather than a benefit that may substitute others or conflict with eligibility, you may wish to request waivers from the department that oversees state-administered benefits. This can involve lawyers where statutes are unclear. But even straightforward waiver applications, such as for SNAP, can take 6 to 12 months to resolve.

Research can take time to design. Once you bring a team on board, they may wish to build an advisory council; researchers will likely want to come up with several options that depend on fundraising success to ensure a statistically valid design even if the project falls short of fundraising goals; research must be conducted under the supervision of an Institutional Review Board and an application process that can take 36 months to conclude; the research team may need to find and hire a subcontracting organization to carry out survey field work (this is common practice in evaluation); and, of course, researchers will have to develop data collection instruments, data sharing agreements/NDAs, and a formal analysis plan for the pilot.

While much of this work can be done in parallel it is important to allocate sufficient time for it, especially given the possibility of “snags” in the process.

Common administrative challenges include public benefits eligibility and participant selection.

Providing low-income pilot participants with additional income creates risks that this additional income will disqualify them for public benefits programs they are enrolled in. These risks should be anticipated and addressed ahead of time to ensure that participation in the pilot does not 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
21

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
leave anyone worse off. Public benefits programs exist at the federal, state, and local level with eligibility requirements that vary with geography. Navigating the set of public programs that pilot participants may be enrolled in will require consultation with legal counsel and benefits specialists.

Mayors for a Guaranteed Income has produced a useful overview of program design considerations in relation to public benefits. They suggest structuring pilot benefits as gifts when possible, which can prevent them from being counted toward safety net eligibility requirements and, when less than the annual gift exclusion amount, do not need to be reported in tax filings. In other cases it may be necessary to seek waivers from government agencies to ensure that pilot participants do not lose public benefits.

Regarding participant selection and recruitment, there are a number of methods of recruiting and selecting participants in a given guaranteed income pilot or program. Depending on the research objectives and target populations, it can be very difficult to both select within and to reach vulnerable populations. Random selection among those in need helps make this process more fair.

Likewise, a pilot may choose to provide cash to individuals or households (and within households sometimes designating who receives funds to ensure the income supports the full family).

Moreover, maintaining the principles of a guaranteed income, and ensuring an effective intervention, relies on minimizing the burden on recipients to receive cash, and expanding eligibility as widely as possible within the scope of the pilot’s research. Some examples from existing programs include:

In Hudson, New York, the pilot created a simple application that was circulated through community-based organizations and publicized by the city. A communications campaign through local partners helped allay any fears that the application was a fraud. Then, a weighted lottery system was used to favor applicants in greatest need across a variety of factors.

In Compton, the pilot worked with community based organizations to complement lists of city residents with individuals who often fall outside of governmental resources. Then, Compton selected randomly from those lists of low-income qualifying households. Despite widespread media coverage in local and national news outlets, Compton’s enrollment, like all pilots, required a careful process of continuing to build trust through local partners, and multiple conversations with residents. It was also crucial to make clear to the public how recipients would be selected. Stockton SEED created a simple explanatory video on social media, as did Compton, as a tool to address significant inbound to the mayor’s office regarding how to join the program.

In Maricá, Brazil, three years of prior residency is required to apply for a Mumbuca card through the city government’s basic income policy. In that case, anyone with three years’ 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
22

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
residence and at the designated income level can receive the guaranteed income. There are now many models.

To discuss selection approaches unique to your pilot and context, reach out to us at [email protected].

Pilot Messaging
The greatest obstacle to the implementation of guaranteed income policy is not a lack of research, but a lack of political will. At this point, much of the impact of local guaranteed income pilots will come from their ability to influence established attitudes and narratives rather than to provide more empirical evidence reaffirming the benefits of guaranteed income. The purpose of a guaranteed income pilot should be understood to include its effects on public opinion through messaging, not just its research findings.

This broader shift in public opinion is essential for building popular support for implementing guaranteed income as a permanent program at the state or federal level. Every pilot, large or small, can contribute to this effort—and make a positive impact in the lives of local residents.

This section will focus on three aspects of effective communication around guaranteed income pilots: storytelling (highlighting the lives and experience of recipients), framing (communicating the benefits of GI by strategically focusing on key elements), and communicating research.

Storytelling
In order to effectively shift public attitudes towards a guaranteed income, it is important to first understand the established narratives and arguments supporting it. A few of the most common such arguments are:

1. That it can eliminate poverty and increase well-being by providing an income floor for everyone

2. That it increases economic and social mobility by providing people with the economic security they need to pursue new opportunities and weather economic shocks

3. That it ensures that everyone in need of support receives it rather than erecting barriers through means-testing and administrative requirements

4. That it reduces economic inequality and helps close racial wealth gaps by redistributing income
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
23

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
In addition, it is important to understand that changing negative or false narratives about guaranteed income and the safety net often requires changing the narrator. Cynicism about how poor people spend money has often been perpetuated by leaders or analysts who have no experience with financial precarity. Pilots can partake in narrative change by uplifting those with lived experiences of poverty and experiences accessing highly-conditional benefits programs.

Transforming the policy debate can involve changing the narrator of policy or research evidence, and supporting the storytelling capacities of those “target populations” for guaranteed income, individuals most marginalized by existing economic and welfare systems, especially across race and gender.

In our experience, the strongest opposition to these claims comes less from doubts about their accuracy than from doubts about whether they are goals that we should collectively pursue—or whether the government should allocate additional resources towards these goals. Many might grant that a guaranteed income would reduce poverty while also denying that poverty-reduction through redistribution should be a policy goal. This belief is a matter of values rather than evidence.

The two most prevalent rebuttals, firmly refuted by empirical research, are that a guaranteed income would:

1. Induce people to become “freeloaders” who receive income without working

2. Be spent irresponsibly on “temptation goods” by low-income recipients That empirical evidence from decades of cash transfer study runs counter to these claims is insufficient to dislodge them, for they are rooted not in evidence but in long-established race and gender-based narratives about poverty. We believe these attitudes can be transformed not by more evidence, but rather through changes in rhetoric and attitudes.

Many of these established narratives are closely associated with the concept of “welfare” understood by many not just as anti-poverty policy, but as a system in which the government provides resources to the “undeserving” poor who choose to rely on this support rather than working harder to support themselves. These attitudes found most pernicious expression in the figure of the “welfare queen” in the 1980s and 90s, a political symbol used to reinforce the harmful perception of welfare programs as a hand-out to black people taking advantage of the system rather than as essential economic support for low-income families of all races. In the United States, distinctions between the deserving and undeserving poor are often rooted in race and class prejudice; many other nations labor under similar illusions about poverty, in which the poor remain so only by lack of effort or self-discipline.

Every life touched by a guaranteed income program, whatever its size, is an opportunity to rebut such harmful stereotypes in the public imagination. In lieu of abstract stereotypes about poverty, 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
24

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
pilot storytelling can offer humanized and relatable examples of people fighting to get ahead in a system that too often works against them.

The key storytelling message is that poverty is the result of a lack of resources, not a lack of character, and that a guaranteed income makes a significant and positive impact on peoples’ lives. Stories transform attitudes and narratives at an emotional level through rich, embodied stories. This is especially important because the voices of low-income populations are so often absent in mainstream discourse.

Framing
As a fast-growing policy area with a wide range of social and economic effects, guaranteed income resonates for different reasons with particular audiences. Accordingly, an effective messaging strategy should make use of one or more frames most effective for its intended audience(s).

Through our work on guaranteed income and across a number of key messaging studies conducted by other scholars, JFI has found certain frames particularly effective in mobilizing support for guaranteed income. Of the list below, pilots would do well to choose some, but not all, to place at the heart of their messaging strategy. That choice, in turn, will depend on your local social and political context. For example, forthcoming research from Catherine Thomas (alongside Markus, H. and Walton, G.) suggests that conservative audiences respond more positively to frames that center the effects of GI on individual freedom and autonomy rather than economic security or financial stability, a conclusion consistent with the recommendations of progressive messaging experts for communications around welfare policy more generally. Stanford Basic Income Lab has also examined the impacts of different names used to describe cash policy and pilots. In general, your framing strategy should be based on careful consideration of your audience’s values, political orientations, and the local and national issues that are most salient to them. Whatever you choose to focus on, it is important to be consistent in your framing approach over time.

Guaranteed Income Frames
Poverty Alleviation
A guaranteed income can eliminate or significantly reduce poverty by providing an income floor that ensures that everyone has enough to survive. As a society, we have the resources to ensure that nobody falls into destitution and should recognize a right to basic subsistence.

This frame can also be used to emphasize that a guaranteed income provides a buffer against economic shocks -- unexpected bills, repairs, injuries, irregular employment, or sudden job loss—that keep people trapped in poverty. That is, a guaranteed income not 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
25

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
only lifts people out of poverty in the short term through cash transfers, but also in the longer term by ensuring that they have the positive cash-flow necessary to save in the face of volatility.

Economic Stimulus and Community Development
A guaranteed income is a powerful economic stimulus that puts money directly into the pockets of people who will spend it locally, supporting the growth of small businesses and local economies even in low-income areas. There is also evidence that providing community members with a guaranteed income reduces both property crime and violent crime.

Agency and Social Mobility
A guaranteed income gives people more agency over their lives by providing them with the financial stability they need to pursue their goals without depending entirely on their employer. It facilitates social mobility by encouraging people to pursue potentially risky new opportunities—including education, entrepreneurship, or relocation—with the knowledge that they have a financial buffer. It also supports social mobility by providing protection against the economic shocks that often keep families trapped in cycles of poverty.

Breaking Intergenerational Cycles of Poverty
Guaranteed income programs represent a commitment not just to a minimum standard of living for all, but to the idea that every child deserves to grow up with the resources they need to thrive. Children who grow up in financially secure households are more likely to succeed in school and have more positive outcomes throughout life.

Reducing poverty through cash transfers is not just about helping individuals achieve financial stability; it’s also about ensuring that children are not unfairly disadvantaged simply because they were born into one household rather than another. A guaranteed income for parents impacts the whole family, disrupting intergenerational poverty cycles by simultaneously helping parents build financial security and providing children the resources and stable environment they need to flourish.

Racial and Economic Equality
While there are a range of methods that might be used to finance a guaranteed income, it is a fundamentally redistributive policy representing a net transfer of resources from higher to lower income populations relative to the status quo. A guaranteed income is therefore a direct way to reduce economic inequality. Because people of color are disproportionately affected by low wages, income volatility, and poverty, this reduction in economic inequality also reduces racial income and wealth gaps. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
26

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Communicating Research
The above discussions of storytelling and framing are important for any guaranteed income pilot whether or not it has a research component. But for pilots that are designed as research programs it is also important to think about how research findings are communicated.

Communicating research to the public involves several different actors, including researchers, politicians, activists, and journalists, which creates many opportunities for miscommunication.

Karl Widerquist has argued that the different preconceptions of each of these audiences can create a game of “telephone” as findings grow distorted while communicated across audiences with different expectations. For example, researchers are trained to answer specific empirical questions in a balanced way, often hedging their findings with potential challenges, doubts, and further questions. The public, on the other hand, often expects more clear-cut answers not just to empirical questions but also to ethical questions about what policies ought to be implemented.

Ethical social science research can tell us what is the case, not what we ought to do with that information. The resulting absence of clear ethical conclusions invites various actors to spin the research in ways that support their views and sow confusion about the meaning of the results.

Widerquist suggests four strategies for ensuring that such research-oriented guaranteed income pilots contribute effectively to public understanding:

1. Work back and forth from public discussion to the experiment  The design of a
research pilot should start from an engagement with ongoing public discussions and be oriented toward answering questions relevant to them. Reports about experimental findings should relate them to these salient questions.

2. Focus on the effects rather than the side effects
 Researchers often focus on
answering questions that are more quantifiable at the expense of answering questions that are less precisely measurable but more relevant to public discussions. In many cases, it is more valuable to provide an imprecise answer to salient questions than a precise answer to questions that are difficult for the public to appreciate or engage with.

3. Focus on the bottom line
 Although there are many facets of public discussion about guaranteed income, observers, and especially the media, are ultimately looking for conclusions that relate to the bottom line: an overall evaluation of guaranteed income as a long-term national policy. No single pilot will be able to provide a definite conclusion to questions about the bottom line, but it is important to communicate clearly how specific findings relate to the viability, costs, and benefits of a state or national guaranteed income policy.

4. Address the ethical controversy
 Although empirical research cannot resolve ethical
questions about what ought to be done, it is important for researchers to engage with 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
27

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
public concerns and reduce the potential for spin by clearly explaining what their findings mean for people holding different ethical positions.

Finally, it is important to consider the public perception of the need for additional pilots. Almaz Zelleke has argued that new pilots can actually hinder progress toward the implementation of a permanent guaranteed income by falsely signalling to the public that it is still an untested policy whose significant unknowns must be tested before any large-scale implementation.

When creating a research pilot, you should be sure to communicate that new research on guaranteed income is valuable not because it will tell us whether guaranteed income “works,” but because it can help refine our understanding of how to a) optimize the design of GI policy and b) contribute to a shift in the narrative around guaranteed income. In other words: emphasize both the questions your pilot seeks to answer and the ones—like impact on overall well-being—that are already well-established.

The Guaranteed Income Movement
Although the concept of a guaranteed income is not new, the movement that has developed in support of it in recent years represents an exciting boost in public awareness and support for guaranteed income policy. Much of this momentum has been driven by the explosion of local pilots created in the wake of the Stockton SEED demonstration and as part of the creation of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income. Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential campaign, which promoted a $1,000 per month universal basic income, also had a significant impact on public awareness of guaranteed income as a policy option.

Most recently, the economic crisis created by the COVID19 pandemic has created an immediate need for expanded cash transfers through universal cash assistance and large increases in unemployment benefits. These policies have the benefits of direct cash transfers and add to the public momentum in support of guaranteed income not just as a response to crises, but as a permanent part of the social benefits system. This section provides further context for guaranteed income advocacy today by compiling lists of recent local pilots, past examples of guaranteed income in practice, and some of the key individuals and organizations advocating for guaranteed income today. For an updated list of past, ongoing, and planned guaranteed income pilots please also consult the Stanford Basic Income Lab’s global map.

Planned and ongoing pilot research in the U.S.

Below is a look at the cities implementing guaranteed income pilots and their relative differences in design and targeting. For a larger list of cities interested in guaranteed income pilots, see the Mayors for Guaranteed Income website. Programs indicated with a star (*) have begun providing cash. Please reach out if you are working on a pilot and would like for it to be included in this list. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
28

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
City / Area Recipients Amount Frequency Length Targeting Notes Jackson, MS*
2018, 2020
20, 110 $1,000 monthly 12 months African-American
mothers
After the initial pilot of 20 people from
20182019, a second pilot with more
than 110 participants began in March
2020. website
Stockton, CA*
2018
150 $500 monthly 24 months Residents of
neighborhoods with
$46k median
income
Initiated by Mayor Michael Tubbs,
founder of Mayors for a Guaranteed
Income. View the Stockton SEED
website here.

Compton, CA*
2020
800 $300600 varies 24 months Low-income, formerly
incarcerated, and
undocumented
residents
Known as the Compton Pledge, this
privately funded program is
spearheaded by Mayor Aja Brown in
collaboration with the Fund for
Guaranteed Income. website
Santa Clara
County, CA*
2020
72 $1000 monthly 1 year 24-year-olds
transitioning out of
foster care support
In July 2020, Santa Clara County began
administering the pilot with support
from MyPath and Excite Credit Union,
with $900,000 in public funds and
financial advising. The pilot was
approved by the county’s board of
supervisors. Press announcement here.

Chelsea, MA*
2020
2,000 $200400 monthly 10
months
Low-income families Funded by the City of Chelsea along with private funders like the Shah
Family Foundation. Fundraising
continues in an effort to extend the
pilot’s duration.

Hudson, NY*
2020
25 $500 monthly 5 years Income <$35k Funded by two non-profits: The Spark of Hudson and the Humanity Forward
Foundation. website
St. Paul, MN*
2021
150 $500 monthly 18 months Families participating
in the “CollegeBound
Saint Paul” program
Proposed by Mayor Melvin Carter and
unanimously approved by the city
council in September 2020. website
Lynn, MA*
2021
15 $400 monthly 36 months New mothers The Family Health Project participants refer into the program through federally
qualified community health centers, a
corporate partner provides debit cards,
and a social services firm provides
onboarding and administrative support.

Privately funded.

Richmond, VA*
2020
55 $500 monthly 2 years Low-income families
in existing
anti-poverty
programs; employed
but excluded from
traditional benefits
programs
The Richmond Resilience Initiative
started in 2020 with 18 families and
was funded through CARES Act funds,
but it has since been expanded to add
37 families as part of Mayors for
Guaranteed Income.

Columbia, SC 100 $500 monthly 1 year Black fathers in
Columbia within an
The Columbia Life Improvement
Monetary Boost (CLIMB) program was
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
29

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
2020 existing program founded in Dec. 2020 by Mayor
Stephen Benjamin alongside Midlands
Fatherhood Coalition, and supported by
private funds. To begin spring 2021.

Long Beach, CA
2021
150 $500 monthly 6 months Artists Mayor Robert Garcia’s proposal was accepted by the city council in Nov
2020 and is in the planning stages.

Pittsburg, PA
2021
200 $500 monthly 2 years Families earning
50% of area median
income
Mayor Bill Peduto is calling this pilot the
“Assured Cash Experiment of
Pittsburgh.” Half of the funds are to be
sent to households run by black women
with the hope of reducing racial and
gender inequalities.

San Francisco, CA
2021
150 $1,000 monthly 2 years Black and Pacific
Islander women
during pregnancy &
postpartum
A partnership between the San
Francisco Department of Public Health,
Hellman Foundation, and University of
California - San Francisco to decrease
infant mortality.

Oakland, CA
2021
600 $500 monthly 18 months BIPOC families
earning <50% of area
median income, with
half earning below
138% of the federal
poverty line
Led by Mayor Libby Schaaf, one of the
Mayors for a Guaranteed income, the
“Oakland Resilient Families” program is
supported by the Family Independence
Initiative. Payments starting as soon as
spring 2021.

San Diego, CA
2021
150 $500 monthly 2 years Random selection of
low-income families
with children under
12 within hardest-hit
zip codes for
COVID19 and child
poverty
A pilot serving both San Diego and
National City families, Resilient
Communities for Every Child is
supported and housed by Jewish
Family Service of San Diego, with a $2
million fundraising goal.

Marin County, CA
2021
125 $1000 monthly 2 years Low-income mothers
of color with children
under 18 years of
age, with priority for
those ineligible for
federal benefits
Introduced with unanimous support of
Marin county supervisors, MOMentum
has the financial support of the Marin
Community Foundation and Family
Independence Initiative as an
administrative partner for payments.

Cambridge, MA
2021
120 $500 monthly 18 months Single-parent
households earning
80% of area median
income (AMI who
have children under
age 18
The City of Cambridge announced
Cambridge RISE Recurring Income for
Success and Empowerment) in April
2021, a project spearheaded by Mayor
Sumbul Siddiqui with support from
Cambridge Community Foundation,
Harvard University, MIT, and Boston
Foundation.

Tacoma, WA
2021
100 $500 monthly 1 year Tacoma residents,
single head of
household, and
Asset-Limited-Incom
e-Constrained while
Employed (ALICE
The GRIT Demonstration, Growing
Resilience in Tacoma, is a partnership
between Mayor Victoria Woodards and
United Way of Pierce County, and part
of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income
MGI. It will rely on private funds.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
30

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
New York, NY
2021
100 $5001000 biweekly 3 years Low-income Black
and immigrant
mothers during first
1000 days of life
Funded and implemented by the
Monarch Foundation, the program aims
to reach those in Washington Heights &
Harlem, with hopes of expanding to
other areas.

San Francisco, CA
2021
50 $330 monthly 6 months Young parenting
mothers of Hilltop
School
MyPath and Hilltop School aim to
provide financial mentoring and
cohort-based learning circles to those
receiving the basic income. More here.

West Garfield
Park, IL
2020
30 $500 monthly 18 months Formerly incarcerated
individuals in the
neighborhood
Fundraising for EAT Equity and
Transformation) Chicago’spilot began
in Nov. 2020 and the program aims to
begin disbursement in August 2021.

Other nascent proposals (2021
Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti was among the founding mayors of the Mayors for Guaranteed Income and has proposed expanding his previous Angeleno Campaign, which provided one-time prepaid debit cards of $7001500 to eligible families as part of a $10 million emergency assistance campaign of Accelerator for America alongside Mastercards’ City Possible initiative. The program aimed to reach low-wage or hourly workers whose jobs were affected by the COVID19 pandemic, and received over 400,000 applicants. The expanded guaranteed income program aims to give $1000 per month to 2000 families in Los Angeles, with a proposed budget of $24 million.

Atlanta, GA Beginning the week of Juneteenth 2020, Atlanta City Council member Amir Farokhi launched a task force to explore the potential for a guaranteed income program to reduce economic inequality in Atlanta, and particularly Atlanta’s historic fourth ward. The Old Fourth Ward Economic Security Task Force brought together 28 local and national stakeholders, with the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, Economic Security Project and JFI among those weighing in.

A key objective was to tackle wealth stratification and particular insecurity among Black and Latinx Atlantans. Their report was published in January 2020. Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is also a member of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, launched in 2020 with 34 mayors joining their advocacy to date.

Newark, NJ Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark began exploring a guaranteed income program in 2019, forming a Task Force of community-based organizations and national research groups, like JFI, to investigate the role a guaranteed income program could play to address failures of the existing safety net, a lack of economic mobility in Newark, and especially housing precarity. The Newark Guaranteed Income Task Force report, published in early 2020, provides three potential pilot frameworks and recommended policy changes at the state and federal level, while underscoring the specific needs of Newark residents. Since then, Newark launched the Newark Movement for Economic Equity, with plans to begin a first cohort of 30 recipients in spring of 2021.

Chicago, IL Aldermen Gilbert Villegas, Sophia King, and Maria Hadden are advocating for the introduction of a guaranteed income providing $500/month to 5,000 of Chicago’s neediest families. The pilot would be funded by allocating $30 million of the $1.8 billion in federal relief funds Chicago is expected to receive this year. This effort is distinct from the task force assembled two years ago to examine the potential for a 1,000 person guaranteed income pilot in the city.

Other initiatives in Chicago are pushing for regular cash transfer programs for new moms as well.

New York, NY Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and Point Source Youth have been undertakingplans for a direct cash transfer program (DCTP for young adults facing homelessness in NYC. The target group is 30 young adults, with 30 others receiving usual services and shelters already available (an RCT model). The cash transfers will be $1250/mo for 2 years, with participants able to choose payment frequency and mechanism (Venmo, Paypa, direct deposit, card) through UpTogether’s online platform. The participants will also receive optional support services.

Denver, CO The Denver Basic Income Project founded by Mark Donovan, Denver-based philanthropist and entrepreneur, with the support of Denver Mayor Michael B. Hancock, and researchers at the University of Denver’s Center for Housing and Homeless Research. The pilot is explicitly focused on the unhoused, and will provide $1000 per month to 260 individuals, a lump sum of $6500 to 260 more, followed by $500 per month to the lump-sum contingent. A control group of 300 will receive $50 per month for their participation. The project aims to begin payments July 1, 2021.

Oakland County, A collaborative group made up of the 18th District Oakland County Commissioner's office, Lighthouse, a local housing non-profit, and researchers from Wayne State University are drafting a pilot program. The focus of this pilot 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
31

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
MI is unique in the space. While others have focused on the efficacy of cash transfers towards positive economic outcomes - this pilot intends to shed light on the physio/psychological impacts that guaranteed income have on an individual and family's health.

Minneapolis, MN* The Nancy Somers Family Foundation facilitated funding for a pilot providing $1000 monthly for 15 individuals through a local anti-poverty non-profit, Avivo. The pilot began amid the urgency of the pandemic in 2020 and included low income individuals who were unhoused, challenged by mental illness and/or enrolled in a career training program at Avivo; it will extend for 1 year. The group aims to expand the initiative as “Project Solid Ground” at Avivo, pending future funding.

Long Beach, CA Mayor Robert Garcia announced in January 2021 the intent to create a basic income program for low-income students at Long Beach City College. The City Council had previously considered proposals to provide $500 per month over six months for up to 150 artists. The city previously also provided $1,000 per month in rental assistance, in part supported by CARES Act funds. San Diego was among 15 cities awarded funds from Jack Dorsey as part of the Mayors for Guaranteed Income, with the aim to supplement funds with private sources. More specific details are not yet available.

Las Vegas, NV A Las Vegas City Council candidate supportive of guaranteed income has proposed a program that would aim to provide annual lump sum payments to 60,000 residents in initial disbursements (~9% of the city population).

Mountain View,
CA
In April 2021, Mountain View City Council voted to pilot a guaranteed income program. The council plans to dedicate $1 million in American Rescue Plan (ARPA funds alongside any philanthropic or corporation donations. Provided exclusively ARPA funding, the recipients would receive $500 per month for 1 year. While the program design is forthcoming, Mayor Abe-Koga indicated an interest in targeting low-income families, similar to affordable housing.

Nashville, TN Moving Nashville Forward is a pilot program intended to target residents in North Nashville (zip code 37208, a community that has faced acutely a history of systemic discrimation. The pilot is currently fundraising to provide 100 families a monthly guaranteed income of $1000 to families with annual incomes under $40,000. Organizers include Gideon’s Army, a group that has supported local tornado recovery efforts, with support from Dr. Stacia West, a University of Tennessee Knoxville Assistant Professor and one of the co-Principal Investigators of Stockton SEED.

South San
Francisco
South San Francisco has been considering a pilot since early 2021, based on presentations on UBI to the city council led by City Manager Mike Futrell and his team. While eligibility and program design specifics are forthcoming, the group identified the YMCA as a program administrator.

Gainesville, FL In collaboration with local nonprofit Community Spring, Mayor Lauren Poe aims to provide a $600/mo guaranteed income for two years to formerly incarcerated residents. First payments are expected to go out October 1.

Gary, Indiana The Guaranteed Income Validation Efforts (GIVE program is fundraising to support 125 low-income residents with $500/mo. Income cut-offs are at $35,000/year and citywide surveys are being used to identify potential recipients.

The effort is supported by Mayors for Guaranteed Income and is looking to raise $1.6M.

Puget Sound, WA In a program to target pregnant families within the Puget Sound urban Indian and Pacific Islander communities, the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, Seattle Indian Health Board, Cowlitz Behavioral Health, Native American Women’s Dialogue on Infant Mortality, and Pacific Islander Health Board are designing a 3-year pilot supported by Perigee Fund. Learn more about their wrap-around services here, and Perigee Fund’s interestshere.

Paterson, NJ Announced in March 2021, Paterson’s Mayor Andre Sayegh aims to provide 110 low-income residents with $400 per month, regardless of employment status. The income cut-off for individuals and families is $30,000 and $88,000 respectively. Residents applied online by April 30 and a lottery system is set to select recipients in May 2021, for payments to begin in July. The research is supported by the Center for Guaranteed Income.

New York, NY The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation is working to launch Creatives Rebuild New York (CRNY to support dozens of small-to-midsize community arts organizations and over 1000 individual artists with cash over 2 years. Morehere.

Boston, MA The Community Love Fund is a landmark guaranteed income initiative of the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women & Families and Justice as Healing. The aim is to provide unconditional monthly cash transfers to formerly incarcerated women in Roxbury Boston) for one year, beginning in 2021. Morehere.

Nevada The Move Nevada Forward initiative is focused on advancing economic rights for Nevadans with a particular focus in 2021 on establishing a basic income experiment statewide. It is a coalition of grassroots-led nonprofits. There are other groups in Nevada working to rally public officials for a guaranteed income program in Las Vegas as well. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
32

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
*These programs have begun to deliver the guaranteed income.

Has guaranteed income ever been tried in the United States? The answer to this question is yes and no. A population-wide guaranteed income has not been tried in the U.S., but forms of regular cash transfer policies have been implemented. The most well-known example of a guaranteed income at the state level is the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which inspired 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s proposal to implement a UBI nationwide. The examples below are antecedents to a future cash transfer policy that would more closely represent a guaranteed income at scale.

EITC, Child Tax Credit, and similar cash relief
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC is a refundable tax credit provided by the federal government (and by about half of state governments) for low-income workers, particularly those with children. While childless households can receive a maximum federal benefit of $538 in 2020, households with one child can receive up to $3,500 annually and those with three or more children can receive up to $6,660. Because this tax credit is refundable, households receive these amounts in cash as a refund after subtracting remaining taxes owed. Each year the federal government distributes about $70 billion in tax credits through this program, lifting millions out of poverty through what are effectively cash transfers.

Using thirty years’ worth of data on EITC policy expansions, researchers Bastian and Jones (2018 concluded that EITC is one of the least expensive anti-poverty programs in the United States. For every $350 in EITC spending, total government revenues increased by $303, compensating for 87% of the program cost through positive spillover effects. EITC expansions were found to increase average annual earnings and labor supply, increase payroll and sales taxes paid, and reduce dependence on public assistance.

The Child Tax Credit (CTC provides low-income parents with a fully refundable tax credit for each dependent child. As of 2018, it provided a $2,000 annual tax credit per qualifying child with a maximum refundable amount of $1,400. Although it is not targeted exclusively at low-income families, the CTC is an important anti-poverty program, lifting over 4 million people—including 2 million children—out of poverty in 2018. In 2021, the CTC was temporarily expanded until the end of the year as a part of the American Rescue Plan Act. While this expansion is in effect, roughly 80% of parents receive a credit of $300/mo ($3,600/year) for each child under 6 and $250/mo $3,000/year) for children age 617. Unlike the ordinary CTC, the expanded credit is fully refundable, available to parents with little to no income, and can be distributed monthly rather than all at once after filing taxes. In this way, the expanded CTC much more closely resembles child allowance programs found in other countries (i.e. guaranteed income for parents). Making this expansion permanent would be a large step forward for social policy in the United States. For more details check out JFI’s policy brief comparing CTC expansion proposals. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
33

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend
The Alaska Permanent Fund has paid a yearly dividend to state residents since 1982. Established to conserve revenue from oil and mineral resources to benefit all Alaskans, the fund also grows its principal through investment and pays out an average dividend of around $1,600 per year to each resident. It is both the largest and the longest running example of guaranteed income in practice.

Eastern Band of Cherokee Basic Income
In 1996, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina opened a casino and decided to distribute a portion of its annual profits to every tribe member in the form of a cash subsidy. The payouts began at around $500 per person per year but have increased to several thousand dollars since. In addition to increased financial security, researchers observed a range of positive effects on community members receiving this additional income, including reduced behavioral and emotional problems in children and less depression, anxiety, and alcohol dependence in adults.

Which individuals and organizations are working on guaranteed income policy?
The movement for guaranteed income policy is international, and this section does not provide an exhaustive list of the many important organizations and individuals who contribute significantly to the field. In the U.S., the “big tent” of advocacy organizations can include those supporting a wide variety of cash-based safety net policies that involve a regular payment or income floor. Similar policies include a Child Allowance or Child Tax Credit CTC, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC and historic Negative Income Tax, advocates of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, and programs that guarantee businesses can provide paychecks to workers during widespread government and business shut-downs as we saw in 2020 (such as the Paycheck Protection Program, Paycheck Recovery Act, etc.). Notably, interest in federal cash relief in 2020 came alongside the expansion of unemployment insurance programs that can likewise guarantee an income floor, although in more limited and highly-conditioned ways. The importance of these other programs for guaranteed income policy is that many advocates for such benefits believe in fundamentally similar social safety net measures rooted in cash support. Below are some of the notable organizations that occupy the wider landscape of advocacy and research on guaranteed income or cash transfer policy:

Cash support advocates in Congress
“Advocates” are defined as those that have cosponsored or introduced legislation that provides for an income floor or cash-based family support program. This list is not comprehensive of all 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
34

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
cosponsors or all cash transfer legislation, but rather focuses on leading figures in policy that either directly models a guaranteed income or that begins with more modest measures, like a child allowance that provides baseline income for parents and caretakers with children.

The legislation that most resembles a guaranteed income has come from these progressive offices:
● Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (DNJ
○ Guaranteed Income Pilot Program Act of 2020 (one-pager here) ● Rep. Rashida Tlaib (DMI
○ Automatic Boost to Communities Act (“ABC Act”), BOOST Act (previously known as the LIFT Act)
● Rep. Ilhan Omar (DMN
○ RELIEF Act and letters for continuous relief checks
Legislation around an income floor for parents has even wider support, with many of those advocates also supporting regular payments during the crisis of the coronavirus pandemic.

Notably, there is widespread Democratic support for a child tax credit (CTC proposal, especially with President Biden’s American Rescue Plan expansion and American Families Plan. Below are just a few key champions of a CTC expansion:
● Rep. Rosa DeLauro (DCT
● Sen. Sherrod Brown (DOH
● Rep. Suzan DelBene (DWA
● Sen. Richard Neal (DMA
● Sen. Chris Murphy (DCT
● Rep. Nancy Pelosi (DCA
In addition to the Child Tax Credit, Families First Coronavirus Response:
● Sen. Michael Bennet (DCO
● Sen. Sherrod Brown (DOH
● Sen. Cory Booker (DNJ
Among other forms of pandemic-related income support were several different paycheck protection bills. Such bills work similarly to the EITC in that they are employment-conditioned.

Also included below is an expansion of the EITC
● Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVT
○ Paycheck Recovery Act
● Rep. Pramila Jayapal (DWA
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
35

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
○ Paycheck Recovery Act
○ Co-sponsored Rep. Tlaib’s ABC Act
● Former Sen. Kamala Harris (DCA
○ LIFT Act
○ Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act
Among Republican legislators, support has primarily centered around a pandemic-specific relief.

Nonetheless, the following legislators supported more robust checks for families in the wake of COVID19
● Sen. Josh Hawley (RMO
● Sen. Tom Cotton (RAR
● Sen. Mitt Romney (RUT
○ Also supports the Child Tax Credit
● Rep. Justin Amash (RMI
● Sen. Marco Rubio (RFL
● Sen. Mike Lee (RUT
Emergency cash relief legislation has garnered much greater support than regular cash relief legislation. While support for the CARES Act, which passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, is one example, a few key legislators have put forth additional and more sweeping legislation for cash transfers throughout the course of the pandemic and its economic downturn, including some mentioned above. Some additional examples include:
● Rep. Ro Khanna (DCA
○ Emergency Money to the People Act
● Rep. Tim Ryan (DOH
○ Emergency Money to the People Act
● Rep. Maxine Waters (DCA
○ House Financial Services Committee proposal
● Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DNY
○ Amendment to the CASH Act
○ Cosponsored ABC Act
Efforts are also being made at the state and municipal level to create guaranteed income pilots and programs. Some examples of state level advocates are:
● NY State Sen. Kevin S. Parker
○ Senate Bill S6696 proposing the creation of a 2-year statewide guaranteed income pilot with 10,000 recipients
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
36

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
○ Senate Bill S6552 proposing a state-wide universal basic income pilot program and funds to support it
● NY State Sen. Leroy Comrie
○ Senate Bill S6696 co-sponsor
● MA State Sen. James B. Eldridge
○ Bill H.1632 proposing the creation of a state-level universal basic income program
● MA State Rep. Tami L. Gouveia
○ Bill H.1632 joint petitioner
● CA Assemblymember Evan Low
○ AB65 Stating legislature’s intent to implement a universal basic income in California
○ AB1338 Exempting guaranteed income demonstrations’ cash transfers from means tests for CalWORKS, CalFRESH, CalEITC ● CA State Sen. Dave Cortese
○ SB739 The UBI for Transition Age Foster Youth Act, a bill to provide 3-years of UBI, $1000/mo for foster youth
Academic champions for guaranteed income
Among academics, there is a growing acknowledgment of the longstanding empirical evidence in favor of a guaranteed income or similar cash transfer policy. In an open letter to Congress of over 150 economists and social scientists, academics argued in July 2020 for additional cash relief for families alongside expanded cash-based safety net policies like unemployment insurance.

Notable academics working most directly on cash transfer research and guaranteed income include: Our own researchers, Sidhya Balakrishnan, Stephen Nuñez, Johannes Haushofer (also of GiveDirectly), Leah Hamilton, Maximilian Kasy, and Paul Katz; co-Directors of the newly-launched Center for Guaranteed Income Research at the University of Pennsylvania, Stacia West and Amy Castro Baker; major international researchers in the Brazilian Basic Income Network such as Fabio Waltenberg; Fernando Freitas, Roberta Mendes e Costa; at OpenResearchLabs (formerly YC Research) Elizabeth Rhodes; and, while not all advocates for guaranteed income, longtime cash transfer researchers like Sandra Black, Susan Dynarski, Evelyn Forget, Maura Francese, Ugo Gentilini, Michael Howard, Hilary Hoynes, Damon Jones, Michael A. Lewis, Ioana Marinescu, Delphine Prady, Jesse Rothstein, Philippe Van Parijs, Karl Widerquist, and Almaz Zelleke have written important work on the subject.

Advocates & civil society in support of guaranteed income A wide and growing number of grassroots organizations support recurring cash transfers for low-income individuals in particular. During the protest movement surrounding the murder of 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
37

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
George Floyd in 2020, the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL included a call for guaranteed income in its week of action demands. In addition, M4BL released what has been called “a modern-day Civil Rights Act” known as the BREATHE Act, which calls for a guaranteed income among its economic justice policy proposals. The Compton Pledge guaranteed income pilot worked alongside local organizers of the Electoral Justice Project of M4BL to introduce and pass a local resolution of the BREATHE Act to that effect. With a more direct focus on guaranteed income, the Income Movement Foundation is an advocacy group building grassroots support for a federal basic income. The Economic Security Project ESP advocates for a guaranteed income as well as an expanded EITC. ESP was instrumental in launching Mayors for Guaranteed Income MGI in 2020, which was led by Mayor Michael Tubbs of Stockton, California alongside over 20 founding mayors calling for pilots and guaranteed income policy at a federal level. Another organization to emerge in 2020 was Humanity Forward, a group that was built after the end of Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential run in which he called for a universal basic income in the U.S.

More recent and emerging examples in 2021 include grassroots organizations and movements that supported the launch of the Compton, California guaranteed income, the Compton Pledge, which was built by the Fund for Guaranteed Income (also launched in 2020 by Nika Soon-Shiong) and JFI. The supportive partners include founding leaders in the Black Lives Matter movement, the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, Essie Justice Group, One Fair Wage, and A New Way of Life Reentry Project, among others. This growing support for a major guaranteed income initiative in the U.S. may signal more widespread support from these organizations to come. In addition, a Guaranteed Income Community of Practice has formed around multiple emerging pilots (see here).

Philanthropy
Much like the public support for cash transfers, there is a growing interest among funders to enable guaranteed income pilots that build on the research and public narrative. Among them are the newly-established Fund for Guaranteed Income, the Schusterman Family Foundation, the Family Independence Initiative, the Shah Family Foundation, Humanity Forward Foundation, Jack Dorsey, and the Economic Security Project (although notably they focus especially on advocacy).

Progressive philanthropist George Soros has also advocated for government-based direct cash relief. In developing countries, GiveDirectly has financed guaranteed income programs as well.

Joining the Movement
If you are interested in contributing to guaranteed income research and advocacy through a community pilot, research or advocacy, JFI can be a resource and partner on additional questions that may not be addressed in this report. As a non-profit, non-partisan research group, we are ready to offer our network and support to initiatives that build on the evidence for a GI in the US.

Reach out to us at [email protected] and we'll discuss potential next steps. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
38

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Further Reading and Global Perspectives
JFI’s publication Phenomenal World provides a thorough review of existing academic research on guaranteed income, UBI, and other cash policies - see here.

JFI also publishes an ongoing whitepaper series titled From Idea to Reality: Getting to Guaranteed Income. The series is designed to provide a concrete analysis of the path toward guaranteed income policy in the U.S. by examining specific implementation questions and challenges. View the series here.

Stanford’s Basic Income Lab has created a useful and practice-oriented guide for those looking to create municipal basic income pilots. You can access their guide, Basic Income in Cities, here.

The Aspen Institute’s Financial Security Program released a three-part report bringing together what is known about the need for, innovations in, and the effects of cash transfer programs. You can view the report here.

Ugo Gentilini, along with others at the World Bank, have put together a comprehensive review of social protection programs—including cash transfers—implemented around the world during the COVID19 pandemic. View the report here.

Brazil’s Bolsa Família
Brazil has been, since 2004, the only country in the world to legislate every citizen’s right to a basic income. That same year, Brazil introduced a transformative cash assistance program that proponents see as the first step toward securing that right. Known as Bolsa Família, the program provides families with direct cash transfers in return for keeping their kids in school and attending preventative health care visits. After ten years, Bolsa Família helped cut the percentage of Brazilians living in extreme poverty in half, from 9.7% to 2.7%. It remains the largest conditional cash transfer program in the world, reaching about a quarter of the population (50 million people).

Within Brazil, the city of Maricá has recently launched an ambitious guaranteed income policy providing more than 42,000 residents with income equivalent to about three quarters of the national poverty line. JFI is closely involved with the accompanying research program designed to study the effects and administration of large-scale guaranteed income policies. You can learn more about Bolsa Família and the Maricá program here.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
39

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
GiveDirectly program in Kenya
GiveDirectly has been running one of the largest and longest guaranteed income research programs in the world in Kenya, where they are providing cash transfers to 20,000 individuals across 197 villages. Some recipients will receive regular payments for as long as twelve years. By varying the lengths of time that individuals receive benefits, as well as whether they receive the cash monthly or all at once in a lump sum, researchers hope to learn more about the long-term effects of guaranteed income and the impact of different disbursement patterns.

In addition to the primary pool of subjects, two additional villages are receiving monthly payments for twelve years without being a part of the main study so that researchers can have more in-depth qualitative conversations with them about their experience. This group is very much aligned with the storytelling aspect of pilots discussed earlier. You can read more about the study here.

Other global implementations
- The Iranian government created a universal basic income program in 2011, providing monthly transfers amounting to 29% of median household income. Research on its effects did not find evidence of a significant effect on labor supply outside of people in their twenties who were more likely to enroll in higher education. - Finland conducted a guaranteed income experiment for two years from the beginning of 2017 to the end of 2018. During this time 2,000 unemployed persons received 560 Euros every month, regardless of any other income they had or whether they were looking for work. However, this program had major design and implementationflaws. Read more about the experiment here.
- Many European countries have long-established child allowance programs which provide recurring cash transfers to parents based on the number of children they have. For example, in Germany parents receive a little over 200 Euros per month for each child. You can read more about child allowance policy in various European countries here. - During the COVID19 pandemic Spain has introduced a targeted guaranteed minimum income program with the intention of continuing it indefinitely. The program would reach over three million of the country’s poorest households and be means-tested according to the type of family, number of children, and financial need. - During the pandemic, Japan has provided direct cash transfers of $930 to every citizen in addition to doubling the existing child allowance, bringing it to approximately $200 per month per child.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
40

COMPTON PLEDGE DELIVERS $1 MILLION TO RESIDENTS
800 FAMILIES ARE NOW RECEIVING REGULAR

GUARANTEED INCOME PAYMENTS
Compton Mayor Aja Brown, the Fund for Guaranteed Income and the Compton Community Development Corp. managing the largest city-based GI pilot in U.S. history.

PRESS RELEASE

Compton, CA, April 14 , 202 1 — Today, Mayor Aja Brown and the Compton Pledge announced the successful enrollment of 800 families in Compton’s guaranteed income pilot program, making it the largest city-based guaranteed income initiative in United States history.

Launched in December 2020 with the support and administration of th e Fund for Guaranteed Income (F4GI) and the Compton Community Development Corporation (CCDC), the Compton Pledge has already disbursed $1 million to support over 1770 recipients, including dependents. A total of $9.1 million will be distributed in recurring payments over the next two years.

The community- led pilot uses a custom, web- based payments platform to enhance the economic security and self- determination of historically marginalized groups, including undocumented and formerly incarcerated residents. The program is the first to offer a tailored set of payment options and allow participants to switch between them. To date, 50% chose Direct Deposit, 9% chose Venmo, 8% chose PayPal and 33% chose prepaid card.

“There can be no peace without understanding identity, operating in purpose, and the inalienable right of human dignity. I want residents to be empowered by the greatness from where they came,” said Aja Brown, Mayor of Compton.

“Economic empowerment and equity are essential to community wellness and uplift. These vital investments disrupt generational poverty experienced by many families and children,” said Dr. Sharoni Little, Compton Pledge Community Advisory Council member and CEO of the Strategist Group.

The Compton Pledge is supported by a Community Advisory Council as well as national advocacy groups including Black Lives Matter, One Fair Wage, CHIRLA, Essie Justice Group, A New Way of Life, and the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls.

“The day I received my first payment, there was much-needed medication I was unable to pay for before.

Compton has been my city for 30 plus years. I love it and the people in it,” said Tiffany, a participant in the program.

“COVID-19 hit this community really hard. After losing my job, the Compton Pledge let me pay for my electricity and internet bills, or buy shoes for my two little ones,” said Ireri, who is a member of the Voices of Compton Pledge storytelling initiative.

“As an artist, this is helping me move forwards in faith that I can be a strong businessman. The Compton Pledge is helping me to breathe easier,” said De’Shawn, another member of Voices of Compton Pledge.

The Jain Family Institute (JFI), an applied research organization with international expertise in guaranteed income design and evaluation, is serving as a design and implementation partner.

The pilot is philanthropically funded from private donors and recently received a $200,000 grant from Amazon Foundation and Amazon Studios Foundation. “Not only is the Compton Pledge performing vital services as the community recovers, but in the long term it is breaking down barriers to opportunity and creating new narratives to foster equity and justice ,” said Cameron Onum ah, Amazon’s Public Policy Manager for Southern California.

To follow the progress of the Compton Pledge, a two -year program delivering recurring cash relief to low-income residents, go to comptonpledge.org and select “sign up for news” or follow Compton Pledge on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook. To make a tax-deductible donation to the Compton Pledge, led by the nonprofit Fund for Guaranteed Income, go to comptonpledge.org/donate.

###

To learn more about the Compton Pledge or how to get involved, contact [email protected].

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 1

ANNOTATED AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING OF T HE

BERKELEY CITY COUNCI L

Tuesday, June 9, 2020
4:00 P.M.

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – CHERYL DAVILA DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE

PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCT ED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH

VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE
Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N -29-20,
issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020, th is meeting of the City Council will be conducted exclusively through teleconference and Zoom videoconference. Please be advised that pursuant to the Executive Order and the Shelter -in-Place Order, and to ensure the health and safety of the public by limiting human contact that could spread the COVID -19 virus, there will not be a physical meeting location available.

Live audio is available on KPFB Radio 89.3. Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B-TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/CalendarEventWebcastMain.aspx .

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89047645600
. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.

To join by phone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 and enter Meeting ID: 890 4764 5600. If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

To submit an e- mail comment during the meeting to be read aloud during public comment, email [email protected] with the Subject Line in this format: “PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM ##.” Please observe a 150 word limit. Time limits on public comments will apply. Written comments will be entered into the public record.

Please be mindful that the teleconference will be recorded as any Council meeting is recorded, and all other rules of procedure and decorum will apply for Council meetings conducted by teleconference or videoconference.

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900. The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda. Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a date/time to be specified.

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 2

Preliminary Matters
Roll Call: 4:02 p.m.

Present: Kesarwani, Davila, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin

Absent: None
Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Robinson) to accept temporary rules for the conduct of the meeting related to public comment and Council discussion.

Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None Abstain – Davila.

Ceremonial Matters:

1. Adjourned in memory of George Floyd and all those that are victims of police violence

2. Adjourned in memory of all victims of COVID-19

3. Adjourned in memory of Erik Salgado, victim of California Highway Patrol shooting City Manager Comments:

The City Manager announced that she will be hosting a Town Hall meeting for the community on Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.

Action Calendar
Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Harrison) to:

1. Accept an urgency item from Councilmember Kesarwani pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) entitled Budget Referral to Establish Structure and Framework for an Office of Racial Equity.

2. Accept an urgency item from Councilmember Hahn pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) entitled Black Lives Matter and Ohlone Recognition.

3. Accept an urgency item from Councilmember Harrison pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) entitled Urgency Resolution: Directing the Police Review Commission and City Manager to Submit Revised Berkeley Police Department Use of Force Policy for Council Review and Approval Before the 2020 Summer Recess.

4. Accept an urgency item from Mayor Arreguin pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) entitled Prohibiting the use of Chemical Agents for Crowd Control during the COVID-19 pandemic.

5. Accept an urgency item from Councilmember Hahn pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2) entitled Changes to the Berkeley Municipal Code and City of Berkeley Policies with Respect to Local Emergency Declarations and First Amendment Curfews.

6. Accept supplemental material from the City Manager on Item 1.

Vote: All Ayes.

Action Calendar

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 3
Budget Referral to Establish Structure and Framework for an Office of Racial Equity
From: Councilmember Kesarwani (Author), Councilmember Wengraf (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Droste (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Bartlett (Co- Sponsor)
Recommendation: Refer to the FY 2020-21 Budget Process the one-time allocation of $150,000 to establish a structure and framework for an Office of Racial Equity consisting of a Racial Equity Officer and a supporting Specialist. The purpose of the Office of Racial Equity is to: (1) establish a common vision for racial equity across all City departments, (2) create mechanisms for measuring racial inequities in the delivery of all City programs and services; and (3) initiate efforts by all City departments to implement best practices related to metrics, policies, and procedures to close racial inequities in the allocation and delivery of all City programs and services.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember, District 1, (510) 981-7110 Action: 24 speakers. M/S/C (Hahn/Wengraf) to approve the recommendation amended to include that the Office of Racial Equity should be seated in the Office of the City Manager, and that the programs and services delivered by the Planning and Development Department and the Transportation Division should be included among the Citywide programs and services to be considered by the Office of Racial Equity.

Vote: All Ayes.

Black Lives Matter and Ohlone Recognition
From: Councilmember Hahn (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Davila (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation:

1. In solidarity with the Mayor of Washington, D.C. and the Black Lives Matter movement, direct the City Manager to immediately paint the words "Black Lives Matter" on Martin Luther King Jr Way in front of Old City Hall, between Center Street and Allston Way, with the text to be read from the eastern sidewalk of Martin Luther King Jr Way.

2. In recognition of the fact that Berkeley is situated on Ohlone territory, paint the words "Ohlone Territory" on Milvia Street in between Center Street and Allston Way, with the text read from the west sidewalk of Milvia Street.

3. The City Manager is encouraged to work with local artists to render the paintings. In addition, the City Manager should take care not to interfere with other street markings that are necessary for safety of pedestrians, bikes, or vehicles, or otherwise necessary.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, (510) 981-7150 Action: 4 speakers. M/S/C (Hahn/Droste) to approve the recommendation with the following amendments: 1) the locations for the words to be painted are suggestions for the City Manager’s consideration; 2) the City Manager is encouraged to work with the community to render the paintings; and 3) the paintings should not pose challenges to bicycle infrastructure.

Vote: All Ayes.

Action Calendar

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 4
Urgency Resolution: Directing the Police Review Commission and City Manager to Submit Revised Berkeley Police Department Use of Force Policy for Council Review and Approval Before the 2020 Summer Recess
From: Councilmember Harrison (Author), Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Davila (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Adopt an Urgency Resolution directing the Police Review Commission (“PRC”) and City Manager to:

1. Finalize revisions to the use of force policy as referred by Council in 2017 and drafted by the department for PRC review in January, 2020;

2. Submit revised Use of Force Policy directly to the full City Council for the Council to review and adopt before the 2020 Summer recess;

3. Incorporate revisions included the October 31, 2017 Council referral and all outstanding “8 Can’t Wait” use of force policy reforms.

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140 Action: 59 speakers. M/S/C (Harrison/Davila) to adopt Resolution No. 69,438–N.S. amended to add the following resolved clauses:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the Police Review Commission to review the use of control holds.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Manager to allow anonymized access to records about use of force to the Police Review Commission to inform deliberation of the use of force general order.

Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – Davila.

Recess: 6:21 p.m. – 6:26 p.m.

Action Calendar

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 5
Prohibiting the use of Chemical Agents for Crowd Control during the COVID-19 pandemic
From: Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Harrison (Author), Councilmember Robinson (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a motion to establish an official City of Berkeley policy prohibiting the use of tear gas (CS gas), pepper spray or smoke for crowd control by the Berkeley Police Department, or any outside department or agency called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley, during the COVID-19 pandemic, until such time that the City Council removes this prohibition.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, (510) 981-7100

Action: 23 speakers. M/S/Failed (Wengraf/Kesarwani) to establish an official City of Berkeley policy prohibiting the use of tear gas (CS gas), pepper spray or smoke for crowd control by the Berkeley Police Department, or any outside department or agency called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley, during the COVID-19 pandemic, until such time that the City Council removes this prohibition. And, to refer the item to the Public Safety Policy Committee and the Police Review Commission for the consideration of a permanent ban of these chemical agents.

Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Hahn, Wengraf, Droste; Noes – Davila, Bartlett, Harrison, Robinson; Abstain – Arreguin.

Action: M/S/Carried (Davila/Harrison) to establish an official City of Berkeley policy 1) prohibiting the use of tear gas by the Berkeley Police Department, or any outside department or agency called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley, and 2) prohibiting the use of pepper spray or smoke for crowd control by the Berkeley Police Department, or any outside department or agency called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley, during the COVID-19 pandemic, until such time that the City Council removes this prohibition.

Vote: All Ayes.

Action Calendar

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 6
Changes to the Berkeley Municipal Code and City of Berkeley Policies with Respect to Local Emergency Declarations and First Amendment Curfews From: Councilmember Hahn (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Arreguin (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation:

1. Direct the City Manager to return to the City Council for adoption amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code and/or policies to approve that clarify and codify the following with respect to the declaration of a Local Emergency:
a. A Local Emergency can only be declared by the Director of Emergency Services if a regular or special meeting and session of the City Council cannot be called due to physical impossibility of holding a meeting, because a quorum cannot be established, or because the urgency of the Local Emergency is such that waiting 24 hours for the City Council to convene a session and/or Special Meeting would endanger the community; b. Should the Director declare a Local Emergency without action of the City Council (due to one of the reasons stated at (a), above), Council ratification of such action occurs at the first possible opportunity, even if it requires calling a Special Meeting and/or session of the Council; and
c. The applicable statutory and legal standards (Federal, State and Local) for calling a Local Emergency shall be presented to the City Council when seeking declaration or ratification of a Local Emergency, along with facts to support meeting those standards, so that the City Council, likely acting under rushed and exigent circumstances, is able to make a carefully considered and fact-based determination that declaration of such Local Emergency conforms with the legal standards and is supported by facts.

2. Direct the City Manager to return to the City Council for adoption amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code and/or policies to approve that clarify and codify policies, terms and procedures for the order, scope, terms, duration, and all other elements and conditions of curfews called in response to, or likely to have the effect of limiting or banning, planned, expected or reasonably foreseeable first amendment activity, including rallys, marches, demonstrations and assemblies of all kinds (“First Amendment Curfews”),as enumerated (1-8) under the “Background” section of this item, below.

3. Advise the City Manager and/or Director of Emergency Services that approval of this item represents the will and direction of the City Council with respect to declarations of Local Emergencies and imposition of First Amendment Curfews, and should the occasion to declare a Local Emergency or impose a First Amendment curfew arise prior to formal Council adoption of the requested amendments and policies, the City Manager and/or Director of Emergency Services shall, to the greatest extent possible under existing law, strive to encompass actionable elements, and meet spirit, of this item.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, (510) 981-7150

Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Wengraf) to continue Items 3, 4, 5, 6, and the urgency item regarding Local Emergency Declarations and First Amendment Curfews, to the June 16, 2020 regular City Council meeting.

Vote: All Ayes.

Action Calendar – Public Hearings

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 7

1. Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Budget Update Public Hearing #2 (Continued from June 2, 2020)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing regarding the FY 2021 Proposed Budget Update.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Teresa Berkeley-Simmons, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Robinson) to continue Items 1, 2, and the supplemental material for Item 1 from the City Manager, to a special meeting called by Mayor Arreguin for June 16, 2020 at 2:30 p.m.

Vote: All Ayes.

Action Calendar

2. FY 2020 Mid-Year Budget Update (Continued from June 2, 2020) From: City Manager
Contact: Teresa Berkeley-Simmons, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000 Action: Item 2 continued to June 16, 2020 special meeting.

3. Presentation and Discussion of Community Survey Results and Direction About Next Steps for Possible Ballot Measure Development (Item Contains Supplemental Material) (Continued from June 2, 2020)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Discuss results of the community survey and provide direction to the City Manager about the drafting of possible measures for inclusion on the November 2020 ballot.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: David White, City Manager's Office, 981-7000
Action: Item 3 continued to June 16, 2020 regular meeting.

4. Placing Charter Amendment Measure on the November 3, 2020 Ballot Related to Full-Time Status and Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers (Continued from June 2, 2020)
From: City Manager
Recommendation:

1. Adopt a Resolution submitting an Amendment to Article V of the City Charter regarding the full-time status and salaries for the Mayor and City Council to a vote of the electors at the November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election.

2. Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
Action: Item 4 continued to June 16, 2020 regular meeting.

Action Calendar – Public Hearings

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 8

5. Recommendation to Prepare a City Ballot Measure to Create a Climate Action Fund, in Response to the Fossil Fuel Free Berkeley Referral (Continued from June 2, 2020)
From: Energy Commission
Recommendation: The Commission recommends that the City Council develop a referendum and seek approval for it on the 2020 ballot to create a Climate Action Fund, which would support actions to achieve the Berkeley Climate Action Plan, to become Fossil Fuel free, and to respond to the Climate Emergency.

Financial Implications: See report.

Contact: Billi Romain, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7400 Action: Item 5 continued to June 16, 2020 regular meeting.

6. Proposed Amendment to Berkeley’s Minimum Wage Ordinance: Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.99 (Continued from June 2, 2020) From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.99, revising Section 13.99.040 to reinstate the exemption for youth job training programs, and freezing the youth wages at $14.50 per hour for FY21, then increase the wage annually according to the Consumer Price Index as will occur with the Berkeley Minimum wage.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Housing and Community Services, (510) 981-5400 Action: Item 6 continued to June 16, 2020 regular meeting.

Recess: 9:49 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.

Councilmember Wengraf absent at 9:49 p.m.

Adjournment
Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Robinson) to adjourn the meeting.

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

Adjourned at 10:02 p.m.

Communications
• None
Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
• None
Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Item #1: Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Budget Update Public Hearing #2

1. 19 similarly-worded form letters

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 9

2. Sharon Negri

3. Era Goel

4. Catie

5. Andrew Graves

6. Kate Gingold

7. David Noriega

8. Robert Hurley

9. Russbumper

10. Lauren Hermele

11. Ella Hass

12. Fiona Hass

13. Emilie Reaves

14. Ryan Thayer

15. Amanda Ho

16. Julia Bleier

17. Nirali Patel

18. Chimey Lee

19. Sage Lenier

20. Terry Taplin

21. Riley Hellinger
Item #5: Recommendation to Prepare a City Ballot Measure to Create a Climate Action Fund, in Response to the Fossil Fuel Free Berkeley Referral

22. John Arens
Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Urgency Item: Urgency Resolution: Directing the Police Review Commission and City Manager to Submit Revised Berkeley Police Department Use of Force Policy for Council Review and Approval Before the 2020 Summer Recess

23. Urgency item, submitted by Councilmember Harrison, Mayor Arreguin, Councilmembers Davila and Bartlett

24. Che Garcia

25. Yaritza Cruz

26. Mariana Duarte

27. Arev Walker

28. Melody Joliff

29. Jesica Ender

30. Haleigh Fleming

31. Arjun Mayur

32. Jenn Guitart

33. Sal Levinson

34. Bella Lynch

35. Bob Martin

36. Rafael Gonzalez

37. Erwan Illien

38. Benjamin Pierias

39. LeeAnn Dowd (2)

40. Danielle Royston-Lopez

41. Racial and Criminal Justice Reform Group

42. Carole Marasovic

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 10

43. Jill Suttie

44. Ryan Grant

45. Sheridan Pauker

46. Sarah Pieper
Urgency Item: Prohibiting the use of Chemical Agents for Crowd Control during the COVID-19 pandemic

47. Urgency item, submitted by Mayor Arreguin, Councilmembers Harrison and Robinson

48. Shawn Beckman (2)

49. Chimey Lee

50. Moni Law

51. Kimiye Owens
Urgency Item: Black Lives Matter and Ohlone Recognition

52. Urgency item, submitted by Councilmember Hahn

53. Liza Lutzker, on behalf of Walk Bike Berkeley

54. Corinna Gould

55. Moni Law (2)
Urgency Item: Changes to the Berkeley Municipal Code and City of Berkeley Policies with Respect to Local Emergency Declarations and First Amendment Curfews

56. Urgency item, submitted by Councilmember Hahn

57. Madeline King

58. Thomas Lord

59. Friends of Adeline (2)

60. Carol Denney

61. Bryce Nesbitt

62. Elisa Mikiten

63. Chimey Lee

64. Kara O’Malley
Urgency Item: Budget Referral to Establish Structure and Framework for an Office of Racial Equity

65. Urgency item, submitted by Councilmember Kesarwani

66. Amanda Prufer

67. Stephanie Prufer

68. Caroline Yunker

69. Marianne Lagarias (2)
Item #1: Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Budget Update Public Hearing #2

70. Christina Romak

71. Megan Raymond

72. Aimee Trujillo

73. Ashley Johnson

74. Alex Thomson

75. Anna McFall

76. Elena Vann Cleave

77. Tommy Chung

78. Erika Schultz

79. Rose Soffa Clarke

80. Diana Bohn

81. Celia Ford

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 11

82. Nick Nold

83. Becky Sotello

84. Noor

85. Jane Francis

86. Heather Hardison

87. Susan Saadat

88. Lilith Gamer

89. Mary Gilg

90. Kate Mather

91. Alfred Twu

92. Rachael Cornejo

93. Steve KoneffKlatt

94. Juliana Schwartz

95. Rachel Shipps

96. Alicia Roy

97. Natasha Geiling

98. Dana Perls

99. Alisdair Broshar
100. Orly Suveda
101. Alix Vadot
102. Eliza Smith
103. Ryan Gorelik
104. Ben Pierias (2)
105. Kayla Moore
106. Sarah Bancroft
107. Angela Clapp
108. Samuel Kaplan
109. Heather and Luke Ball
110. Dewi Zarni
111. Portal Finder
112. Catherine O’Hare
113. Theodora Gibbs-Plessl
114. Taj Herzer-Baptiste
115. Michaela Reilly
116. Julia Sen
117. Ellen McClure
118. Martin Lenarz-Geisen
119. Katrina Lapira
120. Ariella Cooley
121. Natasha Huey
122. Noelle Fa-Kaji
123. Jessica Barber
124. Jean Caiani
125. Lucia Brosgart
126. Tia Bottger
127. Allyson Bogie
128. Michelle Chung
129. Karen Shimoda
130. Jessica Brownell
131. Sanya Sehgal

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 12
132. Angela Ames
133. Ace Chen
134. Ryan Hall
135. Maya Sen
136. Dylan Campopiano
137. Allison Zau
138. Firdausi Sudarmadji
139. Judy Grether
140. Zaynab At-Taras
141. Jackie Kennedy
142. Logan Falley
143. Nahkoura Mahnassi
144. Madelyn Weiss
145. Sophia Mahoney-Rohrl
146. Madeleine Muscari
147. Christopher Lin
148. Francie Maguire
149. Laurel Chen
150. Reyna Fa-Kaji
151. Marcelo Felipe Garzo Montalvo
152. Re Nor
153. Chloe Novak
154. K at Kott
155. Katie Cording
156. Christine Tseng
157. Celia Alter
158. Zoe Westbrook
159. Julian Dennis
160. Daniel Kim
161. Loan Pham
162. Colin Piethe
163. Elizabeth Ferguson
164. Chelsea Lee
165. Maxine Schoefer-Wulf
166. Jessica Olson
167. Daniel Milutin
168. Olivia Neville
169. Bryanna Perez
170. Kei McHale
171. Diane
172. Jordan Mickens
173. Voulette Hattar
174. Emily Haan
175. Christine Schwartz
176. Emily Yao
177. Manduhai Baatar
178. Kacei Conyers
179. Ella Hass
180. Logan Rimel
181. Andrew Lynch

Tuesday, June 9, 2020 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 13
182. Nicole Teixeira
183. Bethany Lourie
184. Anya Platt
185. Erin Rhoades
186. Julia S.
187. Suzanne Merkelson
188. Valerie Kratzer
189. Ceren Fitoz
190. Lanie Peterson
191. Amalee Beattie
192. Emily Bronston-Joseph
193. Alions Alkon
194. Sarah Wulf
195. Jordan Mickens
196. Ann Marie Callegari
197. Leah Renee Smith
198. Liam Bergstrom
199. Bryce Nesbitt
200. Paige
201. Katie Wilson
202. Ivonne Del Valle
203. Chimey Lee (2)
204. Juliana Dearr
205. Jesslyn Janssen
206. Ferri Wahl
207. Anne Whyte
208. Madison Luzar
209. Mark and Agatha Greeley
Item #2: FY 2020 Mid-Year Budget Update
210. Angela Jernigan (2)
211. Niels Teunis
212. Leah Naomi Gonzales (2)
213. Councilmember Davila
214. Valerie Kratzer
Item #5: Recommendation to Prepare a City Ballot Measure to Create a Climate Action Fund, in Response to the Fossil Fuel Free Berkeley Referral 215. Michael Katz

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Item #1: Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Budget Update Public Hearing #2 216. Supplemental Material, submitted by City Manager’s Office

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
December 6, 2022
(Continued from November 15, 2022)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police
Subject: Update on BPD efforts related to the Improving Hate Crimes Reporting and Response Referral

INTRODUCTION
On November 17, 2020, Council recommended to the City Manager that City staff review proposals to improve systems for reporting and responding to hate incidents and crimes. As many of the proposals fell under the responsibility of the Berkeley Police Department (BPD), BPD organized several meetings with other City staff and stakeholders who had pieces of this project in order to ensure strong collaboration.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Hate Crimes targeted at people based on their perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion and/or disability are a widespread problem in communities across the United States. However, an acute discrepancy exists between the number of actual hate crimes committed and the number officially reported to the FBI. This results in significant challenges for a community:
• Hate and bias crimes can escalate if not identified, addressed, and tracked • Without accurate data, appropriate resources cannot be allocated to address tensions and violence in communities
• Inadequate response to hate crimes can leave affected victims feeling unheard and unsafe
Furthermore, there are serious factors that relate to underreporting:
• Communities targeted for hate may not feel safe or comfortable reporting hate crimes to law enforcement
• Long-standing distrust among some communities leads victims to believe law enforcement will be unwilling or unable to help
• Immigrant communities may fear deportation or other consequences if they step forward

ACTION CALENDAR
December 6, 2022

• Victims who speak different languages or have disabilities may not report due to cumbersome, inaccessible hate crime reporting procedures • Individuals and targeted communities may fear retaliation if they report incidents There is a clear negative ripple effect when a hate crime occurs:

1. Victimization is projected outward to all members of the victim’s wider community.

2. Other members of the same group feel victimized.

3. Members of other commonly targeted groups are reminded of their vulnerability to similar attacks.

4. The community is polarized into an “us-versus-them” mentality.

5. It impedes community spirit, morale, and growth.

6. Property values are lowered.

7. It increases security concerns at schools, churches, businesses, and private homes.

In the City of Berkeley in 2021, there were forty-two hate crimes reported to the Berkeley Police Department. Current hate crime data for this calendar year suggests that we will likely see a similar number of hate crimes reported to BPD.

In response to the November 17, 2020 Council recommendation, the Berkeley Police Department connected with Berkeley Mental Health, Police Accountability Board, IT, City of Berkeley Communications Director, Berkeley Youth Commission, and the Peace and Justice Commission to identify our respective responsibilities within the Improving Hate Crime Reporting and Response Referral. Some of the Referral items connect directly with one of these City Department’s or groups and will provide updates later.

These representatives are referred to as the working group below.

The following outlines the specific City Council recommendations under the responsibility of BPD and the progress made so far:

Council Recommendation:

Develop a Hate Crime Reporting Hotline (modeled after the San Francisco District Attorney’s Hotline) to be staffed by the Berkeley Mental Health Division or a non- profit community partner. The Hotline will provide support for victims and those reporting hate crimes/incidents, and direct victims to resources and how to report hate crimes or incidents. Consider existing internal and external resources, including the City’s 311 Customer Service line and the County’s Hate Crimes Reporting Hotline.

Status:

The City working group discussed this recommendation and identified the Alameda County District Attorney's Office's existing Hate Crime Hotline, which is available for all County residents. The District Attorney's Office fields calls for the Hotline and refer callers to the appropriate resources either within their own office or the callers'

ACTION CALENDAR
December 6, 2022

respective community. Berkeley Mental Health staff expressed concerns about the challenge that staffing a separate hotline would require. The group felt that existing county resources were adequate.

BPD currently provides 24/7 coverage via the Communications Center and receives calls related to hate crimes and incidents. As the Communications Center's responsibilities expand during the reimagining public safety, victim support and resources could be incorporated into or referred from this system.

Council Recommendation:

Explore adding hate crimes to the BPD Online Crime Reporting System to allow individuals to report specific hate-related criminal acts or incidents.

Status:

The Berkeley Police Department explored the feasibility of adding hate crimes to the BPD Online Crime Reporting System. We determined that responding to hate crimes and hate incidents in person allows us to provide the highest level of service and care to our victims. Online reporting of a hate crime or hate incident reduces the Department’s ability to apprehend offenders and make arrests as appropriate, provide mental health support to the victim(s), collect evidence, obtain statements, or secure a crime scene.

The Department has focused our approach on being victim-centered, and responding in person allows BPD to continue this approach.

Council Recommendation:

Launch a public information campaign, including the production of information videos, posters, and ads in different languages about what is a hate crime and how to report it to Berkeley Police.

Status:

The Berkeley Police Department launched a public information video, shared through our social media platforms and the new BPD Transparency Hub, to coincide with Anti- Hate week. BPD Community Services Bureau made the video in partnership with Mayor Jesse Arreguin and Police Accountability Board Chair Michael Chang.

BPD will recognize Anti-Hate week annually through outreach and social media. We will also update our public information video to include translations in Spanish and Cantonese.

Council Recommendation:

Conduct proactive outreach and develop partnerships with religious leaders, community service providers, and organizations that work with groups which have historically been the target of hate crimes/incidents.

ACTION CALENDAR
December 6, 2022

Status:

This item will be the focus of the next phase of work on this Referral.

Council Recommendation:

Develop a public-facing mapping tool that indicates patterns of hate incidents and crimes to help outreach and prevention.

Status:

As of the time of this report, BPD’s Transparency Hub now provides public information on reported hate crimes dating back to 2016. We will soon launch more detailed hate crime and hate incident data to include mapping and filters to analyze and view the data. This data can not only help inform internal responses, but will be a valuable tool to our community partners engaged in work combatting and addressing hate crimes.

Council Recommendation:

Coordinate with educational institutions (e.g. UC Berkeley and BUSD) to achieve goals.

Status:

BPD met with UCPD and the BUSD Title IX Coordinator. BUSD is currently working on a new policy around Hate Crimes. BUSD will be connecting with BPD in the future to help with educating staff about responding to Hate Crimes and Incidents.

Council Recommendation:

Review other emerging policies and best practices in other communities that support an inclusive and safe community.

Status:

The work on this item will be ongoing.

Council Recommendation:

That Council refers to the City Manager to develop a targeted approach, towards persons with homeless status, to improve hate crime reporting and response consistent with the other approaches for other populations under the City of Berkeley’s Improving Hate Crimes Reporting and Response legislation.

Status:

BPD researched the state laws surrounding hate crimes against persons with homeless status. In 2019 there was an assembly bill written by Assemblyman Mike Gipson asking that homelessness status be added as a protected class to the hate crime law. At that time, the assembly bill did not receive enough votes. This item will be ongoing as there continue to be conversations statewide and locally about expanding protection for this group.

ACTION CALENDAR
December 6, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police, Police Department, (510) 981-5700

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

PUBLIC HEARING
December 6, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager Subject: Renewal of the Elmwood Avenue BID for Calendar Year 2023

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution confirming the Annual Report and Budget for the Elmwood Business Improvement District (hereafter, “the District”, “the Elmwood BID” or “the BID”) for 2022-23 and, if no majority protest exists, levy annual assessments in the District for calendar year 2023 to finance services and improvements and authorize a fiscal agency contract with Elmwood Business Association for receipt and expenditure of District funds.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Projected BID revenue of approximately $30,000 will be deposited into the Elmwood BID Fund, and expensed from budget code 782-21-208-251-0000-000-446-636110.

The BID constitutes an independent funding source that must be targeted to commercial revitalization efforts that are recommended by the Advisory Board. The City of Berkeley operates a parking lot within the district and will thus be assessed $1,000, paid through the Off-Street Parking Fund (835-4942-410-4046). To the extent that the work of the Elmwood BID enhances the development of the Elmwood and its business climate over the long term, the BID contributes towards improving City revenues through increased sales and property taxes.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Under the State of California Parking and Business Improvement Area law of 1989 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et. seq.) that authorized the establishment of the Elmwood BID, the City Council must hold a public hearing before levying assessments for 2023. The renewal process was initiated on November 29, 2022, when Council approved by Resolution No. 70,591-N.S. (Attachment 1, Exhibit A) the Annual report and budget for 2022-23 and set the public hearing date for December 6, 2022. The City Clerk noticed businesses in the Elmwood BID area by publishing Resolution No. 70,591-N.S. in a newspaper of general circulation. If no majority protest is received at the public hearing, at its conclusion the City Council may confirm the Annual report and budget for 2023 and levy assessments.

Renewal of the Elmwood Avenue BID for Calendar Year 2023 PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

BACKGROUND
The Elmwood BID was established in November 2013 to provide the Elmwood Business Association with a sustainable, predictable source of funding for its activities to promote, maintain and beautify the Elmwood commercial district. The Elmwood Business Association has used the funds raised through the BID to implement a variety of activities such as marketing, place-based branding, events, and capital improvements.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
By maintaining and enhancing the district, the Elmwood BID creates shopping opportunities for residents and visitors alike while encouraging alternative forms of transportation. The environmental enhancements contribute to making the Elmwood a more pleasant walking destination. Because the district is served by public transportation and biking infrastructure, these services indirectly support environmental sustainability goals of encouraging alternative transportation choices.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
State law requires that the City Council annually renew the Elmwood BID by conducting a public hearing on the proposed renewed assessment for the coming year.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Advisory Board has considered many alternatives for expenditure of its limited revenues and has decided upon the activities described in the Annual Report as its priorities for 2023.

CONTACT PERSON
Kieron Slaughter, Community Development Project Coordinator, 510-981-2490 1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Resolution No. 70,591-N.S., with incorporated Annual Report, map of the District and Assessment table
2: Public Hearing Notice

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

CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE ELMWOOD BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID), LEVYING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE ELMWOOD BID FOR 2023, AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT OR CONTRACT

AMENDMENTS WITH ELMWOOD BUSINESS ASSOCIATION TO SERVE AS FISCAL

AGENT FOR RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF ELMWOOD BID FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Elmwood Business Improvement District (BID) Advisory Board recommended an Annual Report to the Berkeley City Council that outlined the activities of the District proposed for the year 2023, including a budget for said activities, as required by California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533 and Berkeley Municipal Code Section 7.97.080; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2022, the City Council by Resolution No. 70,591-N.S (attached as Exhibit A) approved the Annual Report and proposed budget of the Elmwood BID for 2022-23 and declared its intent to levy an assessment in the District to finance the proposed activities for the calendar year 2023; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 70,591-N.S. also scheduled a public hearing for December 6, 2022, to consider levying said assessment and gave notice that interested parties could attend and be heard on the issue, for and against; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified potential assessees of the public hearing by publishing the Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, the public hearing has now been held and there has not been protests by business owners who collectively pay 50 percent or more of the assessment proposed to be levied.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that any protests are overruled and the Annual Report of the Elmwood BID is confirmed, thereby levying an annual assessment for the Elmwood BID for calendar year 2023.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract or contract amendments with Elmwood Business Association to receive and spend funds for purposes approved in the Annual Report and Budget and as directed by the Elmwood BID Advisory Board.

Exhibit A: Resolution No. 70,591-N.S., including the 2022-23 Annual Report, map of the District and Assessment Table

RESOLUTION NO. 70,591-N.S.

APPROVING THE 2022 ANNUAL REPORT AND PROPOSED BUDGET OF THE ELMWOOD BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR 2023; DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT IN THE DISTRICT FOR 2023; AND

DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR DECEMBER 6, 2023 REGARDING LEVYING OF A RENEWED ASSESSMENT FOR 2023 WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (California Streets and Highway Code section 36500 et seq.) authorizes cities to establish parking and business improvement areas for the purpose of imposing assessments on businesses for certain purposes; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2013 the Berkeley City Council established such an area known as the Elmwood Business Improvement District (the "District"); and WHEREAS, the City Council established a Elmwood Business Improvement District Advisory Board (Advisory Board) to act in compliance with State law to oversee the activities of the District; and
WHEREAS, the Advisory Board has submitted an Annual Report to the Berkeley City Council that outlines the activities of the District proposed for 2023 as required by the California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533; and WHEREAS, the Annual Report is clear and complete and found to comply with the interests of Elmwood BID assessees; and
WHEREAS, the annual process for levying assessments in Business Improvement Districts requires that cities adopt a Resolution of Intent that declares their intent to levy such an assessment and then set a date for a public hearing where interested parties may be heard on the issue.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the Elmwood Business Improvement District Annual Report for 2022-23 (Exhibit A) as submitted to the City Clerk by the Elmwood Business Improvement District Advisory Board.

Section 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 36500 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Act"), the City Council declares its intent to levy an annual assessment for the parking and business improvement area known as the Elmwood Business Improvement District.

Section 3. The boundaries of the District are set forth in Exhibit A1 to the 2022-23 Annual Report which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 4. The improvements and activities proposed for the District are as described in the Report and budget (Exhibit A) and appended hereto.

Council intends that these funds be used for designated activities and improvements in the Elmwood commercial area. Council explicitly intends that funds generated through this BID shall not be used to pay for activities routinely paid for by the City.

Section 5. The City Council intends to levy assessments on businesses located within the boundaries of the District shown Exhibit A1 and according to the business classifications and rates set forth in Exhibit A2 which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 6. A public hearing shall be held before the City Council on December 6, 2022 in the Council Chambers, 1231 Addison St, Berkeley, California. The public may participate in this hearing virtually on a publicly accessible video conference call or in- person. Following the hearing the Council will consider adoption of a resolution levying an assessment as recommended by the Elmwood Business Improvement Advisory Board. At this hearing the Council will hear all interested persons for or against the levying of such an assessment.

Formal protests against the levying of the District assessment must be made in writing.

All written and oral protests should contain the following certification: "I certify that I am the owner of the business listed below, and that the business is located or operates within the boundaries of the Elmwood Business Improvement District." Protests should also contain the following information: business name (printed), business address (printed), City Business License Tax Registration number, name of protester (printed), signature of protester, date of protest and the reason(s) the protester is against the levying of the District assessment. Protests will not be considered valid unless signed and submitted by the owner of a business located within the boundaries of the proposed District. Written protests shall be filed with the City Clerk, First Floor, City Hall, at 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, California, 94704, at or before 3 pm on December 6, 2022 and shall contain a description of the business sufficient to identify the business, and if the person so protesting is not listed on City records as the owner of the business, the protest shall be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscripting the protest is the owner of the business. Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings shall be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularity or defect to which the objection is made. If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment proposed to be levied, no further proceedings to levy the assessment shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type or types of improvements or activities within the District, those types of improvements or activities shall be eliminated.

Section 7. The City Clerk is directed to give notice of said public hearing by publishing the Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation.

Exhibits
A: Annual Report for the Elmwood Business Improvement District for 2022-23 A1: Map of the Elmwood BID
A2: Assessment Rates

The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Berkeley City Council on November 15, 2022 by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Droste, Hahn, Harrison, Kesarwani, Robinson, Taplin, Wengraf, and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.
__________________________
Jesse Arreguin, Mayor
Attest: _____________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
Annual Report for the Elmwood Business Improvement District for 2022-23

August 31, 2022

To: Members of the Berkeley City Council
From: The Elmwood Business Improvement District Advisory Board Re: 2023 Elmwood BID Renewal

We respectfully request that the Elmwood Business Improvement District be renewed for the 2023 fiscal year, without any changes to the assessment method or amount.

The Elmwood BID was established in November 2013 to promote, maintain and beautify the Elmwood commercial district. Revenues of roughly $30,000 per year provide a regular, predictable source of funding for the activities of the Elmwood Business Association (EBA). The Elmwood BID has allowed the EBA to expand its activities into areas such as maintenance and capital improvements.

The Elmwood Business Association is continuing to be the catalyst for Elmwood Business District’s on-going vitality. Here are some highlights of our projects:

• Maintenance of year-round lighting installation on district buildings • Website:
www.shoptheelmwood.com serves as one of the district’s main marketing tool – District Events, Introducing New Businesses, and on-going marketing updates • Installation of Welcome to Elmwood banners on light posts and ongoing maintenance • Quarterly weeding and cleaning of Russell St. parking lot partnering with UC Berkeley • Maintenance of security camera at Russell St. parking lot • Maintaining a part-time Administrative Assistant to:
o Post on social media o Manage merchant communications o Promote monthly happenings/specials among Elmwood Merchants o Updating the website to keep it current
• Sponsored the following events:
o Holiday events: Live bands, and Tapdancing Trees o Shop Local Promotions
• Held a Merchant Social in an outdoor setting along with our Annual Meeting • Members of the board active in other Berkeley commercial and residential neighborhoods to promote harmony and cooperation

Below for your review is a summary of our current financial position and our proposed budget for 2022-23

2022-23 Projected Expenditures
Elmwood Business Association

INCOME 2023 Budget 2022 Actual
Operating Income
BID Membership dues

$ 30,000

$ 30,000
Other (Partial BID Payment, Wine Walk Income) $ 5,000 $ - $ 35,000 $ 30,000 Total Operating Income

Non-Operating Income
Other

$ - Total Non-Operating Income

Total INCOME $ 35,000 $ 30,000

EXPENSES
Advertising & Marketing
Banner Maintenance

$ 2,000

$ 6,713
Building Light Maintenance $ 1,000 $ 1,240 Wine Walk production $ 4,000
Spring event production $ 1,000
Summer event production $ 1,000
Special Event-Art & Music Week
Web Hosting and Domains

$ 500

$ 274
General Marketing, Ads, Social media $ 300 Halloween event production $ 300
Holiday season event production (incl. tree lights) $ 9,000 $ 7,989 Event planning $ 250
EBA Expansion research $ 100
Charity
Wine Walk Partner
Consulting & Accounting
Accounting S/W (Xero)/Tax Filing

$ 300

$ 301
Dues and Subscriptions
Chamber of Commerce

$ 300

$ 305
Insurance
Liability for EBA

$ 350

$ 350
Liability for Board members $ 1,100 $ 1,061 License & Permits
Taxes & Licenses

$ 50

Lobbyist registration $ 500
Other: Office Supplies/Annual Mtg.

Printing/copy

$ 600

$ 369
Postage & Delivery (PO Box) $ 200 $ 150 Misc. $ 269

Annual Mtg. Food/Beverage $ 600 $ 610 Repairs and Maintenance
Gardening (Tree wells)

$ 500

Sidewalk Cleaning (Power Wash) $ 500
Professional Fees
Legal and Professional Fees

$ 100

Security

Surveillance System Installation

$ 2,720
Surveillance System Maintenance $ 500
Holiday Private Security $ 7,200 $ 7,168

$ 9,000

$ 9,000

Admin Sup
port

Wages

Tot
al Operating Expenses $ 41
,250 $ 3
8,519

Retained Earni
ngs $ (
6,250) $ (
8,519)

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to an equally productive year for the BID in 2023.

Exhibit A1: Elmwood Business Improvement District, Map

Exhibit A2: Elmwood Business Improvement District, Assessment Rates Any business that is classified as a nonprofit (Tax Code N) for business license purposes shall nevertheless pay the assessment at the rate that corresponds to its North American Standard Industrial Classification if it is engaged in the sale of products or services and occupies a space zoned for commercial purposes.

Classifications Rates
Retail including jewelers and groceries but not restaurants (Tax Codes R, M and G but without NAICS 722, Food Services and Drinking Places)
 Gross receipts under $350,000
 Gross receipts $350,000=$999,000
 Gross receipts $1,000,000
$250.00 per year
$350.00 per year
$500.00 per year
Restaurants, including all businesses that prepare and serve food at the request of customers (NAICS 722)
$500.00 per year
Professionals including offices of real estate brokers (Tax Code P)
 Gross receipts under $100,000
 Gross receipts over $100,000
$300.00 per year
$400.00 per year
Entertainment and Recreation (Tax Code E) $450.00 per year Business, Personal and Repair Services (Tax Code B) except Hair, Nail and Skin Cares Services (NAICS 81211)
$200.00 per year
Hair, Nail and Skin Care Services (NAICS 81211) $250.00 per year Parking lot operators $1,000.00 per year
Financial Institutions $2,500.00 per year

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL

RENEWAL OF THE ELMWOOD BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
AND LEVYING OF ASSESSMENT FOR 2023
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

The Elmwood Business Improvement District (BID) Advisory Board is proposing that the Berkeley City Council confirm the Annual Report of the Elmwood BID for 2022 and levy an assessment for 2023.

The hearing will be held on, Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. at the Berkeley Unified School District Board Room located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of November 23, 2022. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

Written comments should be mailed directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or emailed to [email protected] in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers.

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

For further information, please contact Kieron Slaughter, Office of Economic Development, at 510-981-2490.

Published: Resolution of Intention No. 70,591-N.S. November 25, 2022 –Berkeley Voice
As required by Streets and Highways Code Section 36534. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek

Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on November 23, 2022.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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

PUBLIC HEARING
December 6, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: David Sprague, Interim Fire Chief, Berkeley Fire Department Subject: Adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code with Local Amendments – Second Reading

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt the second reading of Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. repealing and reenacting the Berkeley Fire Code, including amendments to the California Fire Code as outlined in the proposed ordinance, plus Appendix Chapters D, E, F, L (as amended by BMC 19.48.020, Amendments to the California Fire Code) and O published by the International Code Council not included in the California Building Standards Code, as Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 19.48.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal impact to the City will be approximately $15,000 for the purchase of new fire codebooks, inspection guides, inspection forms, and training. The fire department has allocated the expenditure as part of its FY 2023 budget. Neither the new State code overall, or our continuing or new local amendments are expected to create significant cost increases for homeowners, builders or developers.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As part of a regular three-year cycle, the California Building Standards Commission promulgated the 2022 California Fire Code. The California Fire Code as referred to in Title 24 Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations will take effect on January 1, 2023.

The Fire Code provides minimum standards for fire and life safety. The State of California amends and adopts a model fire code every three years.

To create the 2022 California Fire Code, the State of California amended and adopted a model fire code published by the International Code Council. The 2022 California Fire Code reflects the 2021 International Fire Code (“IFC”) with State amendments. Local jurisdictions must enforce the California Fire Code, as adopted by the state, 180 days after publication.

Adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code with Local Amendments – Second Reading PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has unique climatic, geological, and topographical conditions, which require local amendments to mitigate potential hazards, and to reduce loss of life caused by fires or natural disasters. To address local fire and life safety impacts, the City of Berkeley has adopted local amendments to address sprinkler system and fire alarm requirements for existing hotels, fraternities, sororities, window bars, smoke detectors, and firefighter safety and operations in high-rise construction. Without the adoption of the local amendments, the new and past amendments cannot be enforced.

At the November 15, 2022 meeting, Council adopted Resolution No. 70,611-N.S. which sets forth findings of local conditions that require more stringent regulations than those provided by the 2022 California Fire Code.

The City of Berkeley also creates and adopts by resolution a fee schedule which specifies fees associated with operational and construction permits required by the fire code, and for other general and specific fire inspection services as well as establishing billing and collection procedures and setting forth delinquency charges. At the November 15, 202 meeting, Council adopted Resolution No. 70,612-N.S. setting forth such fees.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Unwanted fires have a significant, detrimental effect on the environment, climate, and the sustainability of our society. Unwanted fires have impacts which include air particulate, fire gas and carbon dioxide emissions and runoff of water contaminated when it is used to extinguish fires. Firefighting efforts generally use treated potable water that must be processed and transported into the City via a water utility service at some financial expense and expense to the City’s overall carbon-footprint. Fires also damage structures and other built-environment infrastructure that ultimately must be removed and replaced, further increasing the city’s carbon-footprint. The adoption of a strong fire code ultimately serves to reduce the frequency, severity and cost of fires to society, environment, and the climate.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Local amendments to the California Fire Code must be adopted every three years, or the state code goes into effect without local amendments. Adoption of local amendments and findings-of-fact are needed to customize the state code to Berkeley’s particular topographic, geologic and climatic conditions.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Steven Riggs, Fire Marshal, Berkeley Fire Prevention and Office of Emergency Services, (510) 981-5585
Attachments:
1: Ordinance
2: Public Hearing Notice

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 1 of 28
ORDINANCE NO. 7,845–N.S.

REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.48 (FIRE CODE)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 19.48 is hereby repealed and reenacted as to read as follows:

Section 19.48.010 Adoption of California Fire Code
A. The California Fire Code, 2022 edition, as adopted in Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations, including Chapter 1 (excluding Section 103), Chapter 3, Section 503 of Chapter 5, Sections 1103.5.6 through 1103.5.6.3 (new sections as created by BMC 19.48.020, Amendments to the California Fire Code), Appendix Chapters D, E, F, L (as amended by BMC 19.48.020, Amendments to the California Fire Code) and O published by the International Code Council not included in the California Building Standards Code, are adopted by this reference into this Chapter, and are hereby adopted and made a part of this Chapter as though fully set forth herein, subject to the modifications thereto which are set forth this ordinance. One copy of this Code is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley.

B. This chapter shall be known as the "Berkeley Fire Code" and shall be referred to in this chapter as "this code".

C. This Chapter will become effective on January 1, 2023.

Section 19.48.020 Amendments to the California Fire Code The following additions, changes and deletions to the 2022 California Fire Code, as detailed below, are adopted as part of the Berkeley Fire Code.

A. Section 101.1 Title [Amended subsection]. These regulations shall be known as the Fire Code of [NAME OF JURISDICTION], including the local amendments to the California Fire Code set forth in this ordinance, shall be known as the Berkeley Fire Code, hereinafter referred to as "this code."
B. Section 107.7. Expense of securing emergencies [Additional subsection] The expense of securing any emergency that is within the responsibility for enforcement of the fire code official as given in Sections 104.1 or 104.11 is a charge against the person who caused the emergency. Damages and expenses incurred by any public agency having jurisdiction or any public agency assisting the agency having jurisdiction shall constitute a debt of such person and shall be collectible by the fire code official for proper distribution in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under contract expressed or implied. Expenses as stated above shall include, but not be limited to, equipment and personnel committed and any payments required by the public agency to outside business firms requested by the public agency to secure the emergency, monitor remediation, and clean up.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 2 of 28
C. Section 102.6 Historic buildings. [Amended subsection] The provisions of this code relating to the construction, alteration, repair, enlargement, restoration, relocation or moving of buildings or structures shall not be mandatory for existing buildings or structures identified and classified by the state or local jurisdiction as historic buildings where such buildings or structures do not constitute a distinct hazard to life or property. Fire protection in designated historic buildings shall be provided with an approved fire protection plan as required in Section 1103.1.1. in accordance with the 2022 California Historical Building Code.

D. Section 104.13. Authority to arrest and issue citations [Additional subsection] The Fire Chief, Chief Officers, Fire Marshal, Deputy Fire Marshal, and Fire Inspectors shall have authority to arrest or to cite any person who violates any provision of this Chapter involving the International Fire Code or the California Building Standards Code regulations relating to fire and panic safety as adopted by the State Fire Marshal, in the manner provided for the arrest or release on citation and notice to appear with respect to misdemeanors or infractions, as prescribed by Chapters 5, 5c and 5d of Title 3, Part 2 of the California Penal Code, including Section 853.6, or as the same hereafter may be amended. It is the intent of the City Council that the immunities provided in Penal Code Section 836.5 are applicable to aforementioned officers and employees exercising their arrest or citation authority within the course and scope of their employment pursuant to this Chapter.

E. Section 104.14 Authority to abate fire nuisance [Additional subsection]. The Fire Chief, Chief Officers, Fire Marshal, Deputy Fire Marshal, Fire Inspectors, Fire Officers and Acting Fire Officers shall have the authority to order the abatement of fire nuisances.

F. 105.5.18 Flammable and combustible liquids. [Amended subsection] An operational permit is required:

1. To use or operate a pipeline for the transportation within facilities of flammable or combustible liquids. This requirement shall not apply to the offsite transportation in pipelines regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOTn) nor does it apply to piping systems.

2. To store, handle or use Class I liquids in excess of 5 gallons (19 L) in a building or in excess of 10 gallons (37.9 L) outside of a building, except that a permit is not required for the following:

2.1. The storage or use of Class I liquids in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, mobile power plant or mobile heating plant, unless such storage, in the opinion of the fire code official, would cause an unsafe condition.

2.2. The storage or use of paints, oils, varnishes or similar flammable mixtures where such liquids are stored for maintenance, painting or similar purposes for a period of not more than 30 days.

3. To store, handle or use Class II or Class IIIA liquids in excess of 25 gallons (95 L) in a building or in excess of 60 gallons (227 L) outside a building, except for fuel oil used in connection with oil-burning equipment.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 3 of 28

4. To store, handle or use Class IIIB liquids in excess of 110 gallons in containers, or in tanks or portable tanks for fueling motor vehicles at motor fuel-dispensing facilities or where connected to fuel-burning equipment.

Exception: Fuel oil and used motor oil used for space heating or water heating.

5. To remove Class I or II liquids from an underground storage tank used for fueling motor vehicles by any means other than the approved, stationary on-site pumps normally used for dispensing purposes.

6. To operate tank vehicles, equipment, tanks, plants, terminals, wells, fuel- dispensing stations, refineries, distilleries and similar facilities where flammable and combustible liquids are produced, processed, transported, stored, dispensed or used.

7. To place temporarily out of service (for more than 90 days) an underground, protected above-ground or above-ground flammable or combustible liquid tank.

8. To change the type of contents stored in a flammable or combustible liquid tank to a material that poses a greater hazard than that for which the tank was designed and constructed.

9. To manufacture, process, blend or refine flammable or combustible liquids.

10. To engage in the dispensing of liquid fuels into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles at commercial, industrial, governmental or manufacturing establishments in accordance with Section 5706.5.4 or to engage in on-demand mobile fueling operations in accordance with Section 5707.

11. To utilize a site for the dispensing of liquid fuels from tank vehicles into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles, marine craft and other special equipment at commercial, industrial, governmental or manufacturing establishments in accordance with Section 5706.5.4 or, where required by the fire code official, to utilize a site for on-demand mobile fueling operations in accordance with Section 5707.

G. Section 105.5.55 Christmas tree sales lot. [Additional subsection] An operational permit is required to operate a Christmas tree sales lot.

H. Section 105.5.56 Escort convoy service [Additional subsection] Police and/or Fire Department convoy service for vehicle transportation of extremely hazardous materials.

I. Section 105.5.57 Fire Fighter Air Replenishment System (FARS). [Additional subsection] An annual operational permit is required to maintain a FARS system in accordance with Appendix L.

J. Section 105.5.58 General use permit. [Additional subsection] For any activity or operation not specifically described in this code, which the fire code official reasonably determines, may produce conditions hazardous to life or property.

K. Section 105.5.59 Parking facility, special events [Additional subsection] An operational permit is required to use buildings or structures for vehicle parking, including parking for special events (i.e. football games, etc.).

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 4 of 28
L. Section 105.6.25 Fire fighter air replenishment system (FARS). [Additional subsection] A construction permit is required for installation of or modification to a FARS system in accordance with Appendix L.

M. Section 105.6.26 Window bars, operational constraints and opening control devices. [Additional subsection] A construction permit is required to install window bars or other equipment which imposes operational constraints and opening controls on emergency escape and rescue openings on exterior doors or windows of any sleeping rooms in accordance with fire code Section 1031.2.1 of this code.

N. Section 107.2 Schedule of permit fees. [Amended subsection] Where a permit is required, a fee for each permit shall be paid as required, in accordance with the schedule as established by the applicable governing body. Of fees for permits and inspections as set forth by the City Council by resolution.

O. Section 107.4 Work commencing before permit issuance [Amended subsection]. A person who commences any work, activity or operation regulated by this code before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to a fee established by the applicable governing authority, which shall be in addition to the required permit fees. equivalent to three times the amount of the required fees to obtain a permit for that work, activity or operation regulated by this code.

P. SECTION 111 MEANS OF APPEALS [Amended Section]
Q. Section 111.1 Board of appeals established. Appeals Procedure [Amended subsection] In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the fire code official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals.

The board of appeals shall be appointed by the applicable governing authority and shall hold office at its pleasure. The board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the fire code official. An appeal therefore may be taken to the City Council by the applicant or permit holder. Notice of the appeal must be filed in triplicate with the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley within ten days from the date of mailing of the fire code official’s decision to the applicant or permit holder. The notice of appeal shall contain a statement of the reasons for the appeal. The City Clerk shall forward one copy thereof to the fire code official.

Within ten days after the filing of the notice of appeal, the fire code official shall transmit to the City Council all his/her records pertaining to the decision appealed from.

R. Section 111.1.1 Stay of Proceedings [Additional subsection] The filing of the notice of appeal shall stay all proceedings by all parties in connection with the matter upon which the appeal is taken until determination of the appeal as hereinafter provided, unless the fire code official determines that such a stay could result in an imminent threat to public safety.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 5 of 28
S. Section 111.3 Qualifications. The board of appeals shall consist of members who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to hazards of fire, explosions, hazardous conditions or fire protection systems, and are not employees of the jurisdiction. Decisions [Amended subsection] The City Council shall review the action of the fire code official and shall do any one of the following:
a. Refer the matter back to the fire code official.
b. If the facts stated in or ascertainable from the application, the Notice of Appeal, the written statement of the fire code official setting forth the reason for his/her decision, and the other papers, if any, constituting the record do not, in the opinion of the City Council, warrant further hearing, the City Council may affirm the decision of the fire code official. Such decision shall be final. c. If, in the opinion of the City Council, said facts warrant further hearing, the City Council shall set the matter for hearing and shall give notice of the time and place of said hearing by mailing a copy of such notice by certified mail to the address of the applicant as stated in the Notice of Appeal, at least ten (10) days before the time fixed for the hearing. The City Council may continue the hearing from time to time.
d. Following such hearing, the City Council shall reverse, affirm wholly or partly modify any decision of the fire code official, or make any other decisions or determinations or impose such conditions as the facts warrant. Such decision or determination shall be final.
e. If none of the above actions have been taken by the City Council within thirty (30) days from the date the appeal first appears on the City Council agenda, then the decision of the fire code official shall be deemed affirmed and the appeal shall be deemed dismissed.
f. If the appeal is set for hearing but the disposition of the appeal has not been determined within ninety (90) days from the date the appeal first appears on the City Council agenda, then the decision of the fire code official shall be deemed affirmed and the appeal deemed dismissed.

T. Section 112.1 Unlawful acts [Amended subsection]. It shall be unlawful for a person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, repair, remove, demolish or utilize a building, occupancy, premises or system regulated by this code, or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code, or to create, maintain or allow to continue any fire hazard.

U. Section 112.4 Violation penalties [Amended subsection]. Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of this code, shall be guilty of a [SPECIFY OFFENSE], punishable by a fine of not more than [AMOUNT] dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding [NUMBER OF DAYS], or both such fine and imprisonment misdemeanor, but may be cited or charged, at the election of the enforcing officer or City Attorney, as infractions, subject to an election by the defendant under Penal Code Subsection 17 (d). Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense. In

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 6 of 28
addition to all other legal remedies, civil or criminal (as set forth above), any violation of this code constitutes a public nuisance in accordance with B.M.C Chapter 1.26, and is subject to all provisions of B.M.C. Chapter 1.26, as well as abatement under B.M.C. Chapter 1.24, “Abatement of Nuisances”. All such violations are also subject to the issuance of an administrative citation in accordance with B.M.C Chapter 1.28 at the discretion of the enforcing officer or the City Attorney.

V. Section 114.7 Summary abatement [Amended subsection] Where conditions exist that are deemed hazardous to life and property, the fire code official or fire department official in charge of the incident is authorized to abate summarily such hazardous conditions that are in violation of this code. Where the owner does not comply with an abatement order under Section 114.4 within the period specified, the City of Berkeley may perform or cause to be performed the necessary work.

The costs incurred shall be recoverable under the procedures in Section 114.7.1 W. Section 114.7.1 Abatement process [Additional subsection] The abatement process shall be conducted in accordance with the notice and hearing requirements of the nuisance abatement provisions of Berkeley Municipal code chapter 1.24, including summary abatements of structures or premises determined by the City of Berkeley to constitute an imminent hazard or emergency condition.

X. Section 202 Definitions – B [Additional definition] BERKELEY MARINA. The area shall mean all those, parts of the City of Berkeley west of the Interstate 80 Freeway
Y. Section 202 (Definitions — F) [Additional definition] FIRE HAZARD. Anything or act which increases or could cause an increase of the hazard or menace of fire to a greater degree than that customarily recognized as normal by persons in the public service regularly engaged in preventing, suppressing or extinguishing fire or anything or act which could obstruct, delay, hinder or interfere with the operations of the fire department or the egress of occupants in the event of fire. Fire hazards as defined herein are hereby declared to be public nuisances subject to abatement by the City of Berkeley.

Z. Section 202 (Definitions — F) [Additional definition] FIRE NUISANCE. Anything or act, which is annoying, unpleasant, offensive or obnoxious because of fire.

AA. Section 202 (Definitions – J [Amended definition]. JURISDICTION. The City of Berkeley. The governmental unit that has adopted this code.

BB. Section 202 (Definitions — W) [Additional definition] WASTE OIL is a Class III- B waste liquid resulting from the use of Class III-B combustible liquids such as waste motor oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating oil, brake fluids and transmission fluids.

CC. Section 504.1.1 Marking of Exterior Building Openings [Additional subsection]. Where exterior doorways are not otherwise marked with identification such as building addresses, room/suite numbers or business names which identify

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 7 of 28
the area(s) they provide access to, or a functional description for the space, such opening shall be provided with signs or labels indicating the areas they serve.

Doorways to be marked shall include but are not limited to doors serving building circulation (such as stairwells/exit passageways), potential hazards (such as trash rooms), and building service and utility spaces (such as electrical, gas, HVAC and elevator machine rooms). Signs/labels shall be permanent, weather and sunlight resistant with lettering not less than ¾” high with a 1/16” width stroke on a contrasting background. Such signs or labels shall be affixed to the door frame or wall above the door. Such signs and labels shall be maintained.

Exception: Doors associated with private dwellings, the main entrance to normally occupied spaces or when determined to be unnecessary by the fire code official.

DD. Section 705.2.5 Smoke- and heat-activated doors. [Amended subsection] Smoke-activated doors shall be maintained to self-close or automatically close upon detection of smoke. Existing fusible-link-type automatic-door closing devices are permitted if the fusible-link rating does not exceed 135F (57C). Doors required for fire and smoke separation for interior exit stairways and floor separation in R-1 or R-2 occupancies shall not be maintained in an open position with fusible links.

EE. Section 903.2.10.1 Commercial parking garages [Amended subsection]. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings used for storage of commercial motor vehicles where the fire arear exceeds 5,000 square feet (464 m2).

FF. Section 903.2.11.1 Stories without openings [Amended subsection]. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all buildings having stories, including basements, of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet (139.4 m 2) and where the story does not comply with the following types of exterior wall openings:

1. Openings below grade that lead directly to ground level by an exterior stairway complying with Section 1011 or an outside ramp complying with Section 1012.

Openings shall be located in each 50 linear feet (15 240 mm), or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet (15 240 mm).

2. Openings entirely above the adjoining ground level totaling not less than 20 square feet (1.86 m 2) in each 50 linear feet (15 240 mm), or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet (15 240 mm) The height of the bottom of the clear opening shall not exceed 44 inches (1118 mm) measured from the floor.

GG. Section 903.2.11.2.Rubbish, Recycling and linen chutes. [Amended subsection] An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed at the top of rubbish and linen chutes and in their terminal rooms. Chutes shall have additional sprinkler heads installed at alternate floors and at the lowest intake. Where a rubbish chute

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 8 of 28
extends through a building more than one floor below the lowest intake, the extension shall have sprinklers installed that are recessed from the drop area of the chute and protected from freezing in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. Such sprinklers shall be installed at alternate floors, beginning with the second level below the last intake and ending with the floor above the discharge. Access to sprinklers in chutes shall be provided for servicing. Activation of any fire sprinkler in a chute shall activate a separate water flow switch to indicate waterflow in the chute. All fire sprinklers in the chute shall be controlled by a separate, electrically supervised control valve with tamper switch.

HH. Section 903.2.22 Structures in the Berkeley Marina Area [Additional subsection] An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all structures located in the Berkeley Marina Area in accordance with NFPA 13 standards.

Exceptions: Gear lockers not designed to permit human entry, municipal restrooms unattached to other structures, the existing City of Berkeley Harbor Master's office, and any temporary construction site structures.

II. Section 903.2.23 Public Self-Storage Buildings [Additional subsection] An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in any building erected or existing building that was converted and/or subdivided for public self-storage use on or after August 19, 1982, in accordance with NFPA 13 standards.

JJ. Section 903.2.24 Environmental Safety - Residential District [Additional subsection] Reserved.

KK. Section 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. [Amended subsection] Automatic sprinkler systems in Group R occupancies shall be permitted to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R as amended in Chapter 80.

1. Four stories or less above grade plane.

2. The floor level of the highest story is 30 feet (9144mm) or less above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access.

3. The floor level of the lowest story is 30 feet (9144mm) or less below the lowest level of fire department access.

The number or stores of Group R occupancies constructed in accordance with Sections 510.2 and 510.4 of the California Building Code shall be measured from grade plane.

Exception: Sprinkler systems in residential / commercial mix-use buildings are to be in accordance with NFPA 13.

LL. Section 903.3.9 Floor control valves. [Amended subsection] Floor control valves and waterflow detection assemblies shall be installed at each floor where any of the following occur:

1. Buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet or more above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access.

2. Buildings that are four three or more stories in height.

3. Buildings that are two or more stories below the highest level of fire department vehicle access.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 9 of 28
Exception: In Group R-3 and R-3.1 occupancies, floor control valves and waterflow detection assemblies shall not be required.

MM. Section 907.2 Where required—new buildings and structures [Amended subsection]. An approved fire alarm system installed in accordance with the provisions of this code and NFPA 72 shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Sections 907.2.1 through 907.2.29 and provide occupant notification in accordance with Section 907.5, unless other requirements are provided by another section of this code.

Not fewer than one manual fire alarm box shall be provided in an approved location to initiate a fire alarm signal for fire alarm systems employing automatic fire detectors or water-flow detection devices. Where an automatic and manual, or a manual fire alarm system is required by this code or Berkeley local ordinance, other sections of this code allow elimination of fire alarm boxes is prohibited. due to sprinklers or automatic fire alarm systems, a single fire alarm box shall be installed at a location approved by the enforcing agency.

Exceptions:

1. The manual fire alarm box is not required for fire alarm control units dedicated to elevator recall control, supervisory service and fire sprinkler monitoring.

2. The manual fire alarm box is not required for GroupR-2 occupancies unless required by the fire code official to provide a means for fire watch personnel to initiate an alarm during a sprinkler system impairment event. Where provided, the manual fire alarm box shall not be located in an area that is open to the public.

3. The manual fire alarm box is not required to be installed when approved by the fire code official.

NN. Section 907.2.1 Group A. [Amended subsection] A manual fire alarm system that activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Section 907.5 shall be installed in Group A occupancies where the occupant load due to the assembly occupancy is 300 or more, or where the Group A occupant load is more than 100 persons above or below the lowest level of exit discharge. Group A occupancies not separated from one another in accordance with Section 707.3.10 of the California Building Code shall be considered as a single occupancy for the purposes of applying this section. Portions of Group E occupancies occupied for assembly purposes with an occupant load of less than 1000 shall be provided with a fire alarm system as required for the Group E occupancy.

Exception: Manual fire alarm boxes are not required where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 and the occupant notification appliances will activate throughout the notification zones upon sprinkler water flow.

Every Group A building used for educational purposes shall be provided with a manual or automatic fire alarm system. This provision shall apply to, but shall not necessarily be limited to, every community college and university.

Exception: Privately owned trade or vocational schools or any firm or company which provides educational facilities and instruction for its employees.

OO. Section 907.2.2 Group B. [Amended subsection] A manual fire alarm system, which activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Section 907.5,

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 10 of 28
shall be installed in Group B occupancies where one of the following conditions exists:

1. The combined Group B occupant load of all floors is 500 or more.

2. The Group B occupant load is more than 100 persons above or below the lowest level of exit discharge.

3. The fire area contains an ambulatory care facility.

4. For Group B occupancies containing educational facilities, see Section 907.2.2.2.

Exception: Manual fire alarm boxes are not required where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 and the occupant notification appliances will activate throughout the notification zones upon sprinkler water flow.

PP. Section 907.2.4 Group F. [Amended subsection] A manual fire alarm system that activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Section 907.5 shall be installed in Group F occupancies where both of the following conditions exist:

1. The Group F occupancy is two or more stories in height.

2. The Group F occupancy has a combined occupant load of 500 or more above or below the lowest level of exit discharge.

Exception: Manual fire alarm boxes are not required where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 and the occupant notification appliances will activate throughout the notification zones upon sprinkler water flow.

QQ. Section 907.2.7 Group M. [Amended subsection] A manual fire alarm system that activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Section 907.5 shall be installed in Group M occupancies where one of the following conditions exists:

1. The combined Group M occupant load of all floors is 500 or more persons.

2. The Group M occupant load is more than 100 persons above or below the lowest level of exit discharge.

Exceptions:

1. A manual fire alarm system is not required in covered or open mall buildings complying with Section 402 of the California Building Code.

2. Manual fire alarm boxes are not required where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 and the occupant notification appliances will automatically activate throughout the notification zones upon sprinkler water flow.

RR. Section 907.2.8.1 Manual fFire alarm system [Amended subsection]. A manual and automatic fire alarm system that activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Section 907.5 shall be installed in Group R-1 occupancies.

Exceptions:

1. A manual fire alarm system is not required in buildings not more than two stories in height where all individual sleeping units and contiguous attic and crawl spaces to those units are separated from each other and public or common areas by not less than 1-hour fire partitions and each individual sleeping unit has an exit directly to a public way, egress court or yard.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 11 of 28

2. Manual fire alarm boxes are not required throughout the building where all the following conditions are met:

2.1. The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.

2.2. The notification appliances will activate upon sprinkler water flow.

2.3. Not fewer than one manual fire alarm box is installed at an approved location.

SS. Section 907.2.8.2 Manual and Aautomatic fire alarm systemsmoke detection system [Amended subsection]. An A manual and automatic smoke detectionfire alarm system that activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Section 907.5 shall be installed throughout all interior corridors and common areas of Group R-1 occupancies. The detection device for this purpose shall be a smoke detector (or heat detector as approved), which is system connected and electronically supervisedserving sleeping units.

Exception: An automatic smoke detection system is not required in buildings that do not have interior corridors serving sleeping units and where each sleeping unit has a means of egress door opening directly to an exit or to an exterior exit access that leads directly to an exit.

TT. Section 907.2.9.1 Automatic and Mmanual fire alarm system [Amended subsection]. An automatic and manual fire alarm system that activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Section 907.5 shall be installed in Group R-2 occupancies where any of the following conditions apply:

1. The building is three or more stories in height and Any any dwelling unit or sleeping unit is located three or more stories above the lowest level of exit discharge.

2. Any dwelling unit or sleeping unit is located more than one story below the highest level of exit discharge of exits serving the dwelling unit or sleeping unit.

3. The building contains more than 16 dwelling units or sleeping units.

4. Congregate residences with more than 16 occupants.

Exceptions:

1. A fire alarm system is not required in buildings not more than two stories in height where all dwelling units or sleeping units and contiguous attic and crawl spaces are separated from each other and public or common areas by not less than 1-hour fire partitions and each dwelling unit or sleeping unit has an exit directly to a public way, egress court or yard.

2. Manual fire alarm boxes are not required where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 and the occupant notification appliances will automatically activate throughout the notification zones upon a sprinkler water flow.

32. A fire alarm system is not required in buildings that do not have interior corridors serving dwelling units and are protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2,

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 12 of 28
provided that dwelling units either have a means of egress door opening directly to an exterior exit access that leads directly to the exits or are served by open-ended corridors designed in accordance with Section 1027.6, Exception 3.

UU. Section 914.3.9 Fire Fighter Air Replenishment Systems [Additional subsection] New high-rise buildings shall install an approved Fire Fighter Air Replenishment System (FARS) or equivalent equipment or systems as determined by the fire code official to provide a breathing air supply for firefighting self- contained breathing air tanks. Such system or equipment shall provide adequate pressurized breathing air supply through a permanent piping system or other means acceptable to the fire code official for the replenishment of portable life sustaining air equipment carried by fire department, rescue and other personnel in the performance of their duties. Design, installation, testing and maintenance of such air replenishment systems shall be made in accordance with Appendix Chapter F of the California Plumbing Code. Each property owner shall be responsible for maintaining such equipment or systems including annual air sampling and testing.

Exceptions:

1. Buildings equipped with Firefighter Access Elevators as required by Berkeley Building Code section 403.6.1

2. Where an alternate method of supplying breathing air replenishment is approved by the fire code official.

VV. Section 1103.5 Sprinkler systems. [Amended subsection] An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in existing buildings in accordance with Section 1103.5.1 through 1103.5.5.6.3
WW.Section 1103.5.6 Automatic Sprinkler Requirements for Existing Hotels [Additional subsection]
XX. Section 1103.5.6.1 Definitions [Additional subsection]. For the purposes of this Section, the following terms shall be defined as follows:

1. “Hotel" shall mean any building, including motels, dormitories, rooming houses, fraternity houses and sorority houses, which contain six or more rooms which were intended or designed to be used, or which are used, for the purposes of renting, hiring or letting to residential occupants for sleeping purposes but shall not include apartment buildings as defined in this code.

2. "Story" is as defined in the Berkeley Building Code.

3. "First Story" is as defined in the Berkeley Building Code.

4. "Basement" is as defined in the Berkeley Building Code.

5. “Balcony, Exterior Exit" shall mean a landing or porch projecting from the wall of a building which serves as a required exit. The long side shall be at least 50 percent directly open to the exterior, and the open area above the guardrail shall be so configured as to prevent the accumulation of smoke or toxic gases.

Application: This section shall apply to every hotel in which the rooms used for sleeping are rented or let above the ground floor, if the hotel was built prior to 1992, and also meets one of the following two conditions:

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 13 of 28
The height of the hotel is three or more stories or two stories plus an inhabited basement, which is used for purposes other than exclusively servicing the maintenance and other needs of the building; or the hotel contains 20 or more rooms, or regularly accommodates 20 or more residential occupants.

Exception: No hotel in which the exits from sleeping rooms lead either to the outside of the building either directly or via approved exit balconies with approved exterior stairways(s) in accordance with the requirements of the Berkeley Building Code is required to comply with this section.

YY. Section 1103.5.6.2 Types of Fire Sprinklers [Additional subsection]. In the sleeping units of the building, only residential or quick response sprinkler heads shall be used.

ZZ. Section 1103.5.6.3 Supervision of fire sprinkler systems [Additional subsection]. All automatic sprinkler systems installed under this subsection shall be monitored for supervision and alarms in accordance with Section 903.4.

Section 1103.7 Fire Alarm Systems [Amended subsection]. An approved fire alarm system shall be installed in existing buildings and structures in accordance with Sections 1103.7.1 through 1103.7.6 and provide occupant notification in accordance with Section 907.5 unless other requirements are provided by other sections of this code. Existing high-rise buildings shall comply with Section 1103.7.9. Where an automatic and manual or a manual fire alarm system is required by this code or Berkeley local ordinance, elimination of fire alarm boxes in buildings equipped with an approved sprinkler system is prohibited.

Exception: Occupancies with an existing, previously approved fire alarm system.

AAA. Section 1103.7.5.1 Group R-1 hotels, and motels, and congregate residences manual and automatic fire alarm system [Amended subsection]. A manual and automatic fire alarm system that activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Section 907.5 shall be installed in existing Group R-1 hotels, and motels, and congregate residences more thanwith three or more stories or with more than 20 or more sleeping units.

Exceptions:

1. A manual fire alarm system is not required in buildings less than two stories in height where all sleeping units, attics and crawl spaces are separated by 1- hour fire-resistance-rated construction and each sleeping unit has direct access to a public way, egress court or yard.

2. A manual fire alarm system is not required in buildings not more than three stories in height with not more than 20 sleeping units and equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Sections 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.

3. Manual fire alarm boxes are not required throughout the building where the following conditions are met:

3.1. The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.

3.2. The notification appliances will activate upon sprinkler water flow.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 14 of 28

3.3. Not less than one manual fire alarm box is installed at an approved location.

BBB. Section 1103.7.6 Group R-2 [Amended subsection]. A manual and automatic fire alarm system that activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Section 907.5 shall be installed in existing Group R-2 occupancies three or more stories in height or with 16 or more dwelling or sleeping units. Congregate residences shall retrofit existing manual-only fire alarm systems with manual and automatic fire detection. Other types of R-2 occupancies (such as apartment buildings) shall retrofit existing manual-only fire alarm systems with manual and automatic fire detection when the existing fire alarm control unit is replaced for any reason. Automatic detection shall be accomplished by use of a smoke detector (or heat detector as approved), which is system connected and electronically supervised. Detectors shall be installed in all interior corridors and common areas.

Exceptions:

1. Where each living unit is separated from other contiguous living units by fire barriers having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 3/4 hour, and where each living unit has either its own independent exit or its own independent stairway or ramp discharging at grade.

2. A separate fire alarm system is not required in buildings that are equipped throughout with an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 and having a local alarm to notify all occupants.

3. A fire alarm system is not required in buildings that do not have interior corridors serving dwelling units and are protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, provided that dwelling units either have a means of egress door opening directly to an exterior exit access that leads directly to the exits or are served by open ended corridors designed in accordance with Section 1027.6, Exception 3.

4. A fire alarm system is not required in buildings that do not have interior corridors serving dwelling units, do not exceed three stories in height and comply with both of the following:

4.1. Each dwelling unit is separated from other contiguous dwelling units by fire barriers having a fire-resistance rating of not less than ¾ hour.

4.2. Each dwelling unit is provided with smoke alarms complying with the requirements of Section 907.2.11.

CCC. Section 1103.7.10 Monitoring of Group R Occupancies [Additional subsection] All existing R occupancies that are required to provide both a fire alarm and fire suppression system shall have the system monitored by a central station, remote supervising station, or proprietary supervising station.

DDD. Section 4902.1 General [Amended subsection]. For the purpose of this chapter, certain terms are defined as follows:

DIRECTOR. Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 15 of 28
FIRE PROTECTION PLAN [Amended definition]. A document prepared for a specific premises, project or development, either existing or proposed for a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area. It describes ways to minimize and mitigate potential for loss from wildfire exposure.

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES. Geographical areas designated pursuant to California Public Resources Codes, Sections 4201 through 4204 and classified as Very High, High, or Moderate in State Responsibility Areas or as Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones designated pursuant to California Government Code, Sections 51175 through 51189.

The California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 1280 entitles the maps of these geographical areas as "Maps of the Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the State Responsibility Area of California."
FIRE ZONE ONE [Additional definition] shall encompass the entire City of Berkeley except for Fire Zones Two and Three.

FIRE ZONE TWO [Additional definition] encompasses those areas designated as Combined Hillside District in the Official Zoning map of the City of Berkeley and those areas designated as Very High in the official Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) map of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), as they may be amended from time to time. The following properties, not part of the Combined Hillside District, are included in Fire Zone Two under the Very High designation of the FHSZ map: the eastern section of the University of California, Berkeley main campus, block number 2042 (Alameda County Assessor’s parcel numbering (APN) system), to the east city line; all of the Clark-Kerr campus, block number 7690, to the east city line; all of block number 7680 in the City of Berkeley; portions of block number 1702 in the City of Berkeley. These additional parcels and their assigned street address are established in Section 19.28.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, Berkeley Building Code and are specified in Table 4902.1.

Table 4902.1
Parcels Added to the Berkeley Combined Hillside District Parcel Number (APN) Address
048-7680-001-02
048-7680-002-01
048-7680-031-00
048-7680-019-00
048-7680-014-00
048-7680-032-01
048-7680-027-00
054-1702-067-00
054-1702-068-00
054-1702-069-00
054-1702-070-00
054-1702-063-00
054-1702-076-00
054-1702-075-00
054-1702-074-00
054-1702-073-00
054-1702-112-00
3 Tanglewood Road
5 Tanglewood Road
7 Tanglewood Road
11 Tanglewood Road
19 Tanglewood Road
25 Tanglewood Road
29 Tanglewood Road
10 Tanglewood Road
18 Tanglewood Road
22 Tanglewood Road
28 Tanglewood Road
2701 Belrose Avenue
2715 Belrose Avenue
2721 Belrose Avenue
2729 Belrose Avenue
2737 Belrose Avenue
2801 Claremont Boulevard

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 16 of 28
054-1702-123-01
054-1702-122-00
054-1702-120-01
054-1702-114-01
054-1702-115-00
054-1702-072-00
054-1702-071-00
054-1702-113-00
054-1702-116-00
2811 Claremont Boulevard
2815 Claremont Boulevard
2821 Claremont Boulevard
2816 Claremont Avenue
2820 Claremont Avenue
3005 Garber Street
3015 Garber Street
3020 Garber Street
3017 Avalon Avenue
Fire Zone Two is declared as a Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and Wildland- Urban Interface fire area.

FIRE ZONE 3 [Additional definition] encompasses those areas designated as Environmental Safety - Residential Districts on the Official Zoning Map of the City of Berkeley, as it may be amended from time to time. Fire Zone Three is declared as a Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and Wildland-Urban Interface fire area.

FIRE-RESISTANT VEGETATION. Plants, shrubs, trees and other vegetation that exhibit properties, such as high moisture content, little accumulation of dead vegetation, and low sap or resin content, that make them less likely to ignite or contribute heat or spread flame in a fire than native vegetation typically found in the region.
[Note: The following sources contain examples of types of vegetation that can be considered fire-resistant vegetation (Fire-resistant Plants for Home Landscapes, A Pacific Northwest Extension publication; Home Landscaping for Fire, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources; Sunset Western Garden Book)].

IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. [Amended definition] A type of building material that complies with the requirements in Section 704A.2 in the California Berkeley Building Code.

LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREAS (LRA). Areas of the state in which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires is the primary responsibility of a city, county, city and county, or district.

STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA (SRA). Lands that are classified by the Board of Forestry pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4125 where the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing wildfires is primarily the responsibility of the state.

WILDFIRE. Any uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels that threatens to destroy life, property, or resources as defined in Public Resources Code, Sections 4103 and 4104.

WILDFIRE EXPOSURE. One or a combination of radiant heat, convective heat, direct flame contact and burning embers being projected by vegetation fire to a structure and its immediate environment.

WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA (WUI).[Amended definition] A geographical area identified by the state as a "Fire Hazard Severity Zone" in accordance with the Public Resources Code, Sections 4201 through 4204, and Government Code, Sections 51175 through 51189, or other areas designated by the enforcing agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires. Berkeley Fire Zones

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 17 of 28
2 and 3 are designated as Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas. See Government Code Chapter 6.8 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Public Resources Code Article 9 Fire Hazard Severity Area for the applicable referenced sections.

EEE. Section 4903.3 Submittal, approval and fees. [Additional subsection] When required to submit a Fire Protection Plan or Vegetation Management Plan for any reason the responsible party shall prepare or cause to be prepared a Fire Protection Plan in accordance with the latest standards of the Berkeley Fire Department. The Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the Berkeley Fire Department and shall be enforced and maintained by the responsible party or their designated agent. The Berkeley Fire Department may charge an appropriate fee for the review, approval and processing of the Fire Protection Plan in accordance with the hourly rate established by City Council resolution.

FFF. Section 4904.4 Berkeley Fire Hazard Severity Zones [Additional subsection].

FIRE ZONE TWO. Berkeley Fire Zone Two is designated a Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. All requirements of Berkeley Fire Code Chapter 49 and Berkeley Municipal Code Section

19.28.030 (Berkeley Building Code, Chapter 7A) and shall apply.

FIRE ZONE THREE. Berkeley Fire Zone Three is designated a Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. All requirements of Berkeley Fire Code Chapter 49 and Berkeley Municipal Code Section

19.28.030, Berkeley Building Code, Chapter 7A shall apply.

GGG. Section 4905.2 Construction methods and requirements within established limits [Amended subsection]. Within the limits established by law, construction methods intended to mitigate wildfire exposure shall comply with the wildfire protection building construction requirements contained in the California Building Standards Code Berkeley Building and Berkeley Residential Codes, including the following:

1. California Building Code, Chapter 7A.Chapter 7A of the Berkeley Building Code (B.B.C), Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.28.030.

2. California Residential Code Section R337 of the Berkeley Residential Code (B.R.C.), Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.29.050.

3. California Referenced Standards Code, Chapter 12-7A.

HHH. Section 4906.5 Maintenance of existing vegetation [Additional subsection].

Maintenance and management of existing vegetation shall be in accordance with this Section and with Section 4907, “Defensible Space”.

III. Section 4906.5.1 Electrical Equipment Support Clearance [Additional subsection]. Persons owning, controlling, operating or maintaining electrical transmission or distribution lines shall have an approved program in place that identifies poles or towers with equipment and hardware types that have a history of becoming an ignition source, and provides a combustible free space consisting of a clearing of not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) in each direction from

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 18 of 28
the outer circumference of such pole or tower during such periods of time as designated by the fire code official.

Exception: Lines used exclusively as telephone, telegraph, messenger call, alarm transmission or other lines classified as communication circuits by a public utility.

JJJ. Section 4906.5.2 Electrical Distribution and Transmission Line Clearances [Additional subsection].

KKK. Section 4906.5.2.1 General [Additional subsection]. Clearances between vegetation and electrical lines shall be in accordance with this section.

LLL. Section 4906.5.2.2 Trimming clearance [Additional subsection]. At the time of trimming, clearances not less than those established by Table 4906.5.2 should be provided. The radial clearances shown below are minimum clearances that should be established, at time of trimming, between the vegetation and the energized conductors and associated live parts.

Exception: The fire code official is authorized to establish minimum clearances different than those specified in Table 4906.5.2.2 when evidence substantiating such other clearances is submitted to the fire code official and approved.

TABLE 4906.5.2.2 – MINIMUM CLEARANCES BETWEEN VEGETATION AND

ELECTRICAL LINES AT TIME OF TRIMMING
Line Voltage

MINIMUM RADIAL CLEARANCE
FROM CONDUCTOR (feet)
[x 304.8 mm]
400 – 71,999 4
72,000 – 109,999 6
110,000 – 299,999 10
300,000 or more 15
MMM. Section 4906.5.2.3 Minimum clearance to be maintained [Additional subsection]. Clearances not less than those established by Table 4906.5.2.3 shall be maintained during such periods of time as designated by the fire code official. The site specific clearance achieved, at time of pruning, shall vary based on species growth rates, the utility company specific trim cycle, the potential line sway due to wind, line sway due to electrical loading and ambient temperature, and the tree’s location in proximity to the high voltage lines.

Exception: The fire code official is authorized to establish minimum clearances different than those specified by Table 4906.5.2.3 when evidence substantiating such other clearances is submitted to the fire code official and approved TABLE 4906.5.2.3 – MINIMUM CLEARANCES BETWEEN VEGETATION AND

ELECTRICAL LINES TO BE MAINTAINED
Line Voltage MINIMUM CLEARANCE (inches)

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 19 of 28
[x 25.4 mm]
750 – 34,999 6
35,000 – 59,999 12
60,000 – 114,999 19
115,000 –230,000 30-1/2
NNN. Section 4906.5.3 Electrical power line emergencies [Additional subsection].

During emergencies, the utility company shall perform the required work to the extent necessary to clear the hazard. An emergency can include situations such as trees falling into power lines, or trees in violation of Table 4906.5.2.3.

OOO. Section 4906.5.4 Correction of Condition [Additional subsection]. The fire code official is authorized to give notice to the owner of the property on which conditions regulated by Section 4906.5 exist to correct such conditions. If the owner fails to correct such conditions, the City of Berkeley is authorized to cause the same to be done and make the expense of such correction a lien on the property where such condition exists.

PPP. Section 4906.5.5 Clearance of Brush or Vegetative Growth from Roadways [Additional subsection]. The fire code official is authorized to cause areas within 10 feet (3048 mm) from the edge of the pavement on each side of portions of highways, streets and private roads which are improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic to be cleared of flammable vegetation and other combustible growth. The fire code official is authorized to enter upon private property to do so.

Exception: Specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery, or similar plants which are used as ground cover, if they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any building or structure.

QQQ. Section 4906.6 Unusual Circumstances [Additional subsection]. If the fire code official determines that difficult terrain, danger of erosion or other unusual circumstances make strict compliance with the clearance of vegetation provisions of Section 4906 undesirable or impractical, enforcement thereof may be suspended and reasonable alternative measures shall be provided.

RRR. Section 4906.7 Vegetation and combustible material hazards not otherwise regulated [Additional subsection]. No person who has any ownership or possessory interest in or control of a parcel of land shall allow to exist thereon any hazardous vegetation or combustible material which constitutes a fire hazard as determined by the Fire Code Official, regardless of the vegetation or material’s proximity to structures.

SSS. Section 4907.4 Specific requirements. [Additional subsection]. Persons owning, leasing, controlling, operating or maintaining buildings or structures in, or upon Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas shall at all times comply with the specific requirements set forth within the references listed in Section 4907.3, as well as the following minimum requirements.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 20 of 28
Persons owning, leasing or controlling land adjacent to such buildings or structures that are in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, regardless of the status of their land as developed or undeveloped, shall at all times comply with the specific requirements set forth within the references listed in Section 4907.3, as well as the following minimum requirements. The minimum area(s) of these properties that are required to comply with Section 4907.3 and the following requirements are to be based on a 100-foot distance from structures on all adjacent lands, unless the fire code official determines that compliance with section 4907.4, Item 2 is required.

Property owners are not required or authorized by this code to enter the properties of another person to implement the requirements of this Section.

Persons described above shall at all times:

1. Maintain an effective firebreak by removing and clearing away flammable vegetation and combustible growth from areas within 100 feet of such buildings or structures, but not beyond the property line.

In accordance with Government Code Section 51182, the amount and intensity of fuels management may vary within the 100-foot perimeter of the structure as determined by the inspecting fire department personnel, with more intense fuel reduction being used between 5 and 30 feet around the structure, and an ember-resistant zone being required within 5 feet of the structure based on regulations promulgated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection; and
Exception: Specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery, or similar plants which are used as ground cover, if they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any building or structure.

2. Maintain additional fire protection or firebreak by removing brush, flammable vegetation and combustible growth located more than 100 feet from such buildings when the fire department determines that conditions exist which may cause a firebreak of 100 feet to be insufficient to provide reasonable fire safety against a wildfire burning under average weather conditions. This section does not require or authorize property owners to manage vegetation beyond their property lines; and.

Exception: Grass and other vegetation, located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) from buildings or structures, and less than four (4) inches (102 mm) in height above the ground need not be removed where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion.

3. Remove portions of trees which extend within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe; and

4. Maintain trees, shrubs and other plants free of dead wood where such plants are adjacent to, below or overhanging a building, windows, or attached decks; and

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 21 of 28

5. Maintain the roof and gutters of a structure free of leaves, needles or other dead vegetative growth and debris; and

6. Brush and debris does not need to be completely removed, but may be chipped into pieces less than three (3) inches in length, provided that the resulting mulch is less than three (3) inches deep; and

7. The trunks of trees are to be maintained so that they are free of hanging bark and debris to a height of at least eight (8) feet. Where understory vegetation is present hanging bark and debris must be removed to a height equivalent to four times the height of the understory vegetation or eight (8) feet, whichever is greater.

8. Limb trees and shrubs by removing branches that are within eight feet (8 ft.) of the ground, or four times the height of the understory vegetation, whichever is greater. Where a tree / shrub is not adaptable to limbing to the height described above, use a combination of limbing and/or modify and remove fuels adjacent to and underneath the plant to provide clearance above grade that is equivalent to four times the height of the tallest understory fuel.

9. Relocate wood piles from within 30 feet of structures, or provide an alternative form of protection which will prevent the ignition of the pile or the transmission of fire to a structure.

TTT. Section 4907.5Corrective Actions [Additional subsection].The fire department is authorized to take enforcement actions as necessary to achieve compliance with Chapter 49 of this code, including but not limited those actions specified in Sections 104.13 (“Authority to arrest and issue citations”), 112.4 (“Violation penalties”) and 114.7 (“Summary abatement”) of this code, and as authorized by Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 1.24, “Abatement of Nuisances”, and in accordance with all other applicable portions of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

Corrective actions may also include the use of abatement warrants and the imposition of property liens as appropriate and in accordance with law.

UUU. Section 4911 SUPPRESSION AND CONTROL OF WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREAS [Additional section]
VVV. Section 4911.1 Permit [Additional subsection]. The fire code official is authorized to stipulate conditions for permits. Permits shall not be issued when public safety would be at risk, as determined by the fire code official.

WWW. Section 4911.2 Restricted Entry [Additional subsection]. The fire code official shall determine and publicly announce when Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas shall be closed to entry and when such areas shall again be opened to entry. Entry on and occupation of Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas, except public roadways, inhabited areas or established trails and camp sites which have not been closed during such time when the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas are closed to entry, is prohibited.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 22 of 28
Exceptions:
1) Residents and owners of private property within Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas and their invitees and guests going to or being upon their lands; 2) Entry, in the course of duty, by peace officers, and other duly authorized public officers, members of a fire department and members of the United States Forest Service
XXX. Section 4911.3 Trespassing on Posted Property [Additional subsection] YYY. Section 4911.3.1 General [Additional subsection]. When the fire code official determines that a specific area within a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas presents an exceptional and continuing fire danger because of the density of natural growth, difficulty of terrain, proximity to structures or accessibility to the public, such areas shall be closed until changed conditions warrant termination of closure. Such areas shall be posted as hereinafter provided.

ZZZ. Section 4911.3.2 Signs [Additional subsection]. Approved signs prohibiting entry by unauthorized persons and referring to this section shall be placed on every closed area.

AAAA. Section 4911.3.3 Trespassing [Additional subsection]. Entering and remaining within areas closed and posted is prohibited.

Exception: Owners and occupiers of private or public property within closed and posted areas, their guests or invitees, and local, state and federal public officers and their authorized agents acting in the course of duty.

BBBB. Section 4911.4 Smoking [Additional subsection]. Lighting, igniting or otherwise setting fire to or smoking tobacco, cigarettes, pipes or cigars in Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas are prohibited.

Exception: Places of habitation or within the boundaries of established smoking areas or campsites as designated by the fire code official.

CCCC. Section 4911.5 Spark Arresters [Additional subsection]. Chimneys used in conjunction with fireplaces, barbecues, incinerators or heating appliances in which solid or liquid fuel is used, upon buildings, structures or premises located within Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas shall be provided with a spark arrester. See Berkeley Building Code Section 705A.5 for specifications.

DDDD. Section 4911.6 Tracer Bullets, Tracer Charges, Rockets and Model Aircraft [Additional subsection]. Tracer bullets and tracer charges shall not be possessed, fired or caused to be fired into or across Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas. Rockets, model planes, gliders and balloons powered with an engine, propellant or other feature liable to start or cause fire shall not be fired or projected into or across Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 23 of 28
EEEE. Section 4911.7 Explosives and Blasting [Additional subsection]. Explosives shall not be possessed, kept, stored, sold, offered for sale, given away, used, discharged, transported or disposed of within Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas except by permit from the fire code official.

FFFF. Section 4911.8 Fireworks [Additional subsection]. Fireworks shall not be used or possessed in Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas. The fire code official is authorized to seize, take, remove or cause to be removed fireworks in violation of this section.

Exception: Fireworks allowed by the fire code official under permit when not prohibited by applicable local or state laws, ordinances and regulations.

GGGG. Section 4911.9 Apiaries [Additional subsection]. Lighted and smoldering material shall not be used in connection with smoking bees in or upon Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Areas except by permit from the fire code official.

HHHH. Section 4911.10 Open-Flame Devices [Additional subsection]. See Berkeley Fire Code Sections 308.1.6 Open Flame Devices and 308.1.6.1 Signals and Markers.

IIII. Section 4911.11 Outdoor Fires [Additional subsection]. Outdoor fires shall not be built, ignited or maintained in or upon Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas, except by permit from the fire code official.

Exception: Outdoor fires within habited premises or designated campsites, where such fires are built in a permanent barbecue, portable barbecue, outdoor fireplace, incinerator or grill and are a minimum of 30 feet (9144 mm) from a grass-, grain-, brush or forest-covered area.

Permits shall incorporate such terms and conditions, which will reasonably safeguard public safety and property.

Outdoor fires shall not be built, ignited or maintained in or upon Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas under the following conditions:

1. When high winds are blowing,

2. When a person age 17 or over is not present at all times to watch and tend such fire, or

3. When public announcement is made that open burning is prohibited.

Permanent barbecues, portable barbecues, outdoor fireplaces, fire pits or grills shall not be used if solid or liquid fueled.

JJJJ. Section 4911.12 Incinerators and Fireplaces [Additional subsection].

Incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, fire pits, permanent barbecues and grills shall not be built, installed or maintained in Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas without prior approval of the fire code official. Existing incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, fire pits, permanent barbecues and grills shall be maintained in good

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 24 of 28
repair and in a safe condition at all times. Openings in such appliances shall be provided with an approved spark arrester, screen or door.

Exception: When approved, unprotected openings in barbecues and grills necessary for proper functioning shall be allowed.

KKKK. Section 4911.13 Dumping [Additional subsection]. Garbage, cans, bottles, papers, ashes, refuse, trash, rubbish or combustible waste material shall not be placed, deposited or dumped in or upon Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas or in, upon or along trails, roadways or highways in Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas.

Exception: Approved public and private dumping areas.

LLLL. Section 4911.14 Disposal of Ashes [Additional subsection]. Ashes and coals shall not be placed, deposited or dumped in or upon Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas.

Exceptions:

1. In the hearth of an established fire pit, camp stove or fireplace;

2. In a noncombustible container with a tight-fitting lid, which is kept or maintained in a safe location not less than 10 feet (3048mm) from combustible vegetation or structures;

3. Where such ashes or coals are buried and covered with 1 foot (304.8mm) of mineral earth not less than 25 feet (7620 mm) from combustible vegetation or structures.

MMMM. Section 4911.15 Use of Fire Roads and Firebreaks [Additional subsection]. Motorcycles, motor scooters and motor vehicles shall not be driven or parked upon, and trespassing is prohibited upon, fire roads or firebreaks beyond the point where travel is restricted by a cable, gate or sign, without the permission of the property owner(s). Vehicles shall not be parked in a manner, which obstructs the entrance to a fire road or firebreak.

Exception: Public officers acting within their scope of duty. Radio and television aerials, guy wires thereto, and other obstructions shall not be installed or maintained on fire roads or fire breaks unless located 16 feet (4877 mm) or more above such fire road or firebreak.

NNNN. Section 4911.16 Use of Motorcycles, Motor Scooters and Motor Vehicles [Additional subsection]. Motorcycles, motor scooters and motor vehicles shall not be operated within Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas, without a permit by the fire code official, except upon clearly established public or private roads.

Permission from the property owner(s) shall be presented when requesting a permit.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 25 of 28
OOOO. Section 4911.17 Tampering with Fire Department Locks, Barricades and Signs [Additional subsection]. Locks, barricades, seals, cables, signs and markers installed within Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas, by or under the control of the fire code official, shall not be tampered with, mutilated, destroyed or removed. Gates, doors, barriers and locks installed by or under the control of the fire code official shall not be unlocked.

PPPP. Section 4911.18 Liability for Damage [Additional subsection]. The expenses of fighting fires and securing emergencies, which result from a violation of this code, Chapter 6.15.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code (“Unauthorized barbecues and fire on public property”), Sections 13000-13011 of the California Health and Safety Code, Sections 4421-4446 of the California Public Resources Code, or Sections 451, 451.5, 452 or 455 of the California Penal Code is a charge against the person(s) whose violation of the code section(s) caused the fire. Damages caused by such fires shall constitute a debt of such person(s) and shall be collectable by the fire code official in accordance with Section 107.7 of this code.

QQQQ. Section 5001.7 Hazardous materials transportation restrictions [Additional subsection] No vehicle containing hazardous materials, including a hazardous materials transportation tank truck, trailer, semi-trailer or tank wagon containing flammable or combustible liquids, hazardous chemicals, liquefied petroleum gases, poisonous gases, or cryogenic fluids, shall be operated on any city street without a permit from the fire code official. A map showing the proposed route of the vehicle shall accompany applications for such permits. If a permit is granted, the map shall be carried at all times in the vehicle and the vehicle shall not deviate from the approved route as shown on the map. Such a permit may contain conditions, including restrictions on the hours within which certain routes may be used and limitations on the size of the vehicle allowed to travel the approved route. No route shall be approved that includes passage over or adjacent to subway entry or vent structures, through the Northbrae Tunnel, in any area designated an environmental safety residential district by the City of Berkeley's Zoning Ordinance, or in an area which may be designated as a hazardous fire area. Departure from the approved route, travel outside the permitted hours, and violation of any vehicle size limitation imposed, or failure to carry a map showing route approval shall constitute a violation of this Code. The transportation of extremely hazardous materials may, in the discretion of the fire code official, require both a permit and accompaniment by a Fire Department or Police Department convoy. The following streets contain purge chamber openings which lead directly into the subway section of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) System in Berkeley and their use by tank vehicles or trailers for transportation or delivery of flammable or combustible liquids, hazardous chemicals, liquefied petroleum gases, poisonous gases, or cryogenic fluids is prohibited and a violation of this Code:
a. On Addison Street between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Oxford Street; b. On Shattuck Avenue between University Avenue and Dwight Way; c. On Virginia Street between Franklin and Sacramento Streets; d. On Sacramento Street between Virginia Street and Hearst Avenue;

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 26 of 28
e. On Hearst Avenue between McGee Avenue and Milvia Street; f. On Adeline Street between Ward and Stuart Streets; and g. On Adeline Street between Ashby Avenue and Woolsey Street RRRR. 5601.1.3 Fireworks. [Amended subsection] The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling and use of fireworks, including fireworks which are classified as Safe and Sane fireworks by the California State Fire Marshal’s Office, are prohibited within the jurisdiction.

Exceptions:

1. Storage and handling of fireworks as allowed in Section 5604.

2. Manufacture, assembly and testing of fireworks as allowed in Section 5605 and Health and Safety Code Division 11.

31. The use of fireworks for fireworks displays, pyrotechnics before a proximate audience and pyrotechnic special effects in motion pictures, television, theatrical or group entertainment productions as allowed in Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 6 Fireworks reprinted in Section 5608 and Health and Safety Code Division 11 when stored, transported, handled and used under the required fire department permit(s) and in accordance will all applicable requirements of Chapter 56.

42. The possession, storage, sale, handling and use of specific types of Division 1.4G fireworks where allowed by applicable laws, ordinances and regulations, provided that such fireworks and facilities comply with NFPA 1124, CPSC 16 CFR Parts 1500 and 1507, and DOTn 49 CFR Parts 100– 185, as applicable for consumer fireworks and Health and Safety Code Division 11.

SSSS. Section 5604.1 General. [Amended subsection] The storage and handling of explosives within City of Berkeley limits is prohibited. Storage of explosives and explosive materials, small arms ammunition, small arms primers, propellant- actuated cartridges and smokeless propellants in magazines shall comply with the provisions of this section
Exception: Where expressly permitted by applicable laws, ordinances or regulations provided such storage and handling of explosives and explosive materials, small arms ammunition, small arms primers, propellant-actuated cartridges and smokeless propellants in magazines is conducted in accordance with Section 5604 and all applicable provisions of Chapter 56.

TTTT. Section 5701.4.1 Transfer of flammable and combustible liquids. [Additional subsection] Transfer to or from containers or mobile tanks, above ground or underground tanks of flammable and combustible liquids shall not be made from or on the street or public way except by written approval by the fire code official.

Exceptions:

1. Transfer of not more than 5 gallons flammable or combustible liquids using a listed or approved portable fuel container of not more than 5 gallons capacity.

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 27 of 28

2. The transfer of combustible liquids to or from approved, fixed mechanical or electrical system equipment such as a Standby or Emergency electric power generator when the transfer is completed by a commercial fuel vendor using approved dispensing equipment via a previously approved, fixed tank filling port which met code requirements at the time of installation.

UUUU. Section 5704.2.11.1.1 Restrictions on underground storage tanks [Additional subsection] The storage of flammable and combustible liquids in underground tanks is prohibited in all areas zoned solely for residential occupancies, closely built commercial properties, and any other area deemed unsafe by the fire code official.

VVVV. Section 5704.2.13.1.4 Tanks abandoned in place [Amended subsection].

Tanks may be abandoned only under permit and following City of Berkeley Fire Department procedures. The owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Berkeley Toxics Division that no unauthorized release has occurred. If the soil is contaminated, mitigation must be completed to the satisfaction of the Toxics Division. A notice shall be placed in the deed to the property. This notice shall describe the precise location of the closed underground storage tank, the hazardous substances that it contained, and the closure method. Tanks abandoned in place shall be as follows:

1. Flammable and combustible liquids shall be removed from the tank and connected piping.

2. The suction, inlet, gauge, vapor return and vapor lines shall be disconnected.

3. The tank shall be filled completely with an approved inert solid material.

4. Remaining underground piping shall be capped or plugged.

5. A record of tank size, location and date of abandonment shall be retained.

6. All exterior above-grade fill piping shall be permanently removed when tanks are abandoned or removed.

WWWW. Section 5704.2.14 Removal and disposal of tanks [Amended subsection].

Removal and disposal of tanks shall comply with Sections 5704.2.14.1 and 5704.2.14.2. Removal of all tanks shall be authorized under a fire permit, abiding by City of Berkeley Fire Department procedures. The applicant shall submit the following:

1. A site plan showing the location of the tanks.

2. A detailed description of the scope of work.

3. A site safety plan.

4. A vicinity map to the closest hospital, in an event of an emergency.

5. Proof of workers compensation insurance.

The owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Berkeley Toxics Division that no unauthorized release has occurred. If the soil is contaminated, mitigation must be completed to the satisfaction of the Toxics Division or the California Water Board.

XXXX. Section 6104.1.1 Restrictions on storage of LP-gas containers [Additional subsection] It shall be unlawful to store any liquefied petroleum gas cylinder with a capacity greater than 2-1/2 lbs. water capacity or a portable tank within

Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. Page 28 of 28
any structure or building with an occupancy classification of A, R-1, R-2 or R-4, unless specifically authorized by this Code.

YYYY. Section B105.2 (Appendix B),Table B105.2, “Required Fire-Flow For Buildings Other Than One- And Two-Family Dwellings, Group R-3 And R-4 Buildings And Townhouses” [Amended Table]
TABLE B105.2
REQUIRED FIRE·FLOW FOR BUILDINGS OTHER THAN ONE· AND
TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP R·3 AND R·4 BUILDINGS AND TOWNHOUSES

AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM
(Design Standard)

MINIMUM FIRE-FLOW
(gallons per minute)

FLOW DURATION
(hours)
No automatic sprinkler system Value in Table B105.1(2) Duration in Table B105.1(2) Section 903.3.1.1 of the California Fire Code 2550% of the value in Table B105.1(2)a
Duration in Table Bl 05.1(2) at the reduced flow rate
Section 903.3.1.2 of the California Fire Code 2550% of the value in Table B105.1(2)b
Duration in Table Bl05.1(2) at the reduced flow rate
For SI: 1 gallon per minute= 3.785 Lim.
a. The reduced fire-flow shall be not less than 1,000 gallons per minute. b. The reduced fire-flow shall be not less than 1,500 gallons per minute.

ZZZZ. Section L104.5.1 Stored pressure air supply. (Amended subsection) A stored pressure air supply shall be designed based on Appendix Chapter F of the California Plumbing Code Chapter 24 of NFPA 1901 except that the provisions applicable only to mobile apparatus or not applicable to system design shall not apply. A stored pressure air supply shall store not less than 5,000 Standard Cubic Feet (SCF) of air or be capable of refilling not less than 50 empty breathing air cylinders of a size and pressure used by the fire department, whichever is greater.

Section 19.48.030 Validity Should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Chapter or of the Code or Standards be declared invalid, all other portions of this Chapter shall remain in effect.

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.

At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on November 15, 2022, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Droste, Hahn, Harrison, Kesarwani, Robinson, Taplin, Wengraf, and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE WITH LOCAL

AMENDMENTS
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

Notice is hereby given that on DECEMBER 6, 2022 at 6:00 P.M. at the Berkeley Unified School District Board Room located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702, the City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code with Local Amendments as proposed by the Berkeley Fire Department. The adoption will include the non-structural provisions as provided in the 2021 International Fire Code.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of November 23, 2022. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

For further information, please contact Steven Riggs, Fire Marshal, Berkeley Fire Department at (510) 981-5585.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to
[email protected] in order to
ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

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

If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Published: November 18 and November 25, 2022 – The Berkeley Voice ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on November 23, 2022.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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

PUBLIC HEARING
December 6, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services Department Subject: Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion:

1. Adopt first reading of an Ordinance to amend the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23.328, updating the citywide Affordable Housing Requirements (AHR) in the Zoning Ordinance and repealing existing administration and zoning code sections that refer to affordable housing requirements, BMC Section 22.20.065, and Section 23.312.040(A)(6) (Attachment 1), to become effective on April 1, 2023.

2. Adopt a Resolution establishing regulations for a voucher program and establishing an in-lieu fee pursuant to BMC Section 23.328.020(A)(2) (Attachment 2) upon the effective date of contemporaneously adopted amendments to BMC Section 23.328, and rescind Resolution No. 68,074-N.S. related to fees, exemptions, and administration of inclusionary affordable housing and in-lieu programs upon the effective date of contemporaneously adopted amendments to BMC Section 23.328 (Attachment 2).

SUMMARY
The proposed amendments to affordable housing requirements have been developed in response to City Council referrals and State laws that govern affordable housing requirements. In particular, Assembly Bill 1505 in 2017 reauthorized inclusionary housing requirements on rental properties, allowing for the proposed consolidation of most of the City’s affordable housing requirements for rental and ownership properties.

Key elements of the proposed amendments include: establishing a new in-lieu fee calculated on a per square foot basis; setting the same per square foot fee for rental and ownership projects; providing new options by which requirements can be met; and various administrative changes. The revised regulations are designed to be easier to understand, make it easier for applicants to comply, simplify administration and oversight, and increase transparency by consolidating most affordable housing

Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

requirements in one place in the municipal code, eliminating conflicting requirements, and standardizing and simplifying certain fees and requirements.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed $45 per square foot in-lieu fee is roughly equivalent to the 2020 Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (AHMF) of $39,746 per rental unit. Since 2015, the City of Berkeley has collected approximately $38 million in Affordable Housing Mitigation Fees towards the Housing Trust Fund Program. It is challenging to predict future affordable housing fee revenue trends given the variables that are outside of the City’s control (e.g., how individual project applicants choose to comply with the City’s affordable housing requirements, changes in state law, and broader housing market trends). However, if overall housing development and affordable housing compliance plan trends continue, staff projects generating a similar amount over the next Housing Element cycle (8 years).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City’s affordable housing requirements for new development are codified in several sections of the Berkeley Municipal Code, including:
 BMC 21.28: Condominiums and Other Common Interest Subdivisions  BMC 22.20: Mitigations and Fees—Conditions of Approval for Development Projects
 BMC 23.326: Demolition and Dwelling Unit Controls
 BMC 23.328: Inclusionary Housing
 BMC 23.312: Live/Work
 BMC 13.76: Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Prior to 2009, Berkeley had a single Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (BMC Chapter 23C.12) which applied to both ownership and rental projects. In 2009, a Court of Appeals decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties LP v. City of Los Angeles (the “Palmer decision”) prevented California jurisdictions from enforcing inclusionary housing requirements on rental properties. In response, Berkeley and many other cities adopted an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (AHMF). The AHMF ordinance requires payment of a fee and allows the provision of on-site units as an alternative. This approach allowed Berkeley to achieve its policy goals without violating the restrictions imposed by the Palmer decision. Although the provisions of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that applied to rental housing remained in the Berkeley Municipal Code, they were unenforceable and superseded by the AHMF ordinance. Inclusionary provisions related to condominiums remained enforceable.

In 2018, the California Legislature passed AB1505 which effectively overturned the Palmer decision and authorized the implementation of inclusionary housing requirements applied to rental properties, subject to a development feasibility analysis.

Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

This legislation has allowed the City to update its programs to combine rental and ownership requirements under a single inclusionary housing ordinance and make other changes that respond to City Council referrals.

The proposed changes are informed by a memorandum prepared by Street Level Advisors, a firm that assists cities across the nation to develop programs and policies to facilitate equitable development, and by feedback provided by the Planning Commission, Housing Advisory Commission and the Council in 2021 (Attachment 3).1 Updating the City’s Affordable Housing Requirements is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create affordable housing and housing support service for our most vulnerable community members.

Key Elements of Proposed Ordinance and Resolution

1. Consolidation of Affordable Housing Requirements. As authorized by Assembly Bill 1505, the proposed amendments impose “inclusionary” or on-site affordable housing requirements and allow the payment of an in-lieu fee, among other options, instead of the current rules which impose a mitigation fee and allow for the provision of on-site units in-lieu of the fee.2, 3 The proposed ordinance consolidates the City’s existing regulations by addressing both rental and ownership projects in an amended BMC Chapter 23.328, renamed as “Affordable Housing Requirements”, thus allowing for the deletion of the sections of the BMC where these topics were formerly addressed (BMC Sections 22.20.065, and 23.312.A6).

The proposed ordinance would become effective on April 1, 2023. Development projects for which either a Building Permit was issued or a preliminary application was submitted on or before April 1, 2023 shall be subject to this Chapter’s requirements that were in place as of the preliminary application’s submittal date, but shall otherwise be exempt from this Chapter (see section 23.328.050.F of proposed ordinance). The City’s inclusionary requirement remains the same: at least 20% of the Residential Units of a Housing Development Project must be Affordable Units (as defined in BMC Section 23.238).

2. Establishment of a Per Square Foot In-lieu Fee. Instead of the existing method of calculating fees on a per-unit basis, the proposed resolution sets the affordable housing in-lieu fee at $45 per square foot of Gross Floor Area for the residential portion of a Housing Development Project,4 collected at the time of 1 See Background section for more information on the project methodology and public process. 2 Street Level Advisors Memorandum (Jan. 2022): Recommendation 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 (as noted above, condo conversion requirements will be addressed in a separate process in the future), 1.4 and 1.5. 3 Bill Text - AB-1505:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1505 4 BMC 23.106.030 (Floor Area, Gross) and BMC 23.238.020E.

Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

Certificate of Occupancy. This fee level is roughly equivalent to the 2020 AHMF for projects with typically sized units.5 As is the case with the existing AHMF, the proposed In-Lieu Fee would be automatically adjusted every two years based on the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI).

Over the last two years, the CCCI has increased sharply, with a cumulative increase of 16.2%, as compared to increases of approximately 2-4% each year between 2016 and 2020. Effective July 1, 2022, the AHMF increased from $39,746 to $46,185 per rental unit (see referenced document list at end of this report). This significant increase is reflective of the escalating costs in construction and inflation affecting housing prices throughout the state. Despite the recent increase, City staff are recommending that the City Council set the new per square foot based in-lieu fee based on the fee level of 2020, which was the basis for the financial feasibility analysis prepared by Street Level Advisors.

City staff will be initiating a new feasibility study later this fiscal year, in accordance with the recommendations of both the Planning and Housing Advisory Commissions.

This new study will analyze the feasibility of smaller building development types (e.g., “missing middle” housing), monitor the effects of the newly adopted fees and inclusionary requirements, and establish whether adjustments should be made to the fee level or cost structure. There may be reasons to raise or lower the per square foot fee: to adjust the sliding scale for smaller projects, better align the developer cost of the inclusionary versus fee options, or to make other changes to reflect market conditions as the city emerges from the pandemic and faces inflationary, recessionary, and other market influences.

3. Incentive to Increase Affordable Units Serving Extremely Low-Income Households (30% of AMI). The City’s current rules require that 40% of all Very Low Income (VLI) units be offered first to Housing Choice voucher holders, and 40% be offered first to Shelter+Care voucher holders. The proposed changes would require that all of the required VLI units be offered to voucher holders (50% to Housing Choice voucher holders and 50% to Shelter+Care voucher holders) before being marketed to other income-eligible households. This change, along with the way that the City’s requirements interact with the State Density Bonus, will serve to slightly increase the share of ELI tenants served, without adding layers of complexity to the program, since voucher holders in both programs generally have incomes well below 30% AMI.6

4. Standardization of Ownership and Rental Fees. The feasibility analysis prepared by Street Level Advisors found that the City’s existing requirements for ownership/condominium projects resulted in an equivalent per square foot fee 5 SLA Jan. 2022 Memo, Recommendations 2.1 and 3.1.
6 See SLA Recommendation 4.1.

Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

ranging from $54 to $75, which is considerably higher than the equivalent per square foot fees estimated for rental projects ($45 per square foot). The imposition of a higher fee discourages development of new home ownership projects. Setting the fee at $45 per square foot for both rental and ownership projects would “level the playing field” and still generate substantial in-lieu fees per unit, since ownership units tend to be larger than rental units. The proposed ordinance authorizes the City Council to set fees, and the proposed resolution sets the affordable housing in-lieu fee at $45 per gross residential square foot for both rental and ownership projects.

This approach will be revisited as part of the new feasibility study.7

5. Standardization of Live-Work Requirements. The proposed ordinance consolidates the affordable housing requirements for live/work units from BMC

23.312 into BMC 23.328 and removes the exemption from inclusionary and fee requirements for live/work projects. The same requirements would apply to live/work projects as any other project. Live/work projects would also retain the existing marketing provision, to proactively ensure that the developer reaches out to income- eligible persons performing a work activity appropriate to the unit and district where the property is located8.

6. Land Dedication Option. The proposed ordinance adds an option for project applicants to dedicate land, if authorized by the City Manager, for an approved non- profit housing developer (see proposed ordinance Section 23.328.030.C). Donated land must be equal or greater in value than the in-lieu fee that otherwise would be required.9

7. Family-Sized Units Option. During the process of developing the recommendations, policymakers expressed interest in promoting the development of affordable units that are suitable for families, but actively discourage units with high bedroom counts. The draft ordinance adds an option for project applicants to propose an alternative mix of affordable unit types whose total size is at least 20% of the residential Gross Floor Area (rather than a unit-for-unit equivalent), in order to achieve a mix of Affordable Units including two- and three-bedroom units. Review and approval of the proposal would be at the discretion of the City Manager or their designee.10 This option has been further revised from the original proposals, which provided a similar option by right if a project applicant provided Affordable Units including a specified level of two-or three-bedroom units. The current option better addresses staff implementation concerns by establishing a process by which a 7 See SLA Recommendation 6.1.
8 SLA Jan. 2022 Memo: Recommendations 7.1.
9 SLA Jan. 2022 Memo: Recommendation 8.1.
10 SLA Jan. 2022 Memo: Recommendation 9.1.

Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

proposal can be reviewed holistically to ensure that unit size, unit mix and overall number of units provided and households served meet the intent of the ordinance.

8. Removal of Exemption for Most Group Living Accommodation (GLA) Projects and Prohibition of On-Site Affordable Units in GLAs. The proposed ordinance would remove the current exemption for GLAs from inclusionary and fee requirements. Fraternities, sororities and other specially designated units recognized by the University of California would retain their exemption. The proposed ordinance would also prohibit affordable units from having more than three bedrooms in order to reduce administrative burdens.11

9. Eliminate Exemption for Small Projects and Establish Tiered Fees. The proposed resolution eliminates the exemption for projects of one to four units and replaces it with a tiered fee for projects with less than 12,000 square feet in residential Gross Floor Area (BMC 23.106.030), by reducing the fee by $2 per square foot for each 1,000 square foot increment less than 12,000 sf.12 Table 1. Proposed Tiered Square Foot Based Fee
Gross Floor Area
(Residential)
Fee per Square Foot
12,000+ $45
11,000-11,999 $43
10,000-10,999 $41
9,000-9,999 $39
8,000-8,999 $37
7,000-7,999 $35
6,000-6,999 $33
5,000-5,999 $31
4,000-4,999 $29
3,000-3,999 $27
2,000-2,999 $25
1,000-1,999 $23
<1,000 $21

11.Cap Annual Rate of Rent Increases. As recommended by the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC), the proposed ordinance stipulates that any increase in rent of an affordable unit offered for rent shall be no greater than 65% of the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose region as reported and published by the U.S.

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the twelve-month period ending 11 SLA Jan. 2022 Memo: Recommendations 11.1 and 11.2.
12 SLA Jan. 2022 Memo: Recommendations 12.1 and 12.2.

Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

the previous December 30, but not to exceed 65% of the corresponding increase in AMI for the same calendar year.13 This is consistent with how the Rent Stabilization Board calculates rent increases, but is a change from the existing requirements, which ties rent increases to the increase in Area Median Income (AMI) only. When the affordable units are vacant and re-rented, the property owner can increase the rent based on the affordability category of the unit.

The Planning Commission recommended that rent increases be tied to AMI two years after adoption of ordinance. Staff do not recommend this approach because annual rent adjustments are typically smaller and therefore more manageable for tenants. Increasing rents based on AMI after two years may create a larger rent increase that is more difficult for tenants to predict/budget. This is reflective of staff experience managing properties that have “banked” increases in the past and implement multiple year increases at once.

The goal is to ensure that rent increases do not result in a high housing cost burden or displacement of existing tenants. Over the past decade, annual increases in AMI are generally higher than the average increase in income of lower income households, resulting in unintended adverse impacts to tenants. Although CPI-U has traditionally been more stable than AMI, this may change given the current inflationary cycle. Staff recommend tying rent increases to the lesser of annual increases in CPI-U or AMI.

12.Administrative Changes. The proposed ordinance also recommends four administrative changes:14
a. Affordable Housing Compliance Plan. The proposed ordinance language was clarified to better define the enforceable agreement (the “Affordable Housing Compliance Plan”) that applicants are required to submit and when such a plan must be submitted to the City. The Compliance Plan must specify how an applicant will comply with City affordable housing requirements, including the number and type of Affordable Units, the amount of In-Lieu Fees, and/or the parcels of land (or portions thereof) that will be provided and/or paid, and must be submitted to the Zoning Officer at the time of application. b. Authorization of administrative citations. The proposed ordinance explicitly authorizes the creation of a proposed schedule of fines for monitoring and compliance violations to be included in the program guidelines. c. Deduction of required fees/costs from gross rent. The proposed ordinance requires that any other mandatory fees imposed by the property-owner as a condition of tenancy in addition to tenant-paid utilities be included in the determination of whether a unit is affordable to Very Low-Income or Low- Income Households.
d. Increase administrative set-aside from 10% to 15%. The proposed ordinance states that 15% of In-Lieu Fees collected may be used to pay for 13 SLA Jan. 2022 Memo: Recommendation 13.
14 SLA Jan. 2022 Memo: Recommendation 14.1 - 14.4.

Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

administration of the In-Lieu Fee or the Housing Trust Fund program, due to the increasing size and complexity of the City’s portfolio of HTF units. This also allows staff to better budget for administrative expenses given the unpredictable nature of market-based fee revenue. At least 85% of In-Lieu Fees collected shall be deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund program.

Other Policy Considerations
Staff are also advancing proposed changes to the City’s regulation of demolitions (BMC Chapter 23.326). Demolition requirements help protect existing rental-controlled housing by regulating and compensating for the elimination of such units which occurs through modifications to existing housing stock (e.g., removing kitchens, combining units). The modifications currently under consideration retain, modify and expand existing requirements for the replacement of protected units and the provision of relocation benefits for displaced tenants, while bringing the local ordinance into better alignment with recent updates to state law. Staff anticipate bringing revisions to the demolition requirements to City Council in early 2023, subsequent to additional review by the 4x4 Committee and Planning Commission.

In addition, a number of proposed changes to the City’s condominium conversion regulations were presented in the memorandum prepared by Street Level Advisors.

These included simplifying the calculation of the required fee, reducing the fees under certain circumstances and allowing flexibility in the use of the fees. These recommendations require additional consideration and may require additional nexus and feasibility analyses. Changes to BMC Chapter 21.28, Condominiums and Other Common Interest Subdivisions, will be considered in a future, separate item.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has a strong history of programs and initiatives to retain existing affordable and rent controlled tenant housing, protect tenants from displacement, and create new affordable housing, including deed-restricted income-qualified housing. City Council has adopted multiple, interrelated referrals to explore revisions to the City’s affordable housing requirements for new development that are currently codified in several sections of the Berkeley Municipal Code (Attachment 4).

There have also been changes to State laws that govern affordable housing requirements, streamlining, dwelling unit replacement, and density bonus incentives.

There are also numerous locally adopted implementing resolutions that set fee amounts and exemptions. In addition, the City has administrative guidelines and practices to implement the State and local requirements.

The City engaged the consulting firm Street Level Advisors to evaluate existing regulations and potential changes in order to comprehensively update the City’s affordable housing requirements. The work to date has included:

Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

 October 2020: Street Level Advisors presented a range of identified policy issues and solicited feedback from the public and stakeholders including affordable housing developers and advocates, market-rate developers, Planning Commission, Housing Advisory Commission, Zoning Adjustments Board, and Rent Stabilization Board.
 May 2021: Street Level Advisors prepared a memorandum analyzing 14 categories of potential changes to the City’s affordable housing requirements based on Council referrals and stakeholder and public feedback. Staff and Street Level Advisors presented the proposed changes to the Planning Commission and at a City Council worksession to inform drafting of the ordinance and resolution.15
 March 2022: Staff presented the proposed resolution and ordinance to the Planning Commission and the Housing Advisory Commission and requested a recommendation to bring to the City Council.

Both Commissions approved the staff recommendations with a few modifications, including the following recommendations:
 Update feasibility analysis. Both Commissions recommended new evaluations of the in-lieu fee within one to two years (HAC and PC, respectively), including tracking distribution of fees, on-site units, mixed compliance projects, small project and ownership projects, including co-housing/community housing. As noted above, staff will be initiating a new feasibility study later this fiscal year.  Cap annual rent increases for inclusionary units. The Planning Commission recommended that rent increases should be tied to Area Median Income after two years of ordinance adoption. The Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) recommended that rent increases should be tied to 65% of Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is consistent with the manner in which the Rent Stabilization Board calculates rent increases. The proposed ordinance was revised to tie rent increases to 65% of CPI.
 Ensure definitions of terms are included in the chapter and/or in the zoning ordinance glossary. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the proposed draft ordinance and the draft resolution have been revised for clarity.

Staff have revised the drafts to include definitions and clearer references regarding how the proposed in-lieu fee would be applied and calculated.  Require Very Low Income units to be first offered to voucher holders. The Planning Commission recommended that the existing regulations remain in place such that 80% of Very Low Income units be required to be offered to voucher holders (40% to Shelter+Care and 40% to Section 8 voucher holders) instead of 15 May 18, 2021 Council Worksession Report: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 05-18%20WS%20Item%2002%20Updating%20Citywide%20Affordable.pdf

Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

proposed ordinance increase to 100% (50% to Shelter+Care and 50% to Section 8 voucher holders). The HAC agreed with the draft ordinance as proposed by staff.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Infill affordable housing may reduce greenhouse gas emissions when located near transit, job centers, and other amenities. The proposed changes are intended to continue to facilitate on-site affordable housing units and fees available to the Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing developers in order to support the provision of affordable housing and housing support services for our City’s most vulnerable community members.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The recommended changes are primarily in response to policy referrals from City Council related to affordable housing development. The new ordinance is intended to maintain or increase the number of on-site affordable housing units and the amount of fees available to the Housing Trust Fund, while addressing a number of other policy considerations and concerns regarding the complexity of existing regulations, and maintaining the overall feasibility of housing development in Berkeley.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Planning Commission and Housing Advisory Commission each discussed the merits of setting the fee at a level either higher or lower than the recommended $45 per square foot.

Staff considered raising the proposed per square foot in-lieu fee by 16.2% to match the recent automatic adjustment to the existing Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee on July 1, 2022, which would be equivalent to $52 per square foot. Street Level Advisors recommended considering adjustments to the fee once the housing market had stabilized following the fluctuations that resulted from the pandemic, and to concurrently conduct an updated feasibility analysis within the next three years to determine what fee level typical projects could support. Given the recent increase in construction costs and inflation overall, it seems prudent to base further increases in fees on updated feasibility analyses prior to adjusting the level of the fee.

Staff also considered introducing a limited local density bonus program for small projects and Group Living Accommodations (where individuals generally lease bedrooms and not apartments). The program would prohibit the provision of on-site affordable units in these types of projects, and allow additional development as would be allowed under the State Density Bonus in exchange for payment of a fee (instead of on-site units). After further review and consideration, staff have concluded that the proposed tiered fee for small projects (less than 12,000 sf), and the definition of

Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements PUBLIC HEARING December 6, 2022

Affordable Units being limited to three bedrooms or less, serve to address the goal of incentivizing smaller projects to select the in-lieu fee option.

The Council could also consider no changes to the current structure of having an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee and an in-lieu inclusionary requirement.

CONTACT PERSON
Alisa Shen, Principal Planner, Planning and Development, [email protected].

Margot Ernst, Housing Division Manager, Health Housing and Community Services, [email protected].

Attachments:
1: Draft Ordinance
2: Draft Resolution
3: Updating Affordable Housing Requirements for the City of Berkeley: Analysis and Recommendations. Prepared by Street Level Advisors, Revised February 2022. 4: Summary of Council Referrals Related to Affordable Housing Requirements 5: Public Hearing Notice
Links to Referenced Documents:
1: Off-Agenda Memo Regarding Bi-annual Increase to Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee, July 13, 2022:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Affordable%20Housing%20Mitiga tion%20Fee%20Increase%20071322_0.pdf
2: City Council Worksession Report: Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements Update, May 18, 2021:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05- 18%20WS%20Item%2002%20Updating%20Citywide%20Affordable.pdf 3: Planning Commission Report: Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements Update, May 5, 2021:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2022-03- 02%20PC%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLES 22 AND 23
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 22.20.065, and Section

23.312.040(A)(6) are hereby repealed.

Section 2. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23.328 is repealed and re-enacted to read as follows:

23.328.010 Findings.

A. The State of California has established a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process under which it allocates a “fair share” of the regional housing need, updated periodically, to each local jurisdiction. The “fair share” allocated to Berkeley increased significantly based on the regional housing needs determination finalized in late 2021. The sixth cycle of the RHNA for the San Francisco Bay Area allocates to Berkeley a “fair share” that calls for adequate sites for 8,934 housing units for the period from 2023 to 2031, including sites for 2,446 Very Low-Income units, 1,408 Lower- Income units, and 1,416 Moderate Income units. Under the state Housing Element Law, the City must update its Housing Element to provide adequate sites for its updated “fair share” allocation by 2023.

B. The Bay Area suffers from a shortage of affordable housing. As the Bay Area region experiences increased economic growth and a high demand for housing, housing prices continue to rise, which leads to displacement of low-income residents and exacerbates the shelter crisis that has led to unacceptably high rates of homelessness in the City of Berkeley and the Bay Area region.

C. In 1990, the City established the Housing Trust Fund program to pool available funding for affordable housing development. The Housing Trust Fund program is funded

by federal, state, and local revenues, including by in-lieu and mitigation fees paid by developers of market-rate housing projects under the City’s existing affordable housing ordinances.

D. The City Council hereby finds that there is a legitimate public interest in the provision of affordable housing to address the crises of displacement, homelessness, and lack of housing affordability in the City, and that there is a significant and increasing need for affordable housing in the City to meet the City‘s regional share of housing needs under the California Housing Element Law.

E. The City Council further finds that the public interest would best be served if new affordable housing were integrated into new market-rate residential developments to facilitate economically diverse housing, while also providing alternative options to the on-site construction of affordable housing such as the payment of fees to replenish the City’s Housing Trust Fund program and allowing for the construction of affordable housing on land dedicated by market-rate housing developers.

23.328.020 Definitions.

A. “Affordable Unit” means a Residential Unit that is in perpetuity affordable to Very Low-Income Households or Lower-Income Households, as defined in California Health and Safety Code sections 50052.5 and 50053.

B. “Affordable Housing Compliance Plan” means an enforceable commitment by an Applicant to comply with the requirements of this Chapter that identifies the number and type of Affordable Units, the amount of In-Lieu Fees, and/or the parcels of land (or portions thereof) that will be provided and/or paid by the Applicant to comply with those requirements.

C. “AMI” means the area median income applicable to the City of Berkeley, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or its successor provision, or as established by the City of Berkeley in the event that such median

income figures are no longer published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

D. "Applicant" means any individual, person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, entity, combination of entities or authorized representative thereof, who undertakes, proposes and/or applies to the City for any residential development.

E. "Housing Development Project" means a development project, including a mixed- use project, involving the new construction or title conversion of at least one Residential Unit. Projects with one or more buildings shall be considered as a sole Project and not as individual buildings.

F. “Housing Trust Fund” means the program to finance low- and moderate-income housing established by Resolution No. 55,504-N.S., or any successor fund established for the same purpose.

G. "Lower-Income Household" means a household whose income does not exceed the low-income limits applicable to Alameda County, as defined in California Health and Safety Code section 50079.5 and published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 (or its successor provision) by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

H. “Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants” means, for the purposes of this Chapter, a legally binding agreement recorded against the property to codify the requirements and conditions of a Housing Development Project providing Affordable Units.

I. “Residential Unit” means, for purposes of this Chapter, any Dwelling Unit, any Live-Work Unit, or any bedroom of a Group Living Accommodation (GLA) except a GLA in a University-recognized fraternity, sorority or co-op; provided, however, that for purposes of this Chapter, “Residential Unit” shall not include any Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.

J. "Very Low-Income Household" means a household whose income is no more than 50% of AMI, as defined in California Health and Safety Code section 50105.

23.328.030 Affordable Housing Requirements.

A. Requirement to Construct Affordable Units

1. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, no permit for the construction of any Housing Development Project shall be issued unless at least 20% of the Residential Units are Affordable Units, which shall on average be the same size as and contain the same number of bedrooms as other Residential Units in Housing Development Project (provided, however, that no Affordable Unit may have more than three bedrooms). When the calculation results in a fractional unit an Applicant will round up to the nearest whole unit. When there is an uneven number of Affordable Units provided under this Chapter, the majority of Affordable Units shall serve Very Low-Income Households, up to a maximum requirement of 10% of the total units in the Housing Development Project if the project provides more Affordable Units than are otherwise required by this Chapter.

2. In lieu of providing Affordable Units pursuant to Paragraph 1, an Applicant may propose an alternative mix of unit-types to comply with this Chapter by providing Affordable Units that comprise at least 20% of the Gross Floor Area of the residential portion of the Housing Development Project in order to achieve a mix of Affordable Units including two-bedroom or three-bedroom units. The City Manager or their designee may approve the proposed alternative mix of unit- types that meet the requirements of this section.

3. Affordable Units shall be (a) reasonably dispersed throughout the Housing Development Project; and (b) comparable to other Residential Units in the Housing Development Project in terms of appearance, materials, and finish quality. Residents of Affordable Units shall have access to the same common

areas and amenities that are available to residents of other Residential Units in the Housing Development Project.

4. At least 50% of the required Affordable Units in the Housing Development Project shall be offered for rent at a rent that is affordable to Very Low-Income Households, up to a maximum requirement of 10% of the total units in the Housing Development Project if the project provides more Affordable Units than are otherwise required by this Chapter.

5. In determining whether a unit is affordable to Very Low-Income or Low- Income Households, maximum allowable rent for any affordable unit shall be reduced by an amount equal to the value of the City-published utility allowance provided for Tenant-paid utilities and any other mandatory fee imposed by the property owner as a condition of tenancy.

6. Any increase in rent of an occupied Affordable Unit shall be no greater than 65% of the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose region as reported and published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the twelve-month period ending the previous December 30 but not to exceed 65% of the corresponding increase in AMI for the same calendar year.

7. All Affordable Units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction requiring in perpetuity that each Affordable Unit be sold at an affordable sales price or offered for rent at an affordable rent, as defined this Chapter.

8. The City Manager or their designee shall adopt rules and regulations (a) establishing the affordable sales price or affordable rent for each Affordable Unit, consistent with the requirements of Health and Safety Code sections 50052.5 and 50053; and (b) ensuring that Affordable Units are sold or rented to Very Low- Income and Lower-Income Households, consistent with the requirements of this Chapter.

9. Affordable Units designated for Very Low-Income Households shall be offered for rent to tenants receiving assistance under the Section 8 Program (42 U.S.C. Section 1437f), the Shelter Plus Care Program (42 U.S.C. Section 11403 et. seq.), or any similar state or federally funded rent subsidy program prior to being offered to other potential tenants. The Council may establish related program requirements by resolution.

10. Affordable Live-Work Units shall be proactively marketed by the developer of a project to income-eligible persons performing a work activity permitted in the district where the project is located whose type of work causes them to have a requirement for a space larger in size than typically found in residential units.

11. The owner of any Affordable Unit offered for rent must report to the City annually the occupancy and rents charged for each Affordable Unit, and any other information required pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the City Manager or their designee.

12. An Affordable Unit that is constructed to qualify for a density bonus under Government Code section 65915 that otherwise meets the requirements of this Chapter shall qualify as an Affordable Unit under this Chapter.

B. Option to Pay In-Lieu Fee

1. In lieu of providing some or all of the Affordable Units required under this Chapter (including any fractional units), an Applicant may elect to pay a fee, the amount of which the City Council may establish by resolution (“In-Lieu Fee”). The City Council may by resolution differentiate among types, classes, and locations of Housing Development Projects to the extent permitted by law; may establish separate fees and criteria for the provision of units that are affordable to Very Low-Income Households and units that are affordable to Low-Income Households; and may establish the method for calculation of the In-Lieu Fee.

2. In-Lieu Fees shall be assessed at the time of first building permit.

3. In-Lieu Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, or if no Certificate of Occupancy is required, prior to the initial occupancy of the Housing Development Project.

4. Up to 15% of In-Lieu Fees collected may be used to pay for administration of the In-Lieu Fee or the Housing Trust Fund program. At least 85% of In-Lieu Fees collected shall be deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund program.

C. Land Dedication Option

1. The requirements of this Chapter may be satisfied by the dedication of land in lieu of constructing Affordable Units within the Housing Development Project if the City Manager or their designee determines that all of the following criteria have been met:
a. Marketable title to the site is transferred to the City, or an affordable housing developer approved by the City, prior to the commencement of construction of the Housing Development Project pursuant to an agreement between the Applicant and the City.
b. The site has a General Plan designation that authorizes residential uses and is zoned for residential development at a density to accommodate at least the number of Affordable Units that would otherwise be required under Paragraph A.
c. The site is suitable for development of the Affordable Units, taking into consideration its configuration, physical characteristics, location, access, adjacent uses, and applicable development standards and other relevant planning and development criteria including, but not limited to, factors such as the cost of construction or development arising from the nature, condition, or location of the site.

d. Infrastructure to serve the dedicated site, including, but not limited to, streets and public utilities, are available at the property line and have adequate capacity to serve the maximum allowable residential density permitted under zoning regulations.
e. The site has been evaluated for the presence of hazardous materials and for the presence of geological hazards and all such hazards are or will be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City prior to acceptance of the site by the City.
f. The value of the site upon the date of dedication is equal to or greater than the in-lieu fee that would otherwise be required under Paragraph A.

2. The City shall solicit proposals from affordable housing developers to construct restricted income units on the site dedicated to the City, but if the City is unable to obtain a qualified affordable housing developer to construct a viable affordable housing development on the property within two years of its solicitation or to commence construction within five years, the City may sell, transfer, lease, or otherwise dispose of the dedicated site for any purpose. Any funds collected as the result of a sale, transfer, lease, or other disposition of sites dedicated to the City shall be deposited shall be deposited into a fund designated for use in the City’s Housing Trust Fund program.

23.328.040 Waiver or Modification of Affordable Housing Requirements.

A. The City Manager or their designee may waive or modify the requirements of this Chapter at their sole discretion where any of the following conditions are established:

1. A project providing low- or moderate-income housing is funded in whole or in part by the City’s Housing Trust Fund program;

2. The implementation of the requirements of this Chapter would violate the rights of any person under the California or United States Constitutions, any federal law, or any state law governing a matter of statewide concern and applicable to a charter city; or

3. The benefits of the project to the City outweigh the detriment of foregoing the provision of Affordable Housing or the contribution of In-Lieu fees to the Housing Trust Fund program. In weighing the benefits and detriment to the City, the following factors may be considered:
a. The impact of the requirements of this Chapter on the feasibility of a Housing Development Project;
b. Other economically beneficial uses of the Applicant’s property; c. The burdens the Housing Development Project places on the City in terms of increased demand for affordable housing, childcare, public facilities or amenities, or other impacts which reasonably may be anticipated to be generated by or attributable to the Housing Development Project; and
d. The impact on the Housing Trust Fund program of foregoing the payment of any In-Lieu fee that would otherwise be made.

B. The Applicant shall bear the burden of proof to establish eligibility for a waiver or modification of the requirements of this Chapter.

23.328.050 Implementation.

A. The Applicant for any Use Permit or Zoning Certificate for a Housing Development Project shall submit an Affordable Housing Compliance Plan to the Zoning Officer at the time of application. The Affordable Housing Compliance Plan shall be incorporated as a condition of approval of any Use Permit or Zoning Certificate issued

to the Applicant. No Building Permit may be issued for the project until the Affordable Housing Compliance Plan is approved.

B. The Applicant must execute a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants to regulate all Affordable Units provided in a Housing Development Project. No Building Permit may be issued for the project until the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants are executed.

C. The Affordable Housing Compliance Plan and/or Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants may be amended administratively, provided that the Zoning Officer finds them to be in full compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and State law, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.

D. The City Manager or their designee may promulgate additional rules and regulations consistent with the requirements of this Chapter.

E. The City Council may by resolution establish fees for the implementation and administration of this Chapter and may establish administrative penalties for violations of this Chapter.

F. Exemptions.

1. A Housing Development Project for which either a Building Permit was issued on or before April 1, 2023 or a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of California Government Code section 65941.1 was submitted on or before April 1, 2023 shall be subject to this Chapter’s requirements that were in place as of the preliminary application’s submittal date but shall otherwise be exempt from this Chapter. This exemption shall expire upon the occurrence of any of the circumstances defined in paragraphs (2), (6), or (7) of subdivision (o) of California Government Code section 65589.5 or in subdivision (d) of California Government Code section 65941.1.

2. A Residential Unit that replaces a unit existing as of April 1, 2023 that has been destroyed by fire, earthquake or other disaster.

3. A Residential Unit existing as of April 1, 2023 that is expanded, renovated, or rehabilitated.

Section 3. 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.

RESOLUTION NO. ________

ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR VOUCHER PROGRAM AND ESTABLISHING AN IN-

LIEU FEE TO SUPPORT THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PURSUANT TO BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 23C.12.030.B AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION 68,074-N.S.

WHEREAS, Berkeley Municipal Code (“BMC”) Section 23.328 establishes a requirement that 20% of Residential Units (as defined) in market-rate developments be offered for rent or sale at affordable rents or prices, as defined (“Affordable Units”); and WHEREAS, BMC Section 23.328 authorizes the City Council to establish by resolution preferences for renting Affordable Units offered for rent to tenants receiving assistance under the Section 8 Program (42 U.S.C. Section 1437f), the Shelter Plus Care Program (42 U.S.C. Section 11403 et. seq.), or similar state or federally funded rent subsidy program; and
WHEREAS, BMC Section 23.328 authorizes developers of market-rate housing to pay a fee in lieu of complying with the requirement to provide on-site affordable housing (“In- Lieu Fee”); and
WHEREAS, BMC Section 23.328 authorizes the City Council to establish the In-Lieu Fee by resolution, and further authorizes the Council to differentiate among types, classes, and locations of Housing Development Projects to the extent permitted by law; to establish separate fees and criteria for the provision of units that are affordable to Very Low Income Households and units that are affordable to Low Income Households; and to establish the method for calculating the In-Lieu Fee; and WHEREAS, the City retained Street Level Advisors to provide analysis and recommendations for updating the City’s affordable housing requirements, the scope of which included a financial feasibility study of the City’s affordable housing mitigation fees; and
WHEREAS, Street Level Advisors prepared a Financial Feasibility Analysis dated April 27, 2021, which determined that an In-Lieu Fee of $45 per square foot of the residential Gross Floor Area (as defined in BMC 23.106.030) would be financially feasible; and WHEREAS, Street Level Advisors recommended certain modifications to the $45 per square foot affordable housing fee that would not adversely impact the financial feasibility of housing development projects, such as charging a lower / tiered fee for smaller projects.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

1. All Affordable Units shall be offered to tenants in accordance with Council-adopted

eligibility preference criteria. All Very Low-Income Units, comprising a portion of the Affordable Units authorized and provided for by BMC Section 23,328, must be offered to tenants receiving assistance under the Section 8 Program (42 U.S.C.

Section 1437f) or the Shelter Plus Care Program (42 U.S.C. Section 11403 et. seq.) before being marketed to other income-eligible households. The allocations shall be divided equally between the Section 8 Program (50%) and the Shelter Plus Care Program (50%). The majority of the Very Low-Income Units shall be designated for the Shelter Plus Care Program when there is an uneven number of units.

2. The initial In-Lieu Fee authorized and provided for by BMC Section 23.328 shall be $45 per square foot of the Gross Floor Area (BMC 23.106.030) for the residential portion of the Housing Development Project, as defined in BMC Section

23.328.020 and shall be automatically adjusted biennially based on changes to the California Construction Cost Index unless otherwise provided for by BMC Section 23.328 or by this Resolution.

3. Housing Development Projects subject to BMC Section 23.328 may provide less than the required number of Affordable Units in the Housing Development Project and pay a proportionately reduced In-Lieu Fee, calculated as follows: the fee per square foot multiplied by the total Gross Floor Area (BMC 23.106.030) of the residential portion of the Housing Development Project, multiplied by the percentage of the applicable requirement remaining after accounting for the Gross Floor Area of any on-site Affordable Units provided. Projects that provide no on- site Affordable Units will have an applicable requirement multiplier of one.

4. For Housing Development Projects having a Gross Floor Area (of the residential portion of the Housing Development Project) of less than 12,000 square feet, the In-Lieu Fee shall be calculated as follows:

Gross Floor Area
(Residential)
Fee per Square Foot
12,000+ $45
11,000-11,999 $43
10,000-10,999 $41
9,000-9,999 $39
8,000-8,999 $37
7,000-7,999 $35
6,000-6,999 $33
5,000-5,999 $31
4,000-4,999 $29
3,000-3,999 $27
2,000-2,999 $25
1,000-1,999 $23
<1,000 $21

5. Applicability. Any Housing Development Project subject to BMC Section 23.328 that has not obtained its first building permit or demolition permit shall be subject to the fees, rules and regulations outlined in this Resolution.

6. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City Manager or their designee may waive all or part of the In-Lieu Fee adopted by this Resolution pursuant to BMC Section 23.328.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Resolution No. 68,074-N.S. is hereby rescinded and is of no force or effect on any Housing Development Project that obtains a building permit after the effective date of this resolution, but shall continue to apply to those projects that were approved and subject to its provisions or the provisions of predecessor resolutions and ordinances addressing the same subject matter.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the rescission of Resolution No. 68,074-N.S. and effective date of this Resolution shall be April 1, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 3
Street Level Advisors

Updating Affordable Housing Requirements for
The City of Berkeley, CA
Analysis and Recommendations
Revised February 20221
1 Previous version: 4/27/21. See 5/5/21 PC Meeting - Item 9 – Attachment 1:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Commissions/Commission_for_Planning/2021-05-05_PC_Item%209(1).pdf

2 Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2
Summary of Proposed Changes 7
Overarching Goals for Updating Requirements: 8
Center racial and economic equity by reversing exclusionary zoning 8 Encourage a mix of units and fees 10
Continue Berkeley’s legacy of value capture 11
Continue progress on housing goals 12
Work within the City’s existing administrative capacity 14 Proposed Changes in Detail: 15
Consolidate affordable housing requirements into a single framework 15 Calculate the fee on a per foot basis 16
Evaluate the potential for higher fees when the market is stronger 20 Incentivize Extremely Low-Income (30% of AMI) units 21
Adjust the residual fee for mixed compliance projects 22 Standardize ownership fees 24
Standardize live-work requirements 27
Add a land dedication option 27
Provide a family-sized units option 28
Simplify the requirements for condominium conversions 29 Prohibit on-site units for Group Living Accomodations 31 Change requirements for small projects/missing middle projects 32 Cap the annual rate of rent increases for BMR units 34
Administrative changes 35
Appendix A: Financial Feasibility Analysis 38

3 Summary of Proposed Changes

CURRENT PROPOSED OPTION(S)
Rental: Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee
(BMC 22.20.065)
Ordinance
Ownership: Inclusionary Housing
Requirements (BMC 23C.12)
Affordable Housing Requirements Ordinance (one
ordinance that addresses requirements for rental,
ownership and live/work units)
Rental: 10% of total units @ 50% of AMI, 10%
of total units at 80% of AMIOn-site Unit
Income Targets
Ownership:20% of total units @ 80% of AMI
No change
Rental: $39,746 per market rate unit
Base Fee Ownership: 62.5% of the difference between
market and affordable price for inclusionary
unit.
$45 per gross residential square foot
VLI Incentive
40% of VLI units marketed to Housing Choice
Voucher holders, 40% to Shelter+Care
holders.

All VLI Units must be offered to voucher holders
first (50% to Housing Choice and 50% to Shelter +
Care).

Mixed
Compliance
Incentive
Projects that provide less than 20% on-site
receive the same reduction in fee whether
units are VLI or LI
More expensive/higher need VLI units reduce
remainder fee by more than LI units.

Live Work and
GLA
Live Work Ordinance (BMC 23E.20) exempts
projects from IH and AHMF, requires 20% of
live work units be affordable at 80% of AMI.

Units with Group Living Accommodations
(GLA) occupancy are also exempt.

Remove special exemption for Live Work and GLA
units. Affirmative marketing of Live Work units to
artists/others who need larger units still required.

Land Dedication None Create new Land Dedication Option
Family Size Unit
Incentive None
Projects that provide 2 and 3-bedroom BMR units
may choose to provide 20% of total Residential
Square Feet instead of 20% of units.

Condo Conversion Nexus Fee calculation or 8% of market value. 50% reduction in fee for owner occupied units
8% of market value. 50% reduction expanded to
include tenants who buy units at conversion, and
nonprofit/cooperative/cohousing projects
Maximum Unit
Size None Projects with average unit size >3BR may not
choose on-site unit option
Small Project
Exemption Projects with <5 units are exempt
Exemption removed; Reduced fee for projects with
fewer than 12,000 gross residential square feet,
phased in as size increases. Offer a local density
bonus to projects providing <5 BMR units that

4 choose in lieu fee.

Cap on rent
increases
BMR Unit rents increase along with HUD Area
Median Income
Limit annual rent increases to the change in the
Consumer Price Index
Overarching Goals for Updating Requirements:

Center racial and economic equity by reversing exclusionary zoning Berkeley has committed to pioneering policies that attempt to undo some of the harm caused by exclusionary zoning practices. In addition to its rent control and tenant protection policies, the City’s Inclusionary Housing requirements are central to its efforts to build a more racially and economically integrated future.

Two key goals of the program are to ensure that affordable housing is included in all parts of the City and to promote the inclusion of affordable units within market-rate housing.

There has been quite a bit of academic research into the benefits of economic integration and the emerging consensus is that the location of affordable housing matters.2 Much of the City’s affordable housing is concentrated in neighborhoods with the greatest health and safety challenges and the least economic opportunity. Integrating affordable housing into every neighborhood offers significant health and economic advantages, particularly for low-income children. While the same research has consistently not found additional benefits from locating affordable units in the same buildings as market rate housing (beyond the neighborhood benefits), requiring affordable units in new market rate buildings has been a key way that cities have succeeded in locating affordable housing in certain ‘high opportunity’ neighborhoods.

Currently, both the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (AHMF) and Inclusionary Housing Requirements (IHO) ordinances allow developers to choose to either provide on-site units or pay a fee into the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund program. Several recent Council referrals have focused on either reducing or eliminating the fee option in order to encourage more on-site affordable housing units in mixed income buildings. Other council referrals have called on the City to encourage payment of fees, which allow investment in non-profit owned 100% affordable projects. These projects leverage outside affordable housing funding to build more units at deeper levels of affordability and also offer critical social services.

While increasing the share of on-site affordable units continues to be an important community goal, it is important to note that this is not the only way that Berkeley is achieving the goal of 2 The Urban Institute compiled a very helpful summary of several dozen research studies on the benefits of mixed income communities. urban.org/uploadedpdf/412292-effects-from-living.pdf