Tuesday, February 21, 2023 AGENDA Page 1
P R O C L AM AT I O N
C AL L I N G A S P E C I AL M EE TI NG O F T HE
B E R K E LE Y CI T Y C O U N CIL
In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows:
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702
JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:
DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT
PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A HYBRID MODEL WITH BOTH IN -PERSON
ATTENDANCE AND VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION
For in-person attendees, face coverings or masks that cover both the nose and the mouth are required. Physically distanced seating will be available. If you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.
Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244.
To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1618510002. 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 1-669-254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 161 851 0002. If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.
Please be mindful that the meeting will be recorded and all rules of procedure and decorum apply for in -person attendees and those participating by teleconference or videoconference.
To submit a written communication for the City Council’s consideration and inclusi on in the public record , email [email protected].
This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meetin g. 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, February 21, 2023 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:
Worksession
1. COVID-19 Response 2022 Summary Report
From: City Manager
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400
2. Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs From: City Manager
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400
Public Comment - Items on this agenda only
Adjournment
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 16th day of February, 2023.
Jesse Arreguin, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.
ATTEST:
Date: February 16, 2023
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be l imited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.
Archived indexed video streams are available at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas.
Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.
Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 AGENDA Page 3
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 to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street as well as posted on the City's website at https://berkeleyca.gov/.
Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas and may be read at reference desks at the following locations:
City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]
Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch – 1901 Russell
COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:
This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.
To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at (510) 981-6418 (V) or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.
Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.
Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B -TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.
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
WORKSESSION
February 21, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services Subject: COVID-19 Response 2022 Summary Report
INTRODUCTION
This report provides an update on the City’s COVID-19 pandemic response efforts for the period from November 2021 through December 2022. It builds upon previous reports covering the City’s pandemic response.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
To continue to document and communicate the City’s response to COVID-19, staff compiled the attached presentation. The attached presentation contains a detailed update on the City’s response to COVID-19 from November 2021 through December 2022. Documenting the City’s response supports transparency and helps identify and codify key lessons learned that will help Berkeley remain a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city—a Strategic Plan goal.
BACKGROUND
From the beginning of 2020, the City has been working to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. These efforts ramped up significantly in March 2020, when the City’s Health Officer issued the first Shelter-In-Place Order to address the community spread of COVID-19 and the City fully activated the Emergency Operation Center (EOC). The initial mobilization of staff involved over 550 employees from every department, including the City Auditor’s Office, the Library, and the Rent Stabilization Board.
In April of 2022 the City of Berkeley demobilized the EOC. The City’s COVID-19 response efforts transitioned from the EOC to a COVID-19 response team housed in the Public Health Officer Unit in the Health, Housing, and Community Services Department (HHCS). The response team currently operates with support and resources from local and state emergency orders. California’s state of emergency will end February 28, 2023.
Key areas of the City’s response to COVID-19 in the period from November 2021 through December 2022, included:
COVID-19 Response 2022 Summary Report WORKSESSION
February 21, 2023
COVID-19 testing,
COVID-19 vaccines,
Work with vulnerable populations,
Disease containment,
Supporting schools and childcare centers,
Public information and outreach,
Community support, and
Cost recovery.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no environmental sustainability and climate impacts associated directly with the content of this summary report.
POSSIBE FUTURE ACTION
City Council may direct staff to develop another update on COVID-19 response, as time progresses. Staff are planning for some response activities continuing through 2024, and eventually being absorbed into daily department operations. The bulk of ongoing pandemic related response efforts is held by the COVID-19 Response Unit in the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The City would need to identify additional sources of funding if the pandemic requires response activities beyond those covered by the grants funding the COVID-19 Response Unit.
CONTACT PERSON
Lisa Warhuus, Director Health, Housing and Community Services, 510-981-5400 Attachment:
1: Presentation
City of Berkeley
COVID-19
Response
Presented by the Dept. of Health,
Housing, and Community Services
Office of the Director,
Public Health Officer Unit
February 21, 2023
Table of
Contents
Epidemiology Overview
Response Efforts
Moving Forward
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 3
Last City of Berkeley Health
Order was rescinded on 9/27/22
We are aligned with CDPH
O
rders
CDC COVID-1
9 Community
Levels used for guidance
We continue to monitor data
closely
Current Landscape
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 4
Data Overview
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 5
Wastewater SARS-CoV-2
concentrations shows
complete COVID-19
impact.
COVID-19 is lower than
peak in December but
rising
Wastewater COVID-19 Surveillance
East Bay Municipal Utility District
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 6
Time Period Comparisons
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 8
In April of 2022 the City of Berkeley
demobilized the Emergency
Operation Center (EOC). The City’s
COVID-19 response efforts
transitioned from the EOC to a
COVID-19 response team housed in
the Public Health Officer Unit. The
response team currently operates
with support and resources from
local and state emergency orders.
California’s state of emergency will
end February 28, 2023.
Main Themes of
COVID-19
Response Efforts
COVID-19
Testing
Work with
Vulnerable
Populations
Community &
Business
Support
Cost
Recovery
COVID-19
Vaccines
Disease
Containment
Supporting
Schools &
Childcare
Centers
Public
Information
and Outreach
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 9
Testing Sites
• D uring this time period 51,468 tests
were administered at City coordinated
testing sites.
• The City continued to coordinate free
testing services through our
partnerships with Curative and
LHI/Optum.
• In May of 2022 the LHI/Optum testing
sites transitioned to “Test to Treat”
sites providing free COVID-19 t
esting
services and access to telehealth
appointments and therapeutic
treatments.
COVID-19 Testing
At-Home Testing Kits
• In the winter of 2021 At-Home testing
kits became available for Front-Line
Workers, Healthcare Providers, and
Vulnerable populations.
• In January of 2022 the City of Berkeley
received the first allocation of At-Home
testing kits for community distribution.
• In partnership with community and
faith based organizations the city
distributed 32,968 at-home COVID-19
tests between November 1, 2021 and
December 31, 2022.
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 10
• 94% of Berkeley residents have received
their primary series.
• 92% of Berkeley residents have received
their first booster.
• 41% of Berkeley residents have received
the bivalent booster.
• All age groups are now eligible to receive
their primary series. Individuals 5 years old
and above are eligible to receive their
bivalent booster.
• Between November 2021 and December
2022 there were 9,789 doses administered
at City coordinated vaccine clinics.
COVID-19 Vaccines
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 11
Priority Populations
• Unvaccinated residents over the age of 75 who
identify as African American, Black, Asian, Hispanic
or Latino.
• Berkeley Residents who identify as African
American and/or Black.
• Children under the age of 5.
Vaccine Equity
Vaccine Equity Efforts
• Partnered with Capoeira Arts Foundation, LifeLong Medical Center, and the Multicultural institute to engage in community responsive COVID-19 education and outreach.
• Utilized census track data, the city has conducted several door knocking/street canvassing campaigns in areas of South and West Berkeley with the lowest vaccination rates.
• Collaborated with BUSD to stand up school-based vaccine clinics including clinics for preschool students.
• Hosted an in-person town hall meeting regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccines at San Pablo Park with families
enrolled in Head Start, WIC, and Black Infant Health.
• Coordinated monthly mobile vaccine clinics at Berkeley shelters.
• Partnered with local youth to implement a social media and outdoor advertising campaign encouraging young people to get vaccinated and boosted.
• The City has implemented a Health Justice Internship
Program which will provide up to 60 Berkeley youth ages 14- 25 the opportunity to participate in a paid six-week internship focused on COVID-19 education, outreach, recovery and
resiliency.
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 12
• During this time period there were
18,101 positive cases confirmed, this
equates to 82% of all positive cases
since the start of the pandemic.
• The disease containment team initiated
outreach to 16,933 unduplicated
positive cases. This included guidance
for isolation and quarantine to 9,815
unduplicated cases.
• The team provided guidance to 200
unduplicated exposure events and 350
unduplicated outbreaks.
Disease Containment
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 13
• Facilitated monthly meetings with shelter and
transitional housing programs to provide
ongoing COVID-19 technical assistance and
guidance.
• Coordinated 11 vaccine events at Berkeley
Shelters, 208 vaccine doses administered.
• Distributed more than 600 testing kits to
congregate settings.
• Supported increases in shelter census while
simultaneously preparing for the closing of
the County’s Isolation and Quarantine
program.
Work With Vulnerable Populations
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 14
• BUSD operated the 2021-22 school year at
full capacity for the first time since March
of 2020.
• City staff in the Public Health Officers Unit
continued to provide guidance and
technical assistance to K12 schools and
childcare centers related to on-going
changes to CDPH requirements for
operating schools, childcares, and youth
settings.
• City Staff in the Public Health Officers Unit
worked closely with state and local
partners to ensure schools had enough
testing resources to stay open during
large outbreaks and surges
.
Supporting Berkeley Schools, Childcare
Centers, & Youth Settings
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 15
• Continued partnership with “trusted
messengers”
• Direct Mailers
• In person town hall meetings
• Youth social media campaign
• Health Justice Internship program
Public Information &
Community Outreach
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 16
• $500,000 of American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA) funds allocated to Visit
Berkeley.
• 74 one-time grants awarded to
Berkeley arts organizations and
festivals.
• 114 grants awarded to Berkeley based
artists, cultural practitioners, makers,
and teaching artists.
Community & Business Support
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 17
• The City has submitted a total of 10
reimbursement requests to FEMA.
• In February 2021 the reimbursement request
for the COVID-19 expansion of the shower
program for unhoused community members,
valued at $64,585 was denied.
• Since the Shower Program denial, FEMA has
not provided approval, denial, or feedback on
the other 9 reimbursement requests.
Cost Recovery
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 18
• Since the start of the Pandemic the City
has received $31,575,118 in one-time
State and Federal grants to support
COVID-19 response efforts.
• Grant funds are expected to be fully
expended by June 30, 2024.
• At this time the City does not anticipate
receiving additional State and Federal
grants to support COVID-19 response
efforts.
COVID-19
Response Funding
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 19
• Federal and Statewide Public Health
Emergencies are ending along with some
resources
• COVID-19 will remain
• Vaccine and medications continue to reduce
transmission and severe disease
• Shift from response to prevention
• COVID-19 activities will be integrated into
public health programs
• Uncertainty remains-monitoring will continue
• Secondary Public Health Crisis: COVID-19’s
impact on children and mental health
Moving Forward
CITY OF BERKELEY Office of Director 20
Bahia
Bayer
B
erkeley City College
Berkeley Unified School District
Capoeira Arts Foundation
Carbon Health
City Departments
Crown Moving Services
Curative
Downtown Berkeley Neighborhood Association
Hoover Neighborhood Association
LifeLong Medical Center
Meyer Sound
Multicultural Institute
Safeway Pharmacy
Sukam Printing
University of California, Berkeley
Acknowledgments
Thank you!
Public Health Officer Unit,
Dept. of Health, Housing &
Community Services
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
WORKSESSION
February 21, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services Subject: Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs
SUMMARY
Staff are providing information on work to date on an Affordable Housing Preference Policy (HPP), and requesting the City Council provide feedback on which preferences to move forward for policy development and adoption. Staff will use this guidance to inform the policy, Fair Housing analysis, and implementation plan. Staff anticipate returning to Council in Summer 2023 for adoption of the policy.
The HPP, if adopted, will focus on preventing displacement from Berkeley, responding to displacement from Berkeley that has occurred, and addressing historical injustices.
Preference policies for affordable housing are unique amongst anti-displacement policy tools for their potential to help already-displaced residents return to their community.
Preference categories may assist people who faced or are facing displacement in Berkeley, those with ties to Berkeley’s historically redlined areas, and households with children to receive priority for new affordable housing units. The HPP is intended to apply to units created by the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) and Housing Trust Fund (HTF) programs. Opportunities for implementation of the policy will be shaped by staffing levels, Fair Housing law, and approvals by other government funding sponsors for HTF projects.
The current proposal is a product of work undertaken by the Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS) in partnership with community-based organizations. In 2019, in response to Council referrals and ongoing community advocacy for a preference policy, HHCS and the Department of Planning applied for a Partnership for the Bay’s Future (PBF) Challenge Grant. The Challenge Grant, which commenced in March 2020, allowed HHCS to support community partners East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) and Healthy Black Families (HBF) to engage in a community-driven process to make recommendations for an HPP. Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) also provided recommendations on a Housing Preference Policy.
Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing WORKSESSION Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs February 21, 2023
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Council Guidance & Next Steps
The preferences recommended by community engagement and the HAC are identified in Table 1. Staff are requesting City Council identify which preferences to move forward for policy development and implementation. Staff will use this guidance to inform the policy, Fair Housing analysis, and implementation plan. Staff anticipate returning to Council in Summer 2023.
Table 1: Summary of Preferences Recommended by HAC & Community Engagement Proposed
Preferences
Details Rationale & Potential Benefits
Displacement due
to BART
construction (first
priority)
Descendant of someone
who was displaced due to
construction of BART in
Berkeley.
Supports those who lost their homes due to
BART construction and forewent
intergenerational wealth-building
opportunities as a result. Acknowledges this
harm and provides an opportunity to return to
the community with stable housing.
Displaced due to
foreclosure
Displaced due to
foreclosure in Berkeley
since 2005.
Supports displaced residents to return to
Berkeley and acknowledges lack of support
during the foreclosure crisis. The foreclosure
crisis disproportionately impacted
communities of color.
Displaced due to
eviction
Displaced in Berkeley due
to eviction within the past
seven years.
Supports renters facing challenges finding
new housing due to an eviction, which stays
on a record for seven years. Evictions
disproportionately impact Black women.
Eviction court cases move quickly, and
renters are at a significant disadvantage
when they do not have legal representation.
Families with
children
Household with at least
one child aged 17 or
under.
Increases community cohesion, since
families are being displaced from social
networks and school districts, often to lower
resource places. Research and community
knowledge indicate that children are most
impacted by displacement, with impacts on
education, child care, and peer networks.
Homeless OR at-
risk of
homelessness
Homeless OR At-Risk of
Homelessness with
current/former address in
Berkeley
Supports housing insecure Berkeley
residents become stably housed in their
community. Berkeley’s homeless population
is disproportionately people of color.
Ties to redlined
areas
Residential ties to
Berkeley’s redlined areas
– current or former
address of applicant.
Acknowledges historic racialized injustices
that contributed to the displacement crisis,
supports displaced residents to return to
Berkeley, and supports those in
Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing WORKSESSION Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs February 21, 2023
Proposed
Preferences
Details Rationale & Potential Benefits
neighborhoods facing gentrification-related
displacement pressures to become stably
housed.
Ties to redlined
areas – historical
Residential ties to
Berkeley’s redlined areas
– current or former
address of
parent/guardian or
grandparent of applicant.
See above.
Policy and Implementation Considerations
Staff identified several additional considerations related to policy development and implementation:
Displacement due to BART construction:
o Staff submitted a Public Records Request to BART and received some records on individuals who lost their homes due to BART construction.
Staff are seeking further clarification on whether these records are comprehensive.
o Community discussions have centered around those displaced due to eminent domain, but staff are proposing a broader scope to this preference in light of examination of BART records.
o Staff collected examples from other cities with similar preferences on documentation verification processes.
Displacement due to eviction:
o Feedback from affordable housing providers suggested that it may make sense to identify specific causes for eviction that would qualify for this preference, such as nonpayment of rent, owner move-in, and demolition. o HAC will be discussing recommendations for an ordinance prohibiting landlords from considering eviction history and other factors, such as credit checks, in rental applications at the March HAC meeting. Homeless or at risk of homelessness:
o The City currently supports homeless individuals to access affordable housing with supportive services via the BMR program’s Shelter Plus Care voucher requirements and HTF program’s Permanent Supportive Housing units.
o Typically, when affordable housing projects include homeless-designated units, these units are dedicated to homeless households and include supportive services. Homeless advocates have noted that people may be at-risk of homelessness or homeless with a wide range of circumstances and service needs.
Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing WORKSESSION Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs February 21, 2023
o At the same time, affordable housing providers expressed concern that a homeless preference may lead to chronically homeless residents being housed without adequate support if they are able to income-qualify for a unit.
o Affordable housing providers indicated typically homeless units on average require $5,000 - 6,000 in additional subsidy per unit that has not been identified.
o Affordable housing providers also expressed concern that there may be an excessive administrative burden to screen chronically homeless applicants who will be prioritized but will not ultimately qualify for income- restricted units (i.e., 50-60% AMI). This could result in delayed lease-up and increased projects costs.
o Implementation must consider how homeless people can demonstrate local ties without being overly burdensome. Narrowing this preference to those with a former address in Berkeley may help prioritize those with local ties. At the same time, filtering for local ties could filter out eligible applicants who have a difficult time supplying documentation. o Affordable housing providers also stressed the importance of definitions of homelessness and risk of homelessness that are consistent with existing definitions.
o For these considerations, monitoring and adjusting implementation as needed will be important.
Number of preferences
o Affordable housing providers emphasized that additional administrative requirements related to preferences may cause lease-up delays and increase project costs.
Fair Housing Analysis
Fair Housing law requires disparate impact analysis (DIA) for preferences before a preference policy can be implemented on HTF projects. DIA assesses whether specific racial groups or other protected classes would be inadvertently disproportionately impacted by the HPP. County, State, and Federal funding agencies that contribute funding to HTF projects require this analysis to permit use of the HPP on specific projects. Staff will need the discretion to adjust the application of preferences in order to ensure no disparate impact and secure the necessary funding approvals for HTF projects.
This analysis also determines what percentage of units can receive preferences without creating disparate impacts on protected classes under state and federal law. Staff’s intent is for the policy to be applied to the maximum percentage of units permitted by disparate impact analysis. Research from other cities shows this analysis will limit the share of affordable housing units the policy can apply to; it will not be able to be applied to 100% of units in a development.
Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing WORKSESSION Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs February 21, 2023
Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Fair Housing analysis of the proposed preferences in August 2022. The Fair Housing analysis report will help determine how each preference can be applied to the maximum percentage of units permitted by disparate impact analysis, and will help secure approval for use of preferences from funding agencies. Staff submitted a report for February 28, 2023 to receive Council approval for a contract with the selected bidder.
Implementation Considerations
The following considerations will help shape the implementation plan:
Preferences: The proposed preferences vary in scope and reach and will take time to effectively implement. Most jurisdictions surveyed typically implement three to four preferences. Staff will prepare an implementation plan predicated on the scope of the preferences selected by Council.
Sequencing of Rollout: Disparate Impact Analysis is not required for BMR units as they are not reliant on outside government funders. Staff recommend implementing the policy on new BMR units upon adoption of administrative guidelines, while the Fair Housing analysis required for HTF projects is simultaneously completed.
Outreach: Staff will issue an RFP to select a local community-based organization to conduct outreach and education.
Reporting: Staff will provide an annual report to Council documenting the policy’s impact and request any policy amendments to better serve the anti- displacement goals.
Housing Advisory Commission Vote
The Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) supported adopting a Housing Preference Policy at the October 6, 2022 meeting with the following vote:
Action: M/S/C (Simon-Weisberg/Mendonca) to recommend City Council take the following actions:
Adopt a policy to establish the following preferences for new affordable housing created via the City’s Housing Trust Fund and Below Market Rate programs:
o Displacement due to eminent domain for North Berkeley and Ashby BART construction
o Displaced in Berkeley due to foreclosure since 2005
o Families with children
o Homeless or at risk of homelessness
o Ties to redlined areas
o Ties to redlined areas – historical
o Displaced in Berkeley due to eviction within the past seven years; Structure the preferences to provide applicants that qualify for the “Displacement due to eminent domain for North Berkeley and Ashby BART construction” a first priority and all remaining preferences equally weighted; and
Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing WORKSESSION Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs February 21, 2023
Share the research that informed these recommendations with the City’s reparations consultant.
Vote: Ayes: Ching, Johnson, Lee-Egan, Mendonca, Sanidad, and Simon-Weisberg.
Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Calavita (excused), Fain (unexcused), Rodriguez (unexcused), and Potter (excused).
The HAC supported all six preferences staff identified via the community engagement process, and added a preference for those displaced by eviction, due to challenges renters may face finding new housing with an eviction that stays on their record for seven years, as well as the racial disparities of evictions. Community engagement leaders and the HAC agreed that a preference for displacement due to BART construction should have a first priority above other preferences.
Referrals
This report responds to two referrals: #001-3208, which originally appeared on the agenda of the April 5, 2016 meeting and was sponsored by Councilmembers Droste, Moore, Capitelli, and Maio; and #000-3732, which originally appeared on the agenda of the April 30, 2019 Council meeting and was sponsored by Councilmembers Davila and Bartlett.
The Housing Preference Policy is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create affordable housing and housing support services for our most vulnerable community members. The HPP will apply to units created by the BMR and HTF programs.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several years, multiple community-based organizations in Berkeley have called for a Housing Preference Policy to help address gentrification and displacement in Berkeley, particularly from the African American community in South Berkeley. In 2016, Council made a referral to develop Neighborhood Preference in Affordable Housing to reduce the impact of displacement. The Adeline Corridor Specific Plan prioritized the development of a local preference policy for affordable housing, specifically mentioning preference policy on potential future affordable units at the Ashby BART station. In 2019, the City Council made a referral to create policies to develop a “right to return” for Berkeley’s displaced residents, “especially People of Color, including the African American communities who have been displaced.” In 2020, with the support of the Mayor and Councilmembers Bartlett and Harrison, the City began the PBF Challenge Grant with a focus on developing a Housing Preference Policy rooted in community engagement and research. Also in 2020, the City and BART Joint Vision & Priorities included a Housing Preference Policy for future housing at Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations.
Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing WORKSESSION Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs February 21, 2023
As part of the PBF Challenge Grant, the City of Berkeley worked with community partners East Bay Community Law Center and Healthy Black Families to engage in a community-driven process to design the Housing Preference Policy. Community input was solicited through outreach and engagement strategies including:
Community surveys: A targeted displacement-focused survey led by Healthy Black Families, and a city-wide survey focused on a Housing Preference Policy hosted on Berkeley Considers (results and analysis of the survey are included as Attachment 1);
Outreach led by Healthy Black Families;
A “Community Leaders Group” comprised of representatives from local community-based organizations and community groups led by Healthy Black Families and East Bay Community Law Center. Participants were selected by the lead community groups.
The discussions around a Housing Preference Policy revolved around addressing specific challenges facing Berkeley’s most impacted residents:
Significant displacement within and from Berkeley has already occurred. The number of people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley steadily grew at an average rate of 10% every two years between 2006 and 2019. The most common response to the question of why homeless people chose to sleep in Berkeley was that they grew up in Berkeley. Black people are disproportionately represented in Berkeley’s homeless population; since 2006, 65% of homeless service users in Berkeley are Black while Black people comprise less than 8% of the overall population. Between 1990 to 2018, Berkeley lost 49% of its Black population while other racial groups all grew slightly. There is ongoing housing insecurity and displacement pressure in Berkeley.
Approximately 49% of low-income renters in Berkeley spend more than half their income on rent.
There is historical harm to communities of color in Berkeley. Redlining facilitated patterns of disinvestment that continue to enable gentrification. Approximately 83% of today's gentrifying areas in the East Bay were rated as "hazardous" (red) or "definitely declining" (yellow) by the government agency that introduced redlining. These policies limited homeownership and housing stability in these Berkeley neighborhoods, which were predominantly populated by people of color. In the 1960s, BART bought blocks of homes in order to build Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, in some cases invoking eminent domain; those who lost their homes due to BART construction lost their opportunities for intergenerational wealth-building.
In September 2022, SB 649 was adopted at the state level. This legislation established that it is the state’s policy that lower-income individuals residing in neighborhoods and
Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing WORKSESSION Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs February 21, 2023
communities experiencing significant displacement need access to housing that is affordable and assists in avoiding displacement, and that a local tenant preference adopted pursuant to the bill’s provisions is subject to the duty of public agencies to affirmatively further fair housing.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Displacement can lead to long commutes as displaced people continue to return to their community of origin for school, work, faith institutions, healthcare, and/or social networks. A Housing Preference Policy can help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with these longer commutes by reducing or reversing displacement of those with ties to Berkeley.
POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Staff will return to Council based on recommendations for preference categories with a resolution for Council consideration to create a new Housing Preference Policy applicable to new residential housing units created via the BMR and HTF program. The policy will be inclusive of Fair Housing law and government funder program requirements and approvals. Staff will also bring to Council an implementation plan that includes staffing, outreach, and data collection.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
A Housing Preference Policy will require new staff time for training/education, leasing certification, contract management, data collection and evaluation, and other ongoing implementation responsibilities. HHCS’ Housing and Community Services Division (HHCS/HCS) estimates needing 0.3 FTE Community Service Specialist I (CSSI), 0.3 FTE Community Development Project Coordinator (CDPC) and 0.1 FTE Senior Community Development Project Coordinator to fulfill these duties. This represents an estimated annual staffing budget of $136,299. HHCS/HCS is currently working with a consultant on a staffing study to assess overall staffing needs for the division. The draft study indicates there is a sufficient increased workload associated with new programs and regulations, including the HPP if adopted, to warrant a full-time CSSI position. The results of the staffing study and associated staffing requests and funding plan will be brought forward for consideration in early 2023. Staffing for the Housing Preference Policy implementation will be incorporated into the division’s plan.
Further, as part of an evaluation one year after Housing Preference Policy adoption, staff will assess ongoing staffing needs in the context of current and other oncoming housing policy and program work, and return to Council with the results of the evaluation.
HHCS/HCS issued an RFP for Fair Housing analysis of the proposed preferences in August 2022. Staff submitted a report for February 28, 2023 Council approval of a contract with the selected bidder, in the amount of $60,055. Funding in the amount of
Referral Response: Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing WORKSESSION Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs February 21, 2023
$60,055 for this Fair Housing analysis is available in the FY 2023 budget in the General Fund (Fund 011).
It will be critical to conduct outreach to ensure that potential affordable housing applicants are aware of the Housing Preference Policy. Staff recommend conducting an RFP to fund a community-based organization to lead outreach in Berkeley, and outside of Berkeley to reach those already displaced from the community. It will be important to have consistent outreach and education through the development of the two BART sites. Staff can evaluate possible funding sources once the scope of the policy has been determined.
CONTACT PERSON
Anna Cash, Community Development Project Coordinator, Health, Housing and Community Services, (510) 981-5403
Mike Uberti, Senior Community Development Project Coordinator, Health, Housing and Community Services, (510) 981-5114
Attachments:
1: Housing Preference Policy Survey Results
2: Research Overview of Preference Policies in Other Jurisdictions 3: Referral Report from April 5, 2016
4: Referral Report from April 30, 2019
Attachment 1. Preference Policy Survey Results
Two surveys were conducted as part of the outreach process to inform the Housing Preference Policy: a City survey on Berkeley Considers, and a community survey designed and implemented by Healthy Black Families. Healthy Black Families also supported on targeted outreach to the Black community of the Berkeley Considers survey. It is possible there is overlap in the respondents to the two surveys.
Healthy Black Families Survey
There were 93 responses to the Healthy Black Families survey.
Healthy Black Families Survey - Demographics
x Race: 70% of respondents self-identified as Black, Black African, or Black Hispanic/Latinx; 18% identified as white, 3% as Latinx, 3% as other, 3% as Native American/Alaskan, and 2% as Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander. x Housing tenure: 65% identified as renters, 25% as homeowners, 4% as living with family, 4% as other, and 2% as homeless.
Healthy Black Families Survey - Responses
x In the Healthy Black Families survey, re spondents wrote in their suggestions for Preferences, and these were consolidated into themes at the analysis stage.
There was not a limit on how many Preferences each respondent could indicate. x Preferences - Overall Respondents: 77 respondents responded to the question, “What experiences or criteria do you think should be used to prioritize affordable housing applications in Berkeley?” The most common overarching categories were displaced residents, including displaced residents (24), displaced Black residents (10), displaced people of color (POC) residents (2) - followed by financial need (26), race - Black (11), POC (9) - and then other categories:
families with children (19), family history/ties to Berkeley (13), social need (such as facing domestic violence) (10), unhoused Berkeley residents (9), at risk of displacement (8), elderly/disabled (8), works in Berkeley (6), housed Berkeley residents (2).
Healthy Black Families Survey – Preference Responses
Berkeley Considers Survey
There were 549 responses to the Berkeley Considers survey.
Berkeley Considers Survey - Demographics
x Race: 67% of respondents self-identified as white, 7% as African American/Black, 3% as Hispanic/Latinx, 3% as mixed race, 3% as Asian/Pacific- Islander, 1% other, and 15% preferred not to answer the race question. x Housing tenure: 59% of respondents identified as homeowners, 31% as renters, 1% as unhoused, 4% living with family and friends and 5% other. x Income: 41% of respondents reported an annual household income of above $100,000, 9% reported $80,000 to $100,000, 7% reported $65,000 to $80,000, 12% reported $40,000 to $65,000, 10% reported $20,000 to $40,000, 7% reported less than $20,000, and 13% did not answer.
Berkeley Considers Survey - Responses
x Respondents were able to indicate their top three choices amongst a selection of potential Preferences. The numbers below reflect total selections across those who ranked Preferences first, second, or third choice.
x Preferences - Overall Respondents: In order of most common responses, the top Preferences were: unhoused Berkeley residents (344), housed Berkeley residents (220), those displaced by government action (218), those with ties to redlined areas (208), those displaced by no-fault evictions (181), those who work in Berkeley (134), those who lost their home to foreclosure/tax forfeiture (62), 0 10
20 30
40 Top Preference Choices (Consolidated),
HBF Preference Question Respondents (n=77)
those displaced due to code enforcement (51), those living in proximity to a new affordable housing (45), other (44).
x Preferences - Low-Income Respondents: Isolating the responses of low-income survey respondents (those who would be income-eligible for new affordable housing), the top three responses were the same as for the overall respondents:
unhoused Berkeley residents, housed Berkeley residents, and those displaced by government action. Responses were: unhoused Berkeley residents (144), housed Berkeley residents (88), those displaced by government action (86), those displaced by no-fault eviction (80), those with ties to redlined areas (74), those who work in Berkeley (46) those displaced by foreclosure/tax forfeiture (27), those displaced by code enforcement (23), those living in proximity to the new affordable housing (20).
x Preferences - African American Respondents: Looking at the responses of African Americans, the group that has suffered most disproportionately from displacement pressures in Berkeley, “ties with redlined areas” rises to the #2 selection. Responses were: unhoused Berkeley residents (29), those with ties to redlined areas (21), housed Berkeley residents (15), those displaced by government action (12), those who work in Berkeley (8), those displaced by no- fault eviction (7), those displaced by foreclosure/tax forfeiture (4), those living in proximity to the new affordable housing (4), those displaced by code enforcement (3).
Berkeley Considers Survey – Preference Responses
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Other
Neighborhood proximity
Code enforcement relocation
Foreclosure/Tax Forfeiture
Work in Berkeley
No-fault eviction
Redlined area resident/ties
Displaced by gov't action
Berkeley resident (housed)
Unhoused Berkeley resident
Top 3 Preference Choices,
Berkeley Considers Survey Respondents (n=549)
First Choice Second Choice Third Choice
Attachment 2. Research Overview of Preference Policies in Other Jurisdictions Several US cities implemented Preference Policies to prioritize applications for affordable housing projects based on different criteria. Some of these policies prioritize those who live or work in the city or near the specific affordable housing development.
Others focus on displacement from the city (through adverse governmental action, no- fault evictions, and/or natural disasters) and ties to neighborhoods with histories of discrimination. These policies can be applied to BMR units and/ or HTF units depending on the context.
1 California Cities:
East Palo Alto
The City of East Palo Alto adopted a Local Preference Policy in 2020 for living in East Palo Alto (with a durational requirement of three months that applies to inclusionary housing units only), working in East Palo Alto, and for involuntary displacement (natural disaster, code enforcement, domestic violence, and rent increases above 10%).2
Oakland
The City of Oakland implemented different versions of preference policies over time, but the current version is codified in a 2016 ordinance. Preferences apply to nonprofit affordable housing and include categories for current and former residents displaced by City of Oakland/Oakland Redevelopment Agency’s projects, Oakland’s code enforcement, or a no-fault eviction; residents who currently live in the same Council District as, or one mile from, the property; and applicants who currently live or work in Oakland.
3 Redwood City
Redwood City adopted a Live/Work Preference policy as part of an amendment to its Affordable Housing Ordinance in 2021.
4 This policy allows income-eligible
households that live, formerly lived, work, or have been offered work in the city to receive a preference when affordable housing becomes available. The policy is supported by a Live/Work Policy Analysis.
5 1 See “Draft Adeline Corridor Specific Plan”, page 93, for more information on how preference policies operate in other cities:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Land_Use_Division/AdelineCorridor_DraftPlan_1.pdf.
2 See
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1070&MediaPosition=&I D=1174&CssClass=.
3 See https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2685178&GUID=BC70BA9D-D54C-405F- AD33-A194C31A6346.
4 See http://www.redwoodcity.org/AffordableHousingOrdinance. 5 See
https://meetings.redwoodcity.org/AgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/ATTACHMENT%20D%20%E 2%80%93%20LIVE-
WORK%20POLICY%20ANALYSIS%20BY%20SEIFEL%20CONSULTING.pdf?meetingId=2250&docume ntType=Agenda&itemId=5223&publishId=9209&isSection=false.
San Francisco
The City of San Francisco has adopted Preferences via multiple ordinances over time, with the most recent ordinance adopted in 2019. Preference categories include a Certificate of Preference (for former San Francisco residents displaced in the 1960s and 1970s, during the SF Redevelopment Agency’s federally-funded urban renewal program); a Displaced Tenant Housing Preference Program (DTHP) for tenants evicted by Ellis Act or owner move-in, and for tenants whose apartment was extensively damaged by fire; a Neighborhood Resident Housing Preference (NRHP) for San Francisco residents who currently live in the same Supervisor district as, or half-mile from, the property being applied to; and a live-work preference for those who already live in San Francisco, or work at least 75% of working hours in San Francisco. 6 There
are also some project-specific Preferences.7
San Jose
In 2020, the San Jose City Council directed staff to establish a Neighborhood Tenant Preference for renters seeking affordable housing who live in certain areas of the city that are undergoing or at-risk of displacement. Staff has been working since 2017 on this effort. The City is currently working on gaining HCD approval for its Preferences and also worked with allies to propose the now-adopted state legislation SB 649 to clarify the use of state funding on projects in jurisdictions with preference policies.
Santa Monica
The City of Santa Monica implemented Preferences for inclusionary and nonprofit programs since the programs began in 1998. Preferences include: current or former residents displaced by no-fault evictions, natural disasters, reduction in housing voucher assistance, or government action; and applicants who currently live or work in Santa Monica. The preference for displaced people ranks above the live/work preference in a tiered system. Santa Monica is currently piloting an additional preference for those displaced by specific urban renewal projects.
8 National:
Austin, Texas
In 2018, the City of Austin adopted Right to Stay and Right to Return policies for families affected by gentrification in certain Austin neighborhoods.9 Preference points included: having generational ties to a neighborhood or having been displaced from it (by rising rent and property taxes as well as by natural disasters and eminent domain), having a disability, and family size fitting available units.
6 See https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Preferences%20Manual%20-%20%203.31.2017.pdf and https://sfmohcd.org/lottery-preference-programs.
7 In one project, where HUD did not approve of use of the neighborhood proximity preference, San Francisco implemented an “anti-displacement housing preference,” where residents of neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing displacement would receive a preference point. See https://www.kqed.org/news/11582750/part-of-s-f-housing-complex-reserved-for-seniors-at-risk-of- displacement.
8 See https://www.santamonica.gov/programs/below-market-housing-for-historically-displaced- households.
9 https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/austin-residents-have-right-to-return-in-new-development-for-the-first-time
Eligible neighborhoods were determined by a University of Texas study. Residents will have to prove they or an immediate family member lived in these areas as far back as 2000.
10 This program is not codified in an ordinance and the Preferences are being implemented through development agreements on specific developments.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
The City of Cambridge implemented Preferences for its inclusionary housing program since the program began in 1998. Preference categories include: current Cambridge resident (4 points), household with at least one child under 18 (1 point), household with at least one child under 6 (1 point), household with any of the following emergency needs (1 point): no-fault eviction, homeless, overcrowded housing, 50% or greater rent burden, outstanding code violations, and applicants who work in Cambridge (considered after all residents are considered, also given points for having children or an emergency need).
11 New York, New York
New York City implemented Preferences in the 1980s that apply to all City-funded affordable housing developments, applying to 50% of units. The policy establishes preference for residents living near the specific affordable housing development.
Portland, Oregon
Portland’s Preference Policy was created as part of the North/Northeast (N/NE) Neighborhood Housing Plan in 2015, and applies to 40% of units in all city-funded projects in this historically African American neighborhood, including homeownership units. The policy gives preference to residents that have been harmed by City of Portland action through urban renewal practices within the Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Area (ICURA).
The Preferences include: current or former residents of N/NE Portland, those with generational ties to N/NE Portland, those who have had property in N/NE Portland seized by the City. Applicants use interactive maps to locate where their address falls in the ICURA maps.
12 As of December 2019, five years into the Policy, 33 households became homebuyers as part of the program; 28 of these households were African American and two were Latinx. Of renter households who accessed affordable housing through the Preference Policy, survey respondents have lived in the neighborhood an average of 32 years, with 65% of respondents having lived in the neighborhood their entire life.
13 10 https://www.kut.org/austin/2019-11-08/people-with-ties-to-a-gentrifying-neighborhood-to-get-a-better- shot-at-affordable-housing
11 See https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/forapplicants/rentalapplicantpool. 12 See https://www.portland.gov/phb/nnehousing/preference-policy. 13 See https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020/nne_neighborhoodhousingstrategy2015-20_0.pdf .
Seattle, Washington
The City of Seattle implemented an opt-in preference policy in 2019 that affordable housing developers can choose to use for buildings in high displacement risk neighborhoods.
14 The preference policy is not to apply to more than 50% of units in a development, and recommended preference categories include: for communities affected by historic and/or current displacement pressures, applicant is a current resident; for projects in neighborhoods currently facing high risk of displacement, applicant, family member, or ancestor (i.e. great-grandparent) is a former resident; for projects in neighborhoods that have historically been affected by high displacement, applicant has community ties or utilizes community services in the neighborhood. For homeownership, if more than one eligible and qualified household has expressed interest in a specific home, community preference could be used to determine who is offered the opportunity.
15 14 See https://www.seattle.gov/housing/programs-and-initiatives/community-preference for highlighted census tracts.
15 See
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Housing/Programs%20and%20Initiatives/Community%2 0Preference/Community%20Preference%20Guideline.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4 Page 19 of 22
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4