A Just Transition requires Regenerative Ecological Economics Just Transition must advance ecological resilience, reduce resource consumption, restore biodiversity and traditional ways of life, and undermine extractive economies, including capitalism, that erode the ecological basis of our collective well-being. This requires a re-localization and democratization of primary production and consumption by building up local food systems, local clean energy, and smallscale production that are sustainable economically and ecologically. This also means producing to live well without living better at the expense of others.
A Just Transition retains Culture and Tradition
Capitalism has forced many communities to sacrifice culture and tradition for economic survival. It has also defaced and destroyed land held as sacred. Just Transition must create inclusio nary spaces for all traditions and cultures, recognizing them as integral to a healthy and vibrant economy. It should also make reparations for land that has been stolen and/or destroyed by capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy, genocide and slavery.
A Just Transition embodies Local, Regional, National and International Solidarity
A Just Transition must be liberatory and transformative. The impacts of the extractive economy knows no borders. We recognize the interconnectedness of our communities as well as our issues. Therefore, our solutions call for local, regional, national and global solidarity that confronts imperialism and militarism.
A Just Transition builds What We Need Now
We must build the world we need now. This may begin at a local small scale, and must expand to begin to displace extractive practices. We must build and flex the muscles needed to meet our communities’ needs.16
Embarking on a Just Transition would make Berkeley a leader on climate action done right, but existing Just Transition examples from around the world can provide much guidance. In Poland, a 75% decline in coal mining jobs was coupled by a mining social package and special privileges for mining communes. Canada’s efforts to phase out coal-powered electricity have been accompanied by a national stakeholder task force that has travelled the country to hear from Canadians on how to justly shepherd the transition. Egypt’s fuel price increases were paired with minimum wage boosts, food stipends, and progressive taxation.17
Climate Action Plan and Policies to Date
In 2006, Berkeley voters issued a call to action on the climate change challenge by overwhelmingly endorsing ballot Measure G: Reduce our entire community’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 2000 levels by 2050. The Berkeley Climate Action Plan was written through a community-wide process and was adopted by City Council on June 2, 2009.
16 https://climatejusticealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/CJA_JustTransition_Principles_final_hi-rez.pdf 17 https://www.iisd.org/articles/just-transition-examples
On June 12, 2018, City Council adopted a resolution18 establishing the goal of becoming a Fossil Fuel-Free city. On June 12, 2018, City Council adopted a Climate Emergency Declaration.19 On May 11, 2021, City Council adopted a resolution to commit to the C40 Race to Zero Campaign, including a commitment to reaching net- zero emissions in 2045 or sooner.
CALeVIP
East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) is making electric vehicle charging more accessible in Alameda County through a partnership with the California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP). Funded by the California Energy Commission and implemented by the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE), the project promotes access to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure by providing rebates for Level 2 (L2) and DC Fast Chargers (DCFC) for businesses and property owners, with additional rebates available for disadvantaged and low-income communities.20
West Berkeley Plan
Adopted in 1993, the West Berkeley Plan establishes land use patterns and aspirational policy goals for Berkeley’s industrial job center and surrounding residential areas. Given its concentration of manufacturing and Research & Development, updating this plan will be central to meeting Berkeley’s climate action goals.
Using granular data from the 1980 census, the West Berkeley Plan reported that employees in this area were 30% more likely to drive alone to work than in other parts of the city. Reducing single-occupancy automobile trips, encouraging workforce housing closer to jobs and promoting more public transit use has been central to the Plan’s goals for decades, but several policies outlined in the Plan were either not adopted or are anachronistic given current policies.
The Plan correctly notes that the larger share of workers who do not live in the community will result in increased traffic congestion. Pursuant to SB 743, the state now mandates that California jurisdictions can no longer use automobile delay – commonly measured by Level of Service (LOS) – in transportation analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The State has issued guidelines calling for the use
18 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/06_June/Documents/06 - 12_Annotated_Agenda.aspx
19 chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityofberkeley.i nfo%2FuploadedFiles%2FCouncil_2%2FLevel_3_-
_General%2FClimate%2520Emergency%2520Declaration%2520-
%2520Adopted%252012%2520June%25202018%2520-%2520BCC.pdf&clen=424348 20 https://ebce.org/drive-electric-business/
of a broader measure called Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which measures the total amount of driving over a given area. These changes became mandatory on July 1, 2020.
The West Berkeley Plan’s transportation section21 is outdated in its use of LOS, but it does caution that “LOS is a moving target” because “drivers are continually seeking uncongested routes.”
Indeed, the Plan was prescient in calling for a VMT reduction in its policy goals. Policy
1.1 of the transportation section states: “Seek trip reduction--reduction of single occupant automobile trips--through a variety of education and regulatory efforts including implementation of a City of Berkeley Trip Reduction Ordinance, cooperation with the Air Quality Management District's transportation control measures, conditions on development and other mechanisms.” While a Trip Reduction Ordinance does not exist, SB 743 now makes VMT reduction one of the default “conditions on development” for certification of Environmental Impact Reports.
The City Council has recently adopted policies that are consistent with the West Berkeley Plan’s policy goals. Policy 5.1 states: “Adopt and implement a revised Truck Route Ordinance.” On October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted an Ordinance “Amending BMC Section 14.56.070 for 3-Ton Commercial Truck Weight Limit on Berkeley’s Bicycle Boulevards and on At-Risk West Berkeley Residential Streets.”22
By committing to a Green New Deal framework, the City can establish climate justice and equity parameters for future revisions of the West Berkeley Plan.
Potential policy directives for a Just Transition
Policies aimed at resource redistribution and infrastructure investment to eliminate carbon emissions should be calibrated to maximize carbon reduction for funds allocated to support a Just Transition.
Reducing car use
According to the Climate Action Plan 2020 Update staff report, Berkeley has made significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions since 2000, but more progress is needed: “The residential sector decreased electricity usage by 20% and natural gas usage by 26%, and the commercial and industrial sectors decreased electricity usage by 32% and natural gas usage by 2%...Transportation accounts for
21 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Home/West_Berkeley_ - _Transportation.aspx
22 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/10_Oct/Documents/2021 -10- 12_Item_02_Amending_BMC_Section_14_56_070.aspx
59% of Berkeley’s total 2018 GHG inventory. This is the largest sector of GHG emissions and the most challenging to tackle.”23
Electrifying the car and truck fleet is critical to reducing emissions, but even with aggressive vehicle electrification, we will not come close to meeting the 2045 net-zero goal. Changing out our entire vehicle fleet will take decades. Auto manufacturers are not even planning on having full electric lines until 203524 and the most aggressive state and federal plans are on similar timetables25. The vast majority of the vehicles on the road will be gas powered far beyond 2030.26 Additionally, electric cars and trucks continue to produce particulate emissions, deteriorate our already vulnerable roads, lead to congestion, and critically, injure and kill Berkeley residents just as frequently as gas powered vehicles do. Only by reducing car use, regardless of fuel source, can Berkeley meet its many goals of becoming a safer and healthier city.
Berkeley can help its residents reduce their dependence on car trips through a three pronged approach of
● a) building infill housing to reduce distances that residents need to travel to meet their needs,
● b) building a network of pedestrian and micromobility infrastructure throughout the city with safe bike lanes and crossings and secure storage in neighborhoods and destinations and
● c) affordable access to e-bikes and other microbility technology options.
Infill housing: Because urban core areas such as Berkeley present major opportunities for households to meet their needs with fewer Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Wheeler et al (2018) find that infill housing is the most effective policy tool our local government has to reduce emissions: “Low carbon footprint cities that make housing available at all income levels help share the burden of meeting housing demand, while lessening the impact on the climate across the population…Mixed income urban core cities (e.g., Berkeley) hold the most potential for urban infill, with statewide GHG benefits.”27
23 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2020/07_Jul/Documents/2020 -07- 21_Special_Item_05_Climate_Action_Plan_pdf.aspx
24 For example, General Motors Sets All-Electric Target For Vehicles By 2035, NPR, February 1, 2021 https://www.npr.org/2021/02/01/962946561/general-motors-sets-all-electric-target-for-vehicles-by-2035 25 California to phase out sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035, Washington Post, Sept 23, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/09/23/california-electric-cars/ 26 Even if we do succeed in stopping selling all gas powered cars by 2035, our transportation sector will not reach zero emissions until at least 2050. Electric Cars Are Coming. How Long Until They Rule the Road? New York Times, March 10, 2021 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/10/climate/electric - vehicle-fleet-turnover.html
27 Wheeler, S. M., Jones, C. M., & Kammen, D. M. (2018). Carbon footprint planning: quantifying local and state mitigation opportunities for 700 California cities. Urban Planning, 3(2), 35 -51.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has reported: “Even if the share of new car sales that are ZEVs grows nearly 10-fold from today, California would still need to reduce VMT per capita 25 percent to achieve the necessary reductions for 2030”28 to meet state emissions targets pursuant to Senate Bill 375.
Reducing VMT per capita even beyond the minimum that CARB recommends will require a holistic policy approach to reduce the marginal cost of modal shifts from single-occupancy vehicles to cycling, walking, and public transit.
A network of safe active transportation infrastructure: The potential benefits of Berkeley’s urban core area and additional infill housing for reduced VMT can not be realized if people do not feel they can safely get to their destinations outside of a car.
The vast majority of Berkeley residents (71%) are interested in using bicycles but are concerned that the infrastructure does not currently feel safe enough29. Secure storage is also needed in neighborhoods and at destinations for bikes, e-bikes and other micromobility devices. Creating walking, bicycling, and other micromobility infrastructure that both feels safe and easily links all residential areas with schools, retail, and workplaces, and accompanying these efforts with secure storage throughout the city, can facilitate major shifts in VMT.
Affordable micromobility: E-bikes - and to some extent other micromobility modes - overcome many of the challenges people have with traditional bicycles. E-bikes are great at climbing hills, beating headwinds, hauling kids & loads and tackling long commutes all with no sweat (unless you want it). Plus e-bike riders feel safer navigating traffic with the extra acceleration power. They do all this at significant savings over electric cars. E-bikes get 1000 to 4000 MPGe and are 20 times more efficient than electric cars - meaning they can go twenty times farther than an electric car for the same charging electricity carbon emissions.30 The manufacture of an e-bike takes at least an order of magnitude less embodied energy and carbon. With all that they offer, e-bikes are a bargain compared to cars, with prices ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 for a good cargo e-bike. Nevertheless, this investment remains out of reach for many low and some middle income residents. Targeted subsidies can unlock this potential while helping make up for historical lack of mobility access.
Support home electrification retrofits
28 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Final2018Report_SB150_112618_02_Report.pdf 29 Page 11: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_- _Transportation/Berkeley-Bicycle-Plan-2017-Executive%20Summary.pdf 30 E-Bike 1000 MPG Study-Results, https://sites.google.com/view/ebikestudy/results, E-Bike 1000 MPG Project
On November 3, 2021 the Budget & Finance Policy Committee passed a qualified positive recommendation to the full council for a Budget Referral and Resolution Establishing a Pilot Existing Building Electrification Installation Incentives and Just Transition Program with Pre-Qualified Contractors Meeting Minimum Labor Standards to Assist New Property Owners, Renters and Existing Property Owners with Transition to Zero-Carbon Buildings.31
In the realm of mitigating climate change, the retrofitting of residential buildings for electrification and enhanced energy efficiency is a necessary – and expensive – component of any transition towards a sustainable Berkeley. Estimates suggest that all- electric single-family homes can “reduce annual GHG emissions by 33 - 56% in 2020 and by 76 – 88% in 2050 compared to a natural gas-fueled home.”32 Residential emissions can also be reduced through the densification of our community and a long- term shift away from single-family homes as a primary form of living, but Berkeley’s existing stock of single-family homes isn’t just going to go away.33 Retrofitting and electrifying our existing housing stock is important, but is too expensive a lift for the City to expect or require all homeowners to go about alone.34 A Just Transition in building electrification would involve the City dedicating its own resources as well as engaging the state and federal governments to fund retrofits and support residential homeowners through the process of electrifying their homes, particularly low- and middle-income households.
Advance equitable mobility access
Berkeley’s Electric Mobility Roadmap appropriately identifies improved infrastructure safety and connectivity and support for access to e-bikes and other micromobility as key to addressing Berkeley’s transportation emissions. From recreational bike paths to electric car and truck subsidies, this country’s efforts to reduce transportation emissions have too often focused on supporting wealthier communities and consumers. Berkeley can both improve cost effectiveness and address historical inequities by prioritizing safe connectivity and secure bike parking for under-resourced communities as it accelerates implementation and expansion of its pedestrian and bicycle plans and by targeting its efforts to subsidize access to e-bikes and other micromobility on low income residents.
Strengthen worker protections
While Berkeley has been at the forefront of guaranteeing a generous minimum wage, any Just Transition must ensure that all workers in Berkeley earn a living wage into the future as the global economy is shaken by the impacts of climate change. On top of the direct economic impacts of climate change, the ongoing shift in employment
31 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/11_Nov/Documents/2021 -11- 30_Item_21_Budget_Referral_and_Resolution_Establishing_a_Pilot_Existing_Building.aspx 32https://www.ethree.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf 33 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122
34https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/nahb-community/docs/committees/construction-codes-and-standards- committee/home-innovation-electrification-report-2021.pdf?_ga=2.114118479.990433442.1620163394- 283412800.1620163394
opportunities toward gig-based and contractor work that does not always guarantee a living wage and good benefits presents a threat to the livelihoods of workers in Berkeley and elsewhere. On a warming planet with rapidly intensifying weather conditions, access to food, shelter, and quality healthcare will be more important – and more precarious – than ever before. Local and state policies, such as ensuring that minimum wage laws apply to app-based contract work35, will go a long way in a warming-afflicted future towards shoring up the health and economic stability of workers. Additionally, Berkeley’s Living Wage Ordinance, which ensures “that businesses in a contractual relationship with the City pay their employees a wage that can support a family at, or above, the poverty level”36, is an important labor policy that can be upheld and even strengthened as economic stresses require more support for employees on the part of employers. Beyond the active role that Berkeley’s City government must play in ensuring a Just Transition, workers themselves need to be empowered to ensure that the sweeping economic changes of the transition to a sustainable economy does not leave them behind. Berkeley must, at every turn, protect the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively and support the efforts of workers in the private-sector to assert their rights in every instance possible.
Develop just and climate sensitive smart growth policies There is a wealth of potential policies in academic literature and real-world examples that the City Council can draw upon in enacting a Just Transition for Berkeley. “Smart growth” strategies offer effective and just climate mitigation and adaptation policies that Berkeley can draw upon to effectively manage its transition off of fossil fuels and foster economic opportunities for the City. These include planning for a denser city, preserving green spaces, discouraging new construction in areas at risk of extreme weather conditions such as wildfires, upgrading stormwater systems, and generally encouraging energy efficient land use patterns.37
Areas of the city that are zoned for lower densities and single-family residential contribute disproportionately to carbon emissions from automobile travel. The City’s upcoming Housing Element will have to align with its Climate Action Plan and pursue decarbonization of transportation by permitting density in formerly single-family neighborhoods such that increased transit access, micromobility, and pedestrian safety infrastructure can reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Moreover, the City will need to reallocate subsidies for private automobile travel, such as free or underpriced parking and road space, and dedicate these resources to housing and infrastructure that enables VMT reduction.
Identifying new local revenue streams for zero-carbon transport Most carbon pollution in Berkeley comes from cars, both those driven by city residents and by the commuters who come to the city for work or school. In many cases, the city
35 https://cities-today.com/seattle-passes-minimum-wage-for-rideshare-drivers/ 36https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Finance/Home/Vendors__Living_Wage_Ordinance.aspx#:~:text=Effective%20July% 201%2C%202021%2C%20the,of%20not%20less%20than%20%2419.67. 37https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-climate- change#:~:text=Smart%20growth%20policies%20contribute%20to,effects%20of%20a%20changing%20climate.
incentivizes driving by subsidizing its cost. Free or below-cost parking in retail/commercial and residential zones, streets that omit higher-throughput bus and bike lanes, and mandates for parking in new developments are all a form of subsidy for driving. Both the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)38 and California Air Resources Board (CARB) have found that parking pricing strategies have the potential to reduce VMT and encourage a modal shift that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.39
According to UCLA parking scholar Donald Shoup, motorists searching for underpriced or free parking rather than paying demand-based parking prices in a parking garage can increase the average VMT of a local trip by as much as 0.5 miles per trip40, or 5 additional miles per day per curb space.41 Collecting parking fees based on fair market value can reduce the overcrowding of parking spaces, increase parking availability, and increase funding for public services.42 According to the US Department of Transportation43, over 59% of automobile trips were six miles or less, and three-fourths of trips by any mode were less than ten miles, suggesting a major potential for emissions reductions by shifting transportation modes for short trips away from private automobiles. Shoup’s research has also found that market-priced curb parking can yield 5-8% of a city’s total land rent.44
Berkeley can equitably address these subsidies by enacting fees, phased in over time, that charge the cost to the city and its residents of building and maintaining car infrastructure, including the “hidden” costs of pollution, public health impacts, and traffic- related violence. Since lower-income households will have less ability to pay these fees, the city could determine a methodology to phase-in fees by household income and car registration, and use the revenues to provide lower-cost mobility subsidies to lower- income households.
These fees must be coupled with transportation policy reforms that prioritize bus lanes, bike lanes, and “safe routes to school” on streets owned and maintained by the city. By re-allocating public rights-of-way to zero-carbon forms of mobility, and phasing out city subsidies for driving, the city can chart a path to zeroing out its emissions from transportation.Identifying new local revenue streams for zero-carbon transport
38https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system- information/documents/preliminary-investigations/final-pricing-parking-management-to-reduce-vehicles- miles-traveled-pi-a11y.pdf
39https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Impacts_of_Parking_Pricing_Based_on_a_Review_of_the_Empirical_Literature_Policy_Brief.pdf 40 Newton, D. (2008). Professor Donald Shoup: How About Congestion Parking? Streetsblog LA.
Retrieved from https://la.streetsblog.org/2008/01/12/professor-donald-shoup-how-about-congestion- parking/
41 Shoup, D. C. (2006). Cruising for parking. Transport policy, 13(6), 479-486. 42 Shoup, D., Yuan, Q., & Jiang, X. (2017). Charging for parking to finance public services. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(2), 136-149.
43 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-august-13-2018-2017-nearly-60-all-vehicle- trips-were-less-six-miles
44 Shoup, D. C. (2004). The ideal source of local public revenue. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(6), 753-784.
Most carbon pollution in Berkeley comes from cars, both those driven by city residents and by the commuters who come to the city for work or school. In many cases, the city incentivizes driving by subsidizing its cost. Free or below-cost parking in retail/commercial and residential zones, streets that omit higher-throughput bus and bike lanes, and mandates for parking in new developments are all a form of subsidy for driving. Both the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)45 and California Air Resources Board (CARB) have found that parking pricing strategies have the potential to reduce VMT and encourage a modal shift that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.46
According to UCLA parking scholar Donald Shoup, motorists searching for underpriced or free parking rather than paying demand-based parking prices in a parking garage can increase the average VMT of a local trip by as much as 0.5 miles per trip47, or 5 additional miles per day per curb space.48 Collecting parking fees based on fair market value can reduce the overcrowding of parking spaces, increase parking availability, and increase funding for public services.49 According to the US Department of Transportation50, over 59% of automobile trips were six miles or less, and three-fourths of trips by any mode were less than ten miles, suggesting a major potential for emissions reductions by shifting transportation modes for short trips away from private automobiles. Shoup’s research has also found that market-priced curb parking can yield 5-8% of a city’s total land rent.51
Berkeley can equitably address these subsidies by enacting fees, phased in over time, that charge the cost to the city and its residents of building and maintaining car infrastructure, including the “hidden” costs of pollution, public health impacts, and traffic- related violence. Since lower-income households will have less ability to pay these fees, the city cshould determine a methodology to phase-in fees by household income and car registration, and use the revenues to provide lower-cost mobility subsidies to lower- income households.
These fees must be coupled with transportation policy reforms that prioritize bus lanes, bike lanes, and “safe routes to school” on streets owned and maintained by the city. By re-allocating public rights-of-way to zero-carbon forms of mobility, and phasing out city
45https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system- information/documents/preliminary-investigations/final-pricing-parking-management-to-reduce-vehicles- miles-traveled-pi-a11y.pdf
46https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Impacts_of_Parking_Pricing_Based_on_a_Review_of_the_Empirical_Literature_Policy_Brief.pdf 47 Newton, D. (2008). Professor Donald Shoup: How About Congestion Parking? Streetsblog LA.
Retrieved from https://la.streetsblog.org/2008/01/12/professor-donald-shoup-how-about-congestion- parking/
48 Shoup, D. C. (2006). Cruising for parking. Transport policy, 13(6), 479-486. 49 Shoup, D., Yuan, Q., & Jiang, X. (2017). Charging for parking to finance public services. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(2), 136-149.
50 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-august-13-2018-2017-nearly-60-all-vehicle- trips-were-less-six-miles
51 Shoup, D. C. (2004). The ideal source of local public revenue. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(6), 753-784.
subsidies for driving, the city can chart a path to zeroing out its emissions from transportation.
Whether branded as a Just Transition or not, Berkeley can draw plenty of inspiration from around the world in its efforts to ensure that workers, people of color, and the poor are elevated and protected in our fight against climate change, rather than left behind.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
In 2006, Berkeley residents voted in favor of Measure G, which committed the City of Berkeley to reduce its emissions by 80% below 2000 levels by 2050. The City Council, staff, and the community subsequently worked in tandem to develop the Berkeley Climate Action Plan, which lays out the City’s path to achieving the stated goal on Measure G.52 In 2018, the City Council voted to declare a Climate Emergency citing an “existential Climate Emergency that threatens our city, state, nation, civilization, humanity, and the natural world.”53 Both the establishment of the Berkeley Climate Action Plan and the declaration of a Climate Emergency put the City leagues ahead of other cities, states, and even the country on initiating climate action, but we’re still nowhere near enough.
At the state level, California’s environmental efforts place it well ahead of most other states. Even California’s efforts, however, are insufficient at best and ineffective at reducing emissions at worst.54 The City of Berkeley must lead the state and the country both in aggressive and ambitious climate legislation that gets us to net-zero carbon emissions as soon as possible as well as climate mitigation and adaptation efforts that overcome and reverse historic environmental racism and lessen the economic turbulence that will accompany reshaping our economy in the coming decades so that all working Berkeleyans have the right to a good job and secure future. Past and future efforts to eliminate reach net-zero fossil fuel emissions must be examined in an active pursuit of a Just Transition for Berkeley.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This proposal advances and enhances Berkeley’s climate goals.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None.
CONTACT
Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120
ATTACHMENTS
52 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/climate/
53https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Council_2/Level_3_- _General/Climate%20Emergency%20Declaration%20-%20Adopted%2012%20June%202018%20-%20BCC.pdf 54 https://www.kqed.org/science/1972957/state-auditor-says-california-air-regulator-overstated-emission-reductions
1. Resolution
2. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment: San Francisco Bay Area Region Report
3. Climate Justice Alliance: Just Transition Principles
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
COMMIT THE CITY OF BERKELEY TO A JUST TRANSITION FROM THE FOSSIL
FUEL ECONOMY
WHEREAS, a national Green New Deal calls for a fair and just transition for all communities and workers to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and the creation of millions of high-wage union jobs to ensure prosperity and economic opportunity; and
WHEREAS, in Berkeley, fossil fuel-driven global warming has already caused sea level rise, droughts, extreme weather conditions, and longer and more intense fire seasons;, and
WHEREAS, business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions will lead to major increases in temperature, more dramatic droughts, more frequent extreme weather, and up to 3 meters of sea level rise;, and
WHEREAS, historic inequities and environmental racism leave people of color and the poor in a uniquely vulnerable position when faced with dramatic warming, economic turbulence, and extreme weather;, and
WHEREAS, the transition off of fossil fuels will have inevitable economic consequences including the loss of jobs and industries that are reliant on fossil fuel extraction and consumption;, and
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the vulnerability of the global economy to sudden natural events and the need for proactive preparation for economic shocks; and
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the vulnerability of the global economy to sudden natural events and the need for proactive preparation for economic shocks; and
WHEREAS, a proactively planned and equitably executed transition away from the fossil fuel economy can be an opportunity to correct historic wrongs and boost Berkeley’s economy;, an
WHEREAS, Berkeley voters approved Measure G in 2006, calling for the City to “reduce our entire community’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 2000 levels by 2050,” and the Berkeley Climate Action Plan was was adopted by City Council on
June 2, 2009, and the City will need to eliminate its emissions at an even more ambitious scale; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley was among the founding member-jurisdictions of East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), the community choice electricity provider serving Alameda County, all of its eligible cities, and the City of Tracy in San Joaquin County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley can lead by example to equitably reduce community- wide greenhouse gas emissions by utilizing the local programs and electric service options provided by EBCE. These include, but are not limited to 1) partnering with EBCE to make its 100% renewable energy option the City-wide default for most residential and commercial electric accounts; 2) electrifying the City's buildings and municipal fleets; and 3) advancing the deployment of publicly available electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has been a regional leader in building electrification by prohibiting natural gas lines in new residential construction and exploring building electrification subsidies for middle- and lower-income households, and
WHEREAS, transportation accounts for 59% of Berkeley’s total 2018 greenhouse gas inventory and Berkeley’s Electric Mobility Roadmap recognizes that active transportation - walking and bicycling, including e-bikes and other micromobility technologies - is key to reducing those emissions; and
WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has reported that even with a tenfold increase in market share of new electric vehicles, “California would still need to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT per capita) by 25 percent to achieve the necessary reductions for 2030” to meet emissions reduction targets pursuant to Senate Bill 375; and
WHEREAS, both government agencies and leading academic researchers have found that parking pricing strategies have the potential to reduce VMT per capita; and
WHEREAS, the City will need to reallocate subsidies for private automobile travel toward active transportation infrastructure and infill housing in order to achieve VMT per capita reductions needed to eliminate transportation emissions; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the West Berkeley Plan in 1993, which calls for a “reduction of single occupant automobile trips”, and
WHEREAS, a proactively planned and equitably executed transition away from the fossil fuel economy can be an opportunity to correct historic wrongs and boost Berkeley’s economy; and
WHEREAS, the principles of a Just Transition offer Berkeley a path towards eliminating fossil fuel emissions that minimizes economic shock, leaves no one behind, and plants the seeds of a resilient Berkeley;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council commits the City of Berkeley to a Just Transition to net-zero carbon emissions that secures a livable future for all Berkeleyans, pursues a Green New Deal for West Berkeley, combats environmental racism and the unique vulnerabilities of people of color, and ensures that all Berkeleyans have access to good paying jobs and equitable living standards free from the fossil fuel economy;,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all City Council reports with a section on Climate and Environmental Impacts include a Just Transition analysis wherein maximum potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while advancing equity is evaluated.
1 THE WEIGHT OF CITIES:
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
OF FUTURE URBANIZATION
1. CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE
The proportion of the global population living in cities a
nd towns is expected to rise from 54 percent in
2015 to 66 percent by 2050. Most of this transition
will take place in the Global South, especially in Asia and Africa, and will require a si
gnificant expansion
of existing cities, as well as the construction of
new cities.
Business as usual could result in the annual resource r
equirements of urban areas growing from 40 billion
tonnes in 2010 to nearly 90 billion tonnes by 2050.
The high demand for such raw materials will far
exceed what the planet can sustainably provide.
Resources should now become a central policy
concern , in addition to concerns over CO
2, which
are now well recognized.
In addition, the long-term historic sp
rawl of cities
by 2 percent per year threatens to increase global
urban land use from just below 1 million km 2 to over
2.5 million km 2 by 2050, putting agricultural land
and food supplies at risk (see IRP report on Food
Systems and Natural Resources, 2015).
Cities that become more resource-efficient in
t
ransport, commercial buildings, and building heating/
cooling could achieve r
eductions of between 36 to
54 percent in energy use, GHG emissions, metals,
land and water use.
2. R ETHINKING URBANIZATION:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
POLICYMAKERS
A transition towards low-carbon, resource-efficient
and socially just cities is crucial to advance towards
the Sustainability Development Goals and the New
Urban Agenda. The concept of ‘ urban metabolism ’
(the flow of resources through a city) can be used
to frame thinking about how cities can improve citizens’ access to essential services (a focus on well-being for all) while managing their resources wisely and producing minimal waste. This transition could be achieved through the following approaches:
1. Urban metabolisms must shift from ‘linear’ to
‘circular’: This implies new ways of managing the
m
ovement of resources through the city. Businesses and
cities will have to focus on offering high value services rather than selling artefacts; providing heat instead of heaters, mobility instead of highways and cars, light
instead of light bulbs. Concepts such as ‘urban mining’, ‘resource cascading’ and ‘industrial symbiosis’ and the various manifestations of the ‘re-economy’ (reduce,
reuse, recycle) will define the new urbanism.
2 2. Urban metabolisms must be monitored to assist
strategic planning at local government level: Lo
cal
governments must understand cities’ inputs (e.g.
biomaterials) and outputs (e.g. waste and emissions),
using these to develop resource efficiency strategies.1 In addition, the relationship between gross domestic
product (GDP) 2 and material flows, global land use
and GHG emissions must be measured, and targets
must be set. The negative externalities of various
resource uses must be priced in to provide economic
incentives for behavioural change.
3. City planning ‘defaults’ must be changed:
Cityscapes need to be designed for people rather
t
han cars, and must allow the poor, in particular,
to access the opportunities on offer in the city and
prevent uncontrolled sprawl:
Create compact urban growth: a network of
high-density nodes of people, jobs and amenities
(approximately 15,000 people per km
2) that are
connected by efficient and affordable mass transit
systems (e.g. light rail, rail, bus rapid transit) and
are surrounded by medium-density areas (7,500 to
10,000 people per km
2). Transit-oriented development
(TOD) and area development should be approached
as integrated portfolios.
Human-scale sustainable design that creates
conditions for liveable functionally and socially
mixed-use neighbourhoods, with options for soft
mobility (e.g. walking, cycling) and ‘passive’ heating, cooling and lighting at the building level.
Resource-efficient urban components, such as
vehicle sharing, electric vehicles and charging point
networks, efficient energy, waste and water systems,
smart grids, cycle paths, energy-efficient buildings,
new heating, cooling and lighting technology, etc.
1 Resource efficiency strategies use fewer resources to achieve the same level of output or use the same amount of resources to achieve a greater output.
2 There is a need to move beyond GDP as the only measurement of progress, and to shift to a system that assesses well-being. Urban infrastructure planning for cross-sector
efficiency, such as using waste heat in district energy systems and waste materials in construction, such as
fly-ash bricks.
Promotion of sustainable behaviours , such as
reducing and/or separating waste at source for
recycling, using public transport, walking or cycling,
enjoying public spaces, etc.
4. A new governance model and politics of
new imaginative business propositions and
experimentation can provide hope for a better
future: An ‘entrepreneurial urban governance’ is
pr
oposed, which envisages an active and goal-setting
role for the State, but in ways that allows broader
coalitions of urban ‘agents of change’ to emerge. This
would foster new imaginative business propositions to
guide strategic planning for vibrant, green and socially inclusive cities and promote experimentation. It would
also connect to global city networks and ‘twin town’
or ‘sister city’ initiatives to foster systemic learning between cities. Concepts such as ‘living labs’, city
deals, innovation hubs and special zones indicate
that cities are now thinking much more in terms of
‘learning by doing’. Experimentation needs to result in a contextually appropriate balance between economic,
social, technological and sustainable development.
5. Higher levels of government must support city-level
innovation for resource efficiency: C
ollaboration
with higher levels of government is essential if cities are to overcome regulatory barriers and access funding
for innovation. It is crucial that existing infrastructure budgets are channelled in new directions. A low-
carbon scenario would require adding only 5 percent
to infrastructure spending (Global Commission on the
Economy and Climate, 2014).
For more information please contact the Secretariat of the International Resource Panel at:
[email protected]
The full report and Summary for Policymakers can be downloaded at:
http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/weight-cities
© 2017 Blake Robinson & Karl Schulschenk
Senate Bill No. 1000
CHAPTER 587
An act to amend Section 65302 of the Government Code, relating to land use.
[Approved by Governor September 24, 2016. Filed with
Secretary of State September 24, 2016.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1000, Leyva. Land use: general plans: safety and environmental justice.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and of any land outside its boundaries that bears relation to its planning. That law requires this general plan to include several elements, including, among others, a safety element for the protection of the community from unreasonable risks associated with the effects of various geologic hazards, flooding, wildland and urban fires, and climate adaptation and resilience strategies. That law requires that the safety element be reviewed and updated, in the case of flooding and fire hazards, upon the next revision of the housing element after specified dates or, in the case of climate adaptation and resilience strategies, upon either the next revision of a local hazard mitigation plan after a specified date or on or before January 1, 2022, as applicable. That law also requires, after the initial revision of the safety element to address flooding, fires, and climate adaptation and resilience strategies, that for each subsequent revision the planning agency review and, if necessary, revise the safety element to identify new information that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element.
This bill would instead require a planning agency to review and revise the safety element to identify new information, as described above, only to address flooding and fires.
This bill would, in addition, add to the required elements of the general plan an environmental justice element, or related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, that identifies disadvantaged communities, as defined, within the area covered by the general plan of the city, county, or city and county, if the city, county, or city and county has a disadvantaged community. The bill would also require the environmental justice element, or related environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, to identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities, as specified, identify objectives and policies to promote civil engagement in the public decisionmaking process, and identify objectives
91
and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities. The bill would require the environmental justice element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements, to be adopted or reviewed upon the adoption or next revision of 2 or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018. By adding to the duties of county and city officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2)
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65302 of the Government Code, proposed by AB 2651 that would become operative only if this bill and AB 2651 are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last.
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 65302 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65302. The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements:
(a)
A land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The location and designation of the extent of the uses of the land for public and private uses shall consider the identification of land and natural resources pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d). The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall identify and annually review those areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources. The land use element shall also do both of the following:
(1) Designate in a land use category that provides for timber production those parcels of real property zoned for timberland production pursuant to the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 51100) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5). (2) Consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, 91 — 2 —Ch. 587
when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace. (A)
In determining the impact of new growth on military readiness activities, information provided by military facilities shall be considered.
Cities and counties shall address military impacts based on information from the military and other sources.
(B) The following definitions govern this paragraph:
(i) “Military readiness activities” mean all of the following:
(I) Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women of the military for combat.
(II) Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation. (III) Testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation or suitability for combat use.
(ii) “Military installation” means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (g) of Section 2687 of Title 10 of the United States Code. (b) (1) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. (2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, “users of streets, roads, and highways” mean bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. (c) A housing element as provided in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580).
(d) (1) A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations. That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any countywide water agency and with all district and city agencies, including flood management, water conservation, or groundwater agencies that have developed, served, controlled, managed, or conserved water of any type for any purpose in the county or city for which the plan is prepared. Coordination shall include the discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information 91 Ch. 587— 3 —
described in Section 65352.5, if that information has been submitted by the water agency to the city or county.
(2) The conservation element may also cover all of the following:
(A) The reclamation of land and waters.
(B) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters. (C) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan. (D) Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores.
(E) Protection of watersheds.
(F) The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand, and gravel resources.
(3) Upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element shall identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. (e) An open-space element as provided in Article 10.5 (commencing with Section 65560).
(f) (1) A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources:
(A) Highways and freeways.
(B) Primary arterials and major local streets.
(C) Passenger and freight online railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems.
(D) Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation. (E) Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards.
(F) Other ground stationary noise sources, including, but not limited to, military installations, identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment.
(2) Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average sound level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise monitoring or following generally accepted noise modeling techniques for the various sources identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive. (3)
The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise.
(4) The noise element shall include implementation measures and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. The adopted noise element shall serve as a guideline for compliance with the state’s noise insulation standards.
91 — 4 —Ch. 587
(g) (1) A safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence; liquefaction; and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards.
(2) The safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, shall also do the following:
(A) Identify information regarding flood hazards, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i) Flood hazard zones. As used in this subdivision, “flood hazard zone” means an area subject to flooding that is delineated as either a special hazard area or an area of moderate or minimal hazard on an official flood insurance rate map issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The identification of a flood hazard zone does not imply that areas outside the flood hazard zones or uses permitted within flood hazard zones will be free from flooding or flood damage.
(ii) National Flood Insurance Program maps published by FEMA. (iii) Information about flood hazards that is available from the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
(iv) Designated floodway maps that are available from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.
(v) Dam failure inundation maps prepared pursuant to Section 8589.5 that are available from the Office of Emergency Services. (vi) Awareness Floodplain Mapping Program maps and 200-year flood plain maps that are or may be available from, or accepted by, the Department of Water Resources.
(vii) Maps of levee protection zones.
(viii) Areas subject to inundation in the event of the failure of project or nonproject levees or floodwalls.
(ix) Historical data on flooding, including locally prepared maps of areas that are subject to flooding, areas that are vulnerable to flooding after wildfires, and sites that have been repeatedly damaged by flooding. (x) Existing and planned development in flood hazard zones, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. (xi) Local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for flood protection, including special districts and local offices of emergency services. (B) Establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objectives based on the information identified pursuant to subparagraph (A), for the protection of the community from the unreasonable risks of flooding, including, but not limited to:
91 Ch. 587— 5 —
(i) Avoiding or minimizing the risks of flooding to new development. (ii) Evaluating whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones, and identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if new development is located in flood hazard zones. (iii) Maintaining the structural and operational integrity of essential public facilities during flooding.
(iv) Locating, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard zones, including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in flood hazard zones.
(v) Establishing cooperative working relationships among public agencies with responsibility for flood protection.
(C) Establish a set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives established pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(3) Upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, the safety element shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as state responsibility areas, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code, and land classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, as defined in Section 51177. This review shall consider the advice included in the Office of Planning and Research’s most recent publication of “Fire Hazard Planning, General Plan Technical Advice Series” and shall also include all of the following:
(A) Information regarding fire hazards, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(i) Fire hazard severity zone maps available from the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
(ii) Any historical data on wildfires available from local agencies or a reference to where the data can be found.
(iii) Information about wildfire hazard areas that may be available from the United States Geological Survey.
(iv) General location and distribution of existing and planned uses of land in very high fire hazard severity zones and in state responsibility areas, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. The location and distribution of planned uses of land shall not require defensible space compliance measures required by state law or local ordinance to occur on publicly owned lands or open-space designations of homeowner associations.
(v) Local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for fire protection, including special districts and local offices of emergency services. (B) A set of goals, policies, and objectives based on the information identified pursuant to subparagraph (A) for the protection of the community from the unreasonable risk of wildfire.
91 — 6 —Ch. 587
(C) A set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives based on the information identified pursuant to subparagraph (B) including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(i) Avoiding or minimizing the wildfire hazards associated with new uses of land.
(ii) Locating, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of high fire risk areas, including, but not limited to, hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities, or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in a state responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone. (iii) Designing adequate infrastructure if a new development is located in a state responsibility area or in a very high fire hazard severity zone, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for structural fire suppression.
(iv) Working cooperatively with public agencies with responsibility for fire protection.
(D) If a city or county has adopted a fire safety plan or document separate from the general plan, an attachment of, or reference to, a city or county’s adopted fire safety plan or document that fulfills commensurate goals and objectives and contains information required pursuant to this paragraph. (4) Upon the next revision of a local hazard mitigation plan, adopted in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), on or after January 1, 2017, or, if a local jurisdiction has not adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, beginning on or before January 1, 2022, the safety element shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city or county. This review shall consider advice provided in the Office of Planning and Research’s General Plan Guidelines and shall include all of the following:
(A) (i) A vulnerability assessment that identifies the risks that climate change poses to the local jurisdiction and the geographic areas at risk from climate change impacts, including, but not limited to, an assessment of how climate change may affect the risks addressed pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3).
(ii) Information that may be available from federal, state, regional, and local agencies that will assist in developing the vulnerability assessment and the adaptation policies and strategies required pursuant to subparagraph (B), including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(I) Information from the Internet-based Cal-Adapt tool. (II) Information from the most recent version of the California Adaptation Planning Guide.
(III) Information from local agencies on the types of assets, resources, and populations that will be sensitive to various climate change exposures. (IV) Information from local agencies on their current ability to deal with the impacts of climate change.
91 Ch. 587— 7 —
(V) Historical data on natural events and hazards, including locally prepared maps of areas subject to previous risk, areas that are vulnerable, and sites that have been repeatedly damaged.
(VI) Existing and planned development in identified at-risk areas, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. (VII) Federal, state, regional, and local agencies with responsibility for the protection of public health and safety and the environment, including special districts and local offices of emergency services. (B) A set of adaptation and resilience goals, policies, and objectives based on the information specified in subparagraph (A) for the protection of the community.
(C) A set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives identified pursuant to subparagraph (B) including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(i) Feasible methods to avoid or minimize climate change impacts associated with new uses of land.
(ii) The location, when feasible, of new essential public facilities outside of at-risk areas, including, but not limited to, hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities, or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in at-risk areas. (iii) The designation of adequate and feasible infrastructure located in an at-risk area.
(iv) Guidelines for working cooperatively with relevant local, regional, state, and federal agencies.
(v) The identification of natural infrastructure that may be used in adaptation projects, where feasible. Where feasible, the plan shall use existing natural features and ecosystem processes, or the restoration of natural features and ecosystem processes, when developing alternatives for consideration. For the purposes of this clause, “natural infrastructure” means the preservation or restoration of ecological systems, or utilization of engineered systems that use ecological processes, to increase resiliency to climate change, manage other environmental hazards, or both. This may include, but is not limited to, floodplain and wetlands restoration or preservation, combining levees with restored natural systems to reduce flood risk, and urban tree planting to mitigate high heat days. (D) (i) If a city or county has adopted the local hazard mitigation plan, or other climate adaptation plan or document that fulfills commensurate goals and objectives and contains the information required pursuant to this paragraph, separate from the general plan, an attachment of, or reference to, the local hazard mitigation plan or other climate adaptation plan or document.
(ii) Cities or counties that have an adopted hazard mitigation plan, or other climate adaptation plan or document that substantially complies with this section, or have substantially equivalent provisions to this subdivision in their general plans, may use that information in the safety element to comply with this subdivision, and shall summarize and incorporate by 91 — 8 —Ch. 587
reference into the safety element the other general plan provisions, climate adaptation plan or document, specifically showing how each requirement of this subdivision has been met.
(5)
After the initial revision of the safety element pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) upon each revision of the housing element, the planning agency shall review and, if necessary, revise the safety element to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element.
(6) Cities and counties that have flood plain management ordinances that have been approved by FEMA that substantially comply with this section, or have substantially equivalent provisions to this subdivision in their general plans, may use that information in the safety element to comply with this subdivision, and shall summarize and incorporate by reference into the safety element the other general plan provisions or the flood plain ordinance, specifically showing how each requirement of this subdivision has been met.
(7) Prior to the periodic review of its general plan and prior to preparing or revising its safety element, each city and county shall consult the California Geological Survey of the Department of Conservation, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, if the city or county is located within the boundaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, as set forth in Section 8501 of the Water Code, and the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of including information known by and available to the department, the agency, and the board required by this subdivision. (8) To the extent that a county’s safety element is sufficiently detailed and contains appropriate policies and programs for adoption by a city, a city may adopt that portion of the county’s safety element that pertains to the city’s planning area in satisfaction of the requirement imposed by this subdivision.
(h) (1) An environmental justice element, or related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, that identifies disadvantaged communities within the area covered by the general plan of the city, county, or city and county, if the city, county, or city and county has a disadvantaged community. The environmental justice element, or related environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity. (B) Identify objectives and policies to promote civil engagement in the public decisionmaking process.
(C) Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities. (2) A city, county, or city and county subject to this subdivision shall adopt or review the environmental justice element, or the environmental 91 Ch. 587— 9 —
justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements, upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018.
(3)
By adding this subdivision, the Legislature does not intend to require a city, county, or city and county to take any action prohibited by the United States Constitution or the California Constitution.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, the following terms shall apply:
(A) “Disadvantaged communities” means an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code or an area that is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.
(B) “Public facilities” includes public improvements, public services, and community amenities, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 66000. (C) “Low-income area” means an area with household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income or with household incomes at or below the threshold designated as low income by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s list of state income limits adopted pursuant to Section 50093.
SEC. 1.5. Section 65302 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65302. The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements:
(a)
A land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, greenways, as defined in Section 816.52 of the Civil Code, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The location and designation of the extent of the uses of the land for public and private uses shall consider the identification of land and natural resources pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d). The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall identify and annually review those areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources. The land use element shall also do both of the following:
(1) Designate in a land use category that provides for timber production those parcels of real property zoned for timberland production pursuant to the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 51100) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5). (2) Consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, 91 — 10 —Ch. 587
when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace. (A)
In determining the impact of new growth on military readiness activities, information provided by military facilities shall be considered.
Cities and counties shall address military impacts based on information from the military and other sources.
(B) The following definitions govern this paragraph:
(i) “Military readiness activities” mean all of the following:
(I) Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women of the military for combat.
(II) Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation. (III) Testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation or suitability for combat use.
(ii) “Military installation” means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (g) of Section 2687 of Title 10 of the United States Code. (b) (1) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. (2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, “users of streets, roads, and highways” mean bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. (c) A housing element as provided in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580).
(d) (1) A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations. That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any countywide water agency and with all district and city agencies, including flood management, water conservation, or groundwater agencies that have developed, served, controlled, managed, or conserved water of any type for any purpose in the county or city for which the plan is prepared. Coordination shall include the discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information 91 Ch. 587— 11 —
described in Section 65352.5, if that information has been submitted by the water agency to the city or county.
(2) The conservation element may also cover all of the following:
(A) The reclamation of land and waters.
(B) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters. (C) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan. (D) Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores.
(E) Protection of watersheds.
(F) The location, quantity, and quality of the rock, sand, and gravel resources.
(3) Upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element shall identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. (e) An open-space element as provided in Article 10.5 (commencing with Section 65560).
(f) (1) A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources:
(A) Highways and freeways.
(B) Primary arterials and major local streets.
(C) Passenger and freight online railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems.
(D) Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation. (E) Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards.
(F) Other ground stationary noise sources, including, but not limited to, military installations, identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment.
(2) Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average sound level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise monitoring or following generally accepted noise modeling techniques for the various sources identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive. (3)
The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise.
(4) The noise element shall include implementation measures and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. The adopted noise element shall serve as a guideline for compliance with the state’s noise insulation standards.
91 — 12 —Ch. 587
(g) (1) A safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence; liquefaction; and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards.
(2) The safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, shall also do the following:
(A) Identify information regarding flood hazards, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i) Flood hazard zones. As used in this subdivision, “flood hazard zone” means an area subject to flooding that is delineated as either a special hazard area or an area of moderate or minimal hazard on an official flood insurance rate map issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The identification of a flood hazard zone does not imply that areas outside the flood hazard zones or uses permitted within flood hazard zones will be free from flooding or flood damage.
(ii) National Flood Insurance Program maps published by FEMA. (iii) Information about flood hazards that is available from the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
(iv) Designated floodway maps that are available from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.
(v) Dam failure inundation maps prepared pursuant to Section 8589.5 that are available from the Office of Emergency Services. (vi) Awareness Floodplain Mapping Program maps and 200-year flood plain maps that are or may be available from, or accepted by, the Department of Water Resources.
(vii) Maps of levee protection zones.
(viii) Areas subject to inundation in the event of the failure of project or nonproject levees or floodwalls.
(ix) Historical data on flooding, including locally prepared maps of areas that are subject to flooding, areas that are vulnerable to flooding after wildfires, and sites that have been repeatedly damaged by flooding. (x) Existing and planned development in flood hazard zones, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. (xi) Local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for flood protection, including special districts and local offices of emergency services. (B) Establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objectives based on the information identified pursuant to subparagraph (A), for the protection of the community from the unreasonable risks of flooding, including, but not limited to:
91 Ch. 587— 13 —
(i) Avoiding or minimizing the risks of flooding to new development. (ii) Evaluating whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones, and identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if new development is located in flood hazard zones. (iii) Maintaining the structural and operational integrity of essential public facilities during flooding.
(iv) Locating, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard zones, including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in flood hazard zones.
(v) Establishing cooperative working relationships among public agencies with responsibility for flood protection.
(C) Establish a set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives established pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(3) Upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, the safety element shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as state responsibility areas, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code, and land classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, as defined in Section 51177. This review shall consider the advice included in the Office of Planning and Research’s most recent publication of “Fire Hazard Planning, General Plan Technical Advice Series” and shall also include all of the following:
(A) Information regarding fire hazards, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(i) Fire hazard severity zone maps available from the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
(ii) Any historical data on wildfires available from local agencies or a reference to where the data can be found.
(iii) Information about wildfire hazard areas that may be available from the United States Geological Survey.
(iv) General location and distribution of existing and planned uses of land in very high fire hazard severity zones and in state responsibility areas, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. The location and distribution of planned uses of land shall not require defensible space compliance measures required by state law or local ordinance to occur on publicly owned lands or open space designations of homeowner associations.
(v) Local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for fire protection, including special districts and local offices of emergency services. (B) A set of goals, policies, and objectives based on the information identified pursuant to subparagraph (A) for the protection of the community from the unreasonable risk of wildfire.
91 — 14 —Ch. 587
(C) A set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives based on the information identified pursuant to subparagraph (B) including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(i) Avoiding or minimizing the wildfire hazards associated with new uses of land.
(ii) Locating, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of high fire risk areas, including, but not limited to, hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities, or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in a state responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone. (iii) Designing adequate infrastructure if a new development is located in a state responsibility area or in a very high fire hazard severity zone, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for structural fire suppression.
(iv) Working cooperatively with public agencies with responsibility for fire protection.
(D) If a city or county has adopted a fire safety plan or document separate from the general plan, an attachment of, or reference to, a city or county’s adopted fire safety plan or document that fulfills commensurate goals and objectives and contains information required pursuant to this paragraph. (4) Upon the next revision of a local hazard mitigation plan, adopted in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), on or after January 1, 2017, or, if a local jurisdiction has not adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, beginning on or before January 1, 2022, the safety element shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city or county. This review shall consider advice provided in the Office of Planning and Research’s General Plan Guidelines and shall include all of the following:
(A) (i) A vulnerability assessment that identifies the risks that climate change poses to the local jurisdiction and the geographic areas at risk from climate change impacts, including, but not limited to, an assessment of how climate change may affect the risks addressed pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3).
(ii) Information that may be available from federal, state, regional, and local agencies that will assist in developing the vulnerability assessment and the adaptation policies and strategies required pursuant to subparagraph (B), including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(I) Information from the Internet-based Cal-Adapt tool. (II) Information from the most recent version of the California Adaptation Planning Guide.
(III) Information from local agencies on the types of assets, resources, and populations that will be sensitive to various climate change exposures. (IV) Information from local agencies on their current ability to deal with the impacts of climate change.
91 Ch. 587— 15 —
(V) Historical data on natural events and hazards, including locally prepared maps of areas subject to previous risk, areas that are vulnerable, and sites that have been repeatedly damaged.
(VI) Existing and planned development in identified at-risk areas, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. (VII) Federal, state, regional, and local agencies with responsibility for the protection of public health and safety and the environment, including special districts and local offices of emergency services. (B) A set of adaptation and resilience goals, policies, and objectives based on the information specified in subparagraph (A) for the protection of the community.
(C) A set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives identified pursuant to subparagraph (B) including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(i) Feasible methods to avoid or minimize climate change impacts associated with new uses of land.
(ii) The location, when feasible, of new essential public facilities outside of at-risk areas, including, but not limited to, hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities, or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in at-risk areas. (iii) The designation of adequate and feasible infrastructure located in an at-risk area.
(iv) Guidelines for working cooperatively with relevant local, regional, state, and federal agencies.
(v) The identification of natural infrastructure that may be used in adaptation projects, where feasible. Where feasible, the plan shall use existing natural features and ecosystem processes, or the restoration of natural features and ecosystem processes, when developing alternatives for consideration. For the purposes of this clause, “natural infrastructure” means the preservation or restoration of ecological systems, or utilization of engineered systems that use ecological processes, to increase resiliency to climate change, manage other environmental hazards, or both. This may include, but is not limited to, floodplain and wetlands restoration or preservation, combining levees with restored natural systems to reduce flood risk, and urban tree planting to mitigate high heat days. (D) (i) If a city or county has adopted the local hazard mitigation plan, or other climate adaptation plan or document that fulfills commensurate goals and objectives and contains the information required pursuant to this paragraph, separate from the general plan, an attachment of, or reference to, the local hazard mitigation plan or other climate adaptation plan or document.
(ii) Cities or counties that have an adopted hazard mitigation plan, or other climate adaptation plan or document that substantially complies with this section, or have substantially equivalent provisions to this subdivision in their general plans, may use that information in the safety element to comply with this subdivision, and shall summarize and incorporate by 91 — 16 —Ch. 587
reference into the safety element the other general plan provisions, climate adaptation plan or document, specifically showing how each requirement of this subdivision has been met.
(5)
After the initial revision of the safety element pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) upon each revision of the housing element, the planning agency shall review and, if necessary, revise the safety element to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element.
(6) Cities and counties that have flood plain management ordinances that have been approved by FEMA that substantially comply with this section, or have substantially equivalent provisions to this subdivision in their general plans, may use that information in the safety element to comply with this subdivision, and shall summarize and incorporate by reference into the safety element the other general plan provisions or the flood plain ordinance, specifically showing how each requirement of this subdivision has been met.
(7) Prior to the periodic review of its general plan and prior to preparing or revising its safety element, each city and county shall consult the California Geological Survey of the Department of Conservation, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, if the city or county is located within the boundaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, as set forth in Section 8501 of the Water Code, and the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of including information known by and available to the department, the agency, and the board required by this subdivision. (8) To the extent that a county’s safety element is sufficiently detailed and contains appropriate policies and programs for adoption by a city, a city may adopt that portion of the county’s safety element that pertains to the city’s planning area in satisfaction of the requirement imposed by this subdivision.
(h) (1) An environmental justice element, or related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, that identifies disadvantaged communities within the area covered by the general plan of the city, county, or city and county, if the city, county, or city and county has a disadvantaged community. The environmental justice element, or related environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity. (B) Identify objectives and policies to promote civil engagement in the public decisionmaking process.
(C) Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities. (2) A city, county, or city and county subject to this subdivision shall adopt or review the environmental justice element, or the environmental 91 Ch. 587— 17 —
justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements, upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018.
(3)
By adding this subdivision, the Legislature does not intend to require a city, county, or city and county to take any action prohibited by the United States Constitution or the California Constitution.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, the following terms shall apply:
(A) “Disadvantaged communities” means an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code or an area that is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.
(B) “Public facilities” includes public improvements, public services, and community amenities, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 66000. (C) “Low-income area” means an area with household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income or with household incomes at or below the threshold designated as low income by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s list of state income limits adopted pursuant to Section 50093.
SEC. 2. Section 1.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 65302 of the Government Code proposed by this bill and Assembly Bill 2651. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, (2) each bill amends Section 65302 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 2651, in which case Section 65302 of the Government Code, as amended by Assembly Bill 2651, shall remain operative only until the operative date of this bill, at which time Section 1.5 of this bill shall become operative, and Section 1 of this bill shall not become operative.
SEC. 3.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
O
91 — 18 —Ch. 587
CONSENT CALENDAR
December 3, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Hahn (Cosponsor) Subject: Affordable Housing for Artists: AB-812 Implementation and Cultural District Statutory Standardization
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65914.8, refer to the City Manager, City Attorney, and Planning Commission:
1. To study and develop an Ordinance and implementation plan for Assembly Bill 812 (2023) to reserve for artists up to 10 percent of Below Market Rate units under Berkeley Municipal Code 23.328 (Inclusionary Housing) within a half-mile of a state- designated cultural district or within any similar locally designated cultural district, with consideration for consistency with existing Affordable Housing Preference Policy;
2. Consider common standards for locally designated cultural districts, including but not limited to Overlay Zones, and implementation of cultural district designation within the boundaries of Area Specific Plans, including but not limited to the Adeline Corridor and San Pablo Corridor Specific Plans;
3. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 8758, consider solicitation of state designation for cultural districts in the City of Berkeley.
POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On October 22, 2024, the Land Use, Housing, and Economic Development Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Wengraf/Lunaparra) to forward the item to Council with a Qualified Positive Recommendation that the Council:
1. Refer to the City Manager and the Civic Arts Commission to:
a. Consider common standards for locally designated cultural districts, including but not limited to Overlay Zones, and implementation of cultural district designation within the boundaries of Area Specific Plans, including but not limited to the Adeline Corridor and San Pablo Corridor Specific Plans;
AB-812 Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR
b. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 8758, consider solicitation of state designation for cultural districts in the City of Berkeley.
2. Defer referral of the study and development of an ordinance and implementation plan until later in the process when there is more information regarding the applicable standards and definitions.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff time.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
According to a 2022 survey produced for Berkeley’s Civic Arts Commission by Creative Equity Research Partners, the 163 local artists surveyed represent a cross-section of Berkeley’s most vulnerable populations, and high housing costs are placing the community’s thriving cultural sector at increasing risk of displacement.
Artistic professions are highly valued but poorly compensated. Of the 88% respondents who had Bachelor’s degrees, 60% reported an annual household income of $69,000 or below, which qualified as Low Income in Alameda County. 45% were rent-burdened.
This disparity also intersects with the racial wealth gap: among respondents who identified as non-White, 72%, reported low household incomes, compared to 55% among those who identified as White or Caucasian. At the same time, diverse sources of income could complicate the process of certifying eligibility for deed-restricted affordable housing.
AB-812 Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR
While artists reflect the greater housing affordability crisis in the region, most artists surveyed also expressed unique needs for living space that can accommodate their productive endeavors. 82% of respondents reported that they make their art where they live, with 56% of those requiring extra ventilation.
The report recommended that the City of Berkeley “consider creating a priority category for artists who meet income qualification to access affordable housing.” Assembly Bill 812 (2023) offers a framework for such prioritization. Further, the report also recommended “a guaranteed basic income program for qualifying artists.” While not specific to the arts community, the City Council allocated $50,000 In FY2024 to “engage a consultant to recommend a Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley.” In 2023, the City Council approved the City of Berkeley’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, which included several programs to produce and preserve affordable housing for a broad population:
Policy H-4 (Economic Diversity): Encourage mixed income housing developments through both regulatory requirements and incentives. Policy H-8 (Workforce Housing): Develop Workforce Housing for low- and moderate-income households, including teachers, artists [emphasis added], and other residents who work in the City of Berkeley.
In 2023, the City Council also approved an Affordable Housing Preference Policy to individuals who have previously been displaced from Berkeley and desire to return. Any implementation plan for additional prioritization will need to maintain consistency with these priorities to support overall anti-displacement and social justice goals.
AB-812 Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR
Expanding affordable housing availability for artists is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.
BACKGROUND
With the passage of Assembly Bill 812 in 2023, California Government Code Section 65914.8 states:
(a) If a local agency requires, as a condition of approval of the development of residential units, that a certain percentage of the units of the development be affordable housing, the local agency may reserve for artists up to 10 percent of those required affordable housing units if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The units reserved are located within or within one-half mile from a state- designated cultural district certified pursuant to Chapter 9.2 (commencing with Section 8758) of Division 1 of Title 2 or within any similar locally designated cultural district.
(2) The local agency adopts an ordinance for this purpose that does all of the following:
(A) It is consistent with the Local Tenant Preferences to Prevent Displacement Act (Chapter 12.76 (commencing with Section 7061) of Division 7 of Title 1). (B) It prohibits an existing tenant from being evicted in favor of an artist. (C) It contains a fair and comprehensive vetting process that includes, but is not limited to, initial and annual income verification consistent with applicable affordable housing laws and artist status verification. (b) If an insufficient number of artists apply for and occupy the units, the unoccupied units may be offered to general members of the public.
(c) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Affordable housing” means units dedicated to moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households, as defined in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable housing cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) “Artist” means the creator of any work of visual, graphic, or performing art of any media, including, but not limited to, a painting, print, drawing, sculpture, craft, photograph, film, or performance.
(3) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county.
AB-812 Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR
The City of Berkeley currently has two locally-designated cultural districts. However, they are implemented differently:
1. The Black Arts and Culture District was designated by the City Council on February 13, 2024 by Resolution No. 71,212–N.S.
2. The Arts District Overlay was established in Berkeley Municipal Code 23.204.130.D in 2012 as part of the Downtown Area Plan.
As illustrated below, the Arts District Overlay has specific boundaries outlined in the Downtown Mixed-Use District.
By contrast, the Black Arts and Cultural District is not designated with its own unique boundaries, but rather by reference to the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan, which allows and “strongly encourage[s]” arts and entertainment uses in ground floor spaces. As the City is currently conducting outreach and community engagement on the development of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, the community may express a similar desire to preserve and promote arts and culture. Therefore, the Commission and staff should consider a standard process for cultural district designation such that the above and future designations can qualify under AB-812 as a “similar locally designated cultural district.”
With the adoption of AB 189 (2015), the state of California launched the California Cultural Districts program as a pilot in 2017 with 14 state-designated cultural districts certified by the California Arts Council (see Attachment 2). Designation criteria is established under California Government Code Section 8758:
AB-812 Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR
(a) As used in this chapter, “state-designated cultural district” means a geographical area certified pursuant to this chapter with a concentration of cultural facilities, creative enterprises, or arts venues that does any of the following:
(1) Attracts artists, creative entrepreneurs, and cultural enterprises. (2) Encourages economic development and supports entrepreneurship in the creative community.
(3) Encourages the preservation and reuse of historic buildings and other artistic and culturally significant structures.
(4) Fosters local cultural development.
(5) Provides a focal point for celebrating and strengthening the unique cultural identity of the community.
(6) Promotes opportunity without generating displacement or expanding inequality. (b) The Arts Council shall establish criteria and guidelines for state-designated cultural districts. In executing its powers and duties under this chapter, the council shall do all of the following:
(1) Establish a competitive application system by which a community may apply for certification as a state-designated cultural district.
(2) Provide technical assistance for state-designated cultural districts from, among others, artists who have experience with cultural districts and provide promotional support for state-designated cultural districts.
(3) Collaborate with other public agencies and private entities to maximize the benefits of state-designated cultural districts.
(c) A geographical area within the state may be certified as a state-designated cultural district by applying to the council for certification. Certification as a state-designated cultural district shall be for a period of five years, after which the district may renew certification every three years.
The 2017 pilot only permitted applicants in the form of partnerships which “must include three organizations: a cultural nonprofit or artist collective; a local business or business association; and a branch of local government and/or a community development corporation.” State designation of cultural districts has the added benefit under AB-812 of expanding priority for artists in affordable housing to a half-mile radius outside of cultural district boundaries.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
AB-812 Implementation CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
CONTACT
Councilmember Taplin, Council District 2, 510-981-7120
ATTACHMENTS
1: AB-812 (2023)
2: California Cultural Districts Program Development Final Report (2016)
Assembly Bill No. 812
CHAPTER 747
An act to add Section 65914.8 to the Government Code, relating to housing.
[Approved by Governor October 11, 2023. Filed with Secretary of State October 11, 2023.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 812, Boerner. Housing development approvals: reserving affordable units in or near a cultural district for artists.
Existing law requires the Arts Council to establish criteria and guidelines for certification of state-designated cultural districts and collaborate with other public agencies and private entities to maximize the benefits of state-designated cultural districts. The Planning and Zoning Law imposes various requirements on cities and counties with regard to their review and approval of certain housing developments.
This bill would authorize a city or county that requires, as a condition of approval, that a certain percentage of units of a residential development be affordable housing, as specified, to reserve for artists up to 10% of those required affordable housing units, except as provided, if certain conditions are met, including that the units reserved are located within or within one-half mile from a state-designated cultural district or within a locally designated cultural district, as specified.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 65914.8 is added to the Government Code, immediately following Section 65914.7, to read:
65914.8. (a) If a local agency requires, as a condition of approval of the development of residential units, that a certain percentage of the units of the development be affordable housing, the local agency may reserve for artists up to 10 percent of those required affordable housing units if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The units reserved are located within or within one-half mile from a state-designated cultural district certified pursuant to Chapter 9.2 (commencing with Section 8758) of Division 1 of Title 2 or within any similar locally designated cultural district.
92
(2) The local agency adopts an ordinance for this purpose that does all of the following:
(A) It is consistent with the Local Tenant Preferences to Prevent Displacement Act (Chapter 12.76 (commencing with Section 7061) of Division 7 of Title 1).
(B) It prohibits an existing tenant from being evicted in favor of an artist. (C) It contains a fair and comprehensive vetting process that includes, but is not limited to, initial and annual income verification consistent with applicable affordable housing laws and artist status verification. (b) If an insufficient number of artists apply for and occupy the units, the unoccupied units may be offered to general members of the public. (c) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Affordable housing” means units dedicated to moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households, as defined in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable housing cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) “Artist” means the creator of any work of visual, graphic, or performing art of any media, including, but not limited to, a painting, print, drawing, sculpture, craft, photograph, film, or performance. (3) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county.
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act adding Section 65914.8 to the Government Code addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act applies to all cities, including charter cities.
O
92 — 2 — Ch. 747
Prepared for the California Arts Council
FALL 2016
Jessica Cusick
Maria Rosario Jackson
FINAL REPORT:
CULTURAL DISTRICTS
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
To encourage the development of a broad array
of authentic and sustainable cultural districts
that reflect the breadth and diversity of
California’s extensive cultural assets.
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
I. P ROPOSED PROGRAM PURPOSE, GOALS AND STRUCTURE
The California Arts Council’s (CAC) cultural districts program will assist Californians in leveraging the state’s considerable assets in the areas of culture, creativity, and diversity , as initially set out in the enabling legislation, AB 189. A cultural district is generally understood as a well-defined geographic area with a high concentration of cultural resources and activities1.
The California cultural districts program will have the following goals:
• T o encourage the development of a broad array of authentic and sustainable cultural districts that reflect the breadth and diversity of California’s extensive cultural assets • To identify, support, and connect centers of arts and cultural activity throughout the state through the certification process
• To provide increased access to the arts and culture through the development and preservation of cultural centers throughout the state
• To foster increased opportunities for artists, craftsmen, and other small businesses contributing to the creative economy
• To encourage the retention of homegrown assets and actively work to mitigate displacement • To support enhancements to the built environment and resident’s pride and stewardship of place by helping to foster remarkable places
• To contribute to increased public awareness of, and visits to, California’s centers of cultural activity
California’s cultural districts initiative offers an opportunity to create a program that is tailored to the nature and circumstances of a large, populous, and diverse state. It is recommended that the program be built around three major components: 1) certification, 2) funding, and 3) a resource center, which will be put in place over time. In addition, because of the tremendous interest in cultural districts, and the complexity of tailoring a program to adequately support the full range of types of cultural centers throughout the state, the consultants propose that the program be initiated via a two- year long pilot, where a select cohort of designated districts actively engage in refining the final design of the program.
Applications for the pilot cohort will be solicited in early 2017 with the goal of selecting a small group of 10 to 15 districts that represent the many possible manifestations of cultural centers present in California. At a minimum the cohort should include districts from urban, suburban and rural locations, as well as districts with an emphasis on cultural consumption, cultural production and cultu ral heritage.
Further it should include districts that are at varied points in the life-cycle, from emerging to established.
1 See glossary, appendix 1.
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
II. RESEARCH AND PUBLIC INPUT METHODS
This report, and the associated recommendations for a state cultural districts program, are based on findings from research conducted by the consulting team, along with the information gathered through a comprehensive public input process that the team conducted in coordination with the CAC staff.
R
esearch
The consulting team engaged in a research process over several months which consisted of l iterature
review, document review and interviews. The team compiled information on cultural districts nationally, including program materials and evaluations from se veral state programs, and conducted interviews with 25 selected local and national experts and thought leaders in a number of fields. Respondents include arts administrators, artists, community developers, and government officials, among others2.
Public Input
Broad participation in public meetings, along with a robust survey response, provide a clear sense of hopes and concerns regarding state cultivation of cultural districts . Specifically, five public meetings , with over 400 participants, were held in Escondido, Fresno, Los Angeles, Oakland and Redding.
Preliminary findings from the initial research phase were included in the materials presented at these meetings, and were also used to shape an on -line questionnaire completed by 326 respondents3.
Participants at the public meetings had the option of submitting comment cards regarding their hopes and concerns for the cultural districts program , as well as providing formal testimony . The consultants also gathered feedback during two panel sessions at conferences for the art and design communities in Sacramento and San Jose. Finally, interested parties were given the option of organizing an in- person feedback session in their community, with a set of standard questions , although no information was received from these sessions.
The geographic distribution of the meetings along with the geographic distribution of survey respondents resulted in perspectives from people in diverse regions throughout the state . Most meeting participants and survey respondents were from the arts and cultural sector; primarily artists and arts administrators, along with a number of business owners and government officials. There was limited participation from developers and elected officials.
2 See appendix 2 and 3 for a list of interviews and sample interview protocol 3 See appendix 4 for a summary analysis of the survey responses
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
III. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS FROM NATIONAL REVIEW
As of this year, t hirteen states have established statewide cultural district programs , while two others, Arkansas and California, have enacted cultural district policies but have yet to launch programs . In addition, several states are considering cultural district legislation. Rhode Island has the oldest program, established in 1998, and the newest , in South Carolina, was just launched in 2014. These programs have certified over 250 districts collectively, although the number of districts per state varies tremendously. In addition to state certification programs, cities throughout the country have mechanisms in place to designate cultural districts at the local level.
The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (N ASAA) has developed two c omprehensive reports4 on
state mandated cultural district programs, which provide valuable insights into the approaches taken by various states. The following summary of programs by state was developed by NASAA:
4 NASAA policy brief and NASAA strategy sampler
State
Number of
Districts
(Year
Program
Began)
Certification
Cycle
Recertification
Process Decertification
Evaluation/Metrics
Method
CO 18 (2010) B iennial (pending) Yes (every 5 years) n/a A nnual report IA 35 (2005) Ongoing Yes (every 10 years) No Periodic evaluation by the department of revenue
IN 6 (2008)
No policy;
in practice about
every other year
n/a Yes, but no formal
process Annual report
KY 6 (2011) Annual
Yes
(each year district files
public value report)
Yes Annual report, site visits
LA
78 (2008)
Annual n/a Yes Annual report
MA 32 (2010) Rolling
applications Yes (every 5 years) No formal process Annual report, site visits MD 24 (2001) Biannual Yes (every 10 years) n/a Annual report
NM
8 ( 2008)
Biennial (districts
in cities w/
population over
50,000 can self-
designate)
Yes (every 5 years)
Y es
Annual report, site visits
OK 7 (2013) Triennial Yes (every 3 years) n/a Annual report, site visits RI 9 (1999) Ongoing n/a No formal process
State tax office collects data on
tax incentives; state arts agency
has conducted one survey
SC 6 (2014) Ongoing Yes (every 5 years) No Annual report TX 28 (2009) Annual Yes (every 10 years) n/a n/a
WV 8 (2005) Ongoing Can be evaluated
every 3 years Yes State arts agency evaluation
any time after first 3 years
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
The consultants sought to answer the following questions through the national review.
1. What are the main benefits of cultural district designation?
While the benefits of becoming a certified cultural district vary by state, most of the programs offer access to selected state resources, from grants to tax credits and other financial incentives, as well as partnerships with various state agencies which take many forms, from expedited permit review to special marketing initiatives. In addition, most of the programs offer technical assistance, including peer to peer learning opportunities such as convening.
2. What factors contributed to the success of cultural districts in programs throughout the country?
Some of the contributing factors to a successful cultural district include a pre- existing density of cultural resources in an area with a cohesive identity, which as the legislation notes can take many forms, and range from facilities to programs, and from historic and cultural resources , to creative individuals. One of the best ways to document the density of cultural resources in an area is to undertake a comprehensive approach to the development of a cultural asset inventory
5; one that goes beyond just cultural organizations and facilities, and is inclusive of the many diverse contributing elements that make for a vibrant cultural center.
Other success factors include clearly articulated goals, such as the retention of artists or an increase in annual visitors; dedicated staff (full or part -time), along with multi-sector leadership, where non-profit organizations have come together with businesses and government to foster and manage the district; partnerships that go beyond the leadership of the district and involve the broader community; and finally, the ability to track and capture data that correlates to the district’s goals.
3. What have been some of the outcomes of a cultural districts initiative?
Successful cultural districts offer many beneficial outcomes to the geographic area in which they are located and the surrounding community . Nationally, the beneficial outcome that has gotten the most attention is that cultural districts tend to become destinations for both locals and visitors, and as such contribute to economic influx and revitalization. C ultural districts are also being viewed as a tool to assist with the retention of homegrown assets and uses, including artists and arts organizations, as well other culturally and ethnically diverse facilities and uses, and small businesses.
4. What are some of the challenges that are being experienced in cultivating cultural districts?
In a review of the evaluations conducted by four of the existing state programs, as well as in interviews conducted with thought leaders, some key challenges to implementing successful
5 See glossary, appendix 1
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
cultural districts programs emerged. The most often cited, at both the state and district level, is the lack of dedicated leadership and staffing. Another related challenge is the lack of clearly documented objectives and corresponding data. At the district level people cited displacement or the loss of existing assets, with the accompanying loss of authenticity, as one of the primary challenges to anticipate and prevent.
IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA’S P ROGRAM FROM BOTH THE RESEARCH
AND PUBLIC INPUT
1. P rogram priorities vary by geographic area and include access to a broad range of resources, both informational and financial.
The most desired benefits of certification include recognition, funding, and tools to help preserve existing cultural resources , with a focus on equitable development and ways to mitigate displacement especially in communities that feel vulnerable given rapid development, escalating real estate prices, and other contextual circumstances. Combined these represent the top three categories identified in both the survey and the comment cards. Another priority that emerged is assistance in developing better partnerships with local government, as well as a better understanding of the value and importance of artists and cultural resources.
2. C ommunity impacts as a result of cultural districts elicit enthusiasm as well as concerns regarding access, competition, and additional pressure on fragile cultural centers
Benefits associated with cultural districts range from an increased pride of place, to enhanced marketing opportunities for arts and cultural organizations as well as local busines ses.
Expanded cultural tourism is also frequently cited, in particular by rural and smaller communities.
Survey respondents were evenly split between those with no concerns, and those with concerns, while most participants at the public meetings did submit areas of concern. The most often cited concern is a top down planning approach and the associated lack of equitable distribution of resources. This was also stated as a desire for an inclusive and transparent process; o ne that does not pit cultural districts in the same town against each other, or arts against heritage, or small rural areas against more developed communities. In the survey 32% of respondents articulated some aspect of this issue.
Of equal importance is the concern that cultural district certification will exert increased pressure on cultural centers, leading to even more rapid gentrification and corresponding displacement.
This mirrors the fact that one of the most urgent needs or benefits is access to comprehensive information on land- use controls
6 and other ways of preserving existing ‘organic’ cultural
6 See glossary, appendix 1
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
districts. Another key issue across the board is how to ensure that artists and other creatives, who traditionally are the engines of cultural district creation, benefit from the increased attention and resources flowing to certified districts.
3. Strong and complex demand for the program calls for a two-year pilot approach including an opportunity for program co-design with intended beneficiaries.
The anticipation initially expressed after the legislation’s adoption in late 2015, when the CAC received inquiries from over 400 individuals and organizations, has been confirmed by extensive participation in this initial planning process by people throughout the state. There is tremendous interest on the part of artists, cultural organizations , and local government in the prospect of certification as a state cultural district. The CAC can most likely anticipate a correspondingly large volume of applications, depending on the requirements articulated for certification, and that the initial application process and first group of certified districts will be subject to considerable attention and scrutiny. A pilot program, one that engages a select group of district participants in a well- documented refinement of the certification process and associated requirements, will help to ensure the success of the program over the long- term. By engaging artists, arts organizations, community developers, the business community, and local government representatives in a transparent, community engaged design 7 process, the CAC
and the state can benefit from the collective insight of a wide cros s-section of disciplines and approaches.
V. RECOMMENDED INITIAL CAC APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION
The following are key recommended elements for CAC’s approach to the cultural districts program.
1. An accessible certificatio n process, refined through a two -year pilot, will be the core of this important new state initiative.
The cultural district certification process, managed by the CAC, will be the core of California’s new cultural district initiative . It will start with a two -year pilot in which a small (10 to 15) representative cohort will actively participate in shaping the final certification process and related benefits and services. This initial group will be selected through an open application process, and will play a critical role in ensuring, through t heir feedback and experience, that the full program, once launched, is accessible and supportive. And that it works for various types of cultural centers, in a wide variety of urban, suburban and rural settings.
The district typology that is recommended includes the general categories in the table below. It is important to note that in regard to the cultural focus, it is likely that many districts will include
7 See glossary, appendix 1
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
aspects of each, but will none the less have a higher concentration of one of the three. Districts will be asked to identify according to this broad typology. So, for example, a district might be rural, focused on cultural consumption and established, etc.
CONTEXT FOCUS LIFE-CYCLE
urban cultural production emerging
suburban cultural consumption mid-point
rural cultural heritage established
The pilot cohort will help shape the final cultural district certification process and as such it is vitally important that they collectively represent all of the possibilities listed above and also include districts with a range of partnership approaches and goals.
Ideally, in order to structure and document the feedback of the pilot cohort to shape the final certification process, it is recommended that the CAC allocate resources to hire a developmental evaluation
8 team that can work with the CAC and the initial cohort throughout the two-year pilot.
It is recommended that this pilot cohort of certified cultural districts receive an array of benefits as part of the process that could include the following. • Official state certification – each district will enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the CAC certifying state designation as a cultural district for a period of five years and granting the district the right to use the state cultural district brand in its marketing
• Branding materials – including the state cultural district logo, as well signage and banner templates
• Technical assistance - including at a minimum an annual convening session, as well as peer to peer and other group learning opportunities given available resources • Joint marketing support – leveraging resources from state tourism partners • A s tipend – recommended at $5,000 per district per year, to be used to support participation in the developmental evaluation process that will lead to the refinement of the design of the cultural districts program
• Participation in developmental evaluation – the pilot cohort will receive support from the consulting team conducting the developmental evaluation of the cultural districts program, including at a minimum one site visit per year
2. D evelopment of a funding stream will be critical to the long- term success of the cultural districts initiative, and ultimately to the state’s ability to effectively leverage California’s extensive diverse cultural resources.
8 See glossary, appendix 1
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
Many of the cultural districts programs throughout the country provide grants to support the work of the districts, in addition to access to other resources, such as tax incentives, re gulatory assistance, and other forms of support . Each state is providing the support through different methods and sources. Massachusetts and Colorado have particularly large grant programs, in Colorado’s case funded through a partnership with a private foundation. In some cases, such as in Texas, certification makes the entity eligible to apply for grants . Maryland and Louisiana focused primarily on tax incentives. Although there are many benefits that the CAC can confer working within existing resources and by partnering with other state agencies, over time one or more funding stream will need to be identified and cultivated for the cultural districts initiative to reach its full potential.
3. Development of a comprehensive resource center is key to California’s ability to foster a wide range of authentic sustainable cultural districts.
For the cultural districts initiative to be able to properly serve a state as complex as California, with its breadth and diversity, a nd its corresponding varied needs, the CAC will need to foster a clear understanding of the many different approaches to cultivating and managing diverse types of cultural district s. This can be achieved through the development of a comprehensive resource center, complete with a resident expert staff person, to complement the certification program. This on-line repository of knowledge will be marketed and made available to all interested parties, from diverse policy sectors.
Development of this resource is particularly critical since each cultural district will need to assemble a different group of tools and solutions to achieve its goals, from artist retention to heritage preservation or cultural development. Many of the mechanisms for impacting land use, as well as the development incentives available to foster or preserve concentrations of cultural resources, need to be initiated at the local level. By making available select models and best- practices, along with a compilation of existing land use tools, financial and regulatory incentives, and other information on the development and management of cultural districts, the CAC will be able to support a thoughtful and varied approach to cultural districts throughout the state, one that encourages an organic, locally focused , approach to cultivating and preserving cultural assets. The on-line resources will be complemented by a program , or programs, to facilitate peer to peer learning, such as convening and regional networks.
The documents listed in the bibliography, along with the resources referenced in the glossary can provide an excellent starting point for the resource center. In addition, several states that have cultural district programs have extensive on- line resources. It is recommended that the CAC explore partnering with a university or other educational institution, to develop the full content of the on-line resource center.
The pilot cohort will also play a role by providing a constructive critique of initial resources and by sharing additional models and tools that work in their community . The resource center will
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
also play a critical role in supporting places and organizations that are interested in becoming certified, but are just beginning to coalesce.
4. Additional c onsiderations for the CAC as it embarks on implementing the new legislation, in partnership with other state departments, the cultural community and the private sector.
a. T o ensure that this new program reaches its full potential, it is recommended the CAC dedicate staff to the initiative that can develop the agency’s knowledge and expertise in this complex, multi-disciplinary area and take an entrepreneurial approach to partnership development. As the p rogram grows, the associated time requirements could quickly translate to a full -time staff person or equivalent. In addition, the agency will need to identify resources to work with the initial cohort on the two-year pilot.
b. The critical role partnerships play in effective cross -sectoral work emerged as primary theme in the research, at all levels , local, regional and state; and as such, partnership development will be a critical component of this initiative. The CAC has played an important leadership role over the last few years in developing new programmatic partnerships that foster greater engagement and understanding of the value of the arts within government as well as the private sector. The Arts in Corrections partnership with the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation ( CDCR) is an excellent example of this approach. Staff ha s begun to cultivate partnerships for the cultural districts initiative, forging official strategic partnerships with Visit California and the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) which will provide increased visibility and marketing support for the pilot cohort, and improved understanding and access to Caltrans resources for cultural district events and for local identifiers such as public art or signage, respectively. Given the overlap between the missions of the following agencies and cultural districts, the Office of Historic Preservation, the Office for Business and Economic Development, and the D epartment of Housing and Community Development all offer substantial opportunities for partnership in implementing the cultural districts initiative.
c. One of the potential sources of a funding stream for the cultural districts initiative is a partnership with a foundation, or a coalition of foundations , interested in developing stronger, more livable communities . For the last several years, particularly at the national level, there has been a revival of interest in cross-sectoral, comprehensive, place-based strategies to revive disinvested neighborhoods and communities.
Alongside this revival of interest has been a heightened interest in the roles of art, culture and heritage as a driving element of community revitalization. This is evident in funding programs focused on creative placemaking
9 and, relatedly, a growing interest in
community engaged design. Understanding the possible intersections between cultural districts and these funding and community development impulses is crucial.
9 See glossary, appendix 1
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
d. Economic incentives for the development of cultural resources, along with regulatory or land-use tools that can be used to preserve existing cultural centers are two of the most eagerly anticipated benefits of this initiative. While many of these will need to be cultivated and implemented at the local level, the CAC could potentially encourage their adoption by making them a requirement of state certification and encouraging the involvement of community development and urban planning fields in the cultural district development work. Tools that may prove to be beneficial to cultural district development may include business improvement districts
10 , land trusts, community benefit
agreements, rent stabilization tactics, small business development programs, and a host of other tactics and tools frequently used by community developers and urban planners.
There is also an opportunity to collaborate with planners and community developers to create and experiment with new tools that do not readily exist. This includes the possibility of a cultural impact assessment potentially aligned or embedded with widely practiced environmental impact assessment processes -- possibly as a component of the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for example.
VI. P ROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INITIAL APPLICANTS
Applications for the pilot cohort will be solicited in early 2017 with the goal of selecting a small group of districts that represent the many possible manifestations of cultural districts present in California. At a minimum the cohort should include districts from urban and rural locations, as well as districts with an emphasis on cultural consumption, cultural production and cultural heritage. A framework for that selection process is attached in appendix 4, with key requirements highlighted below.
Only partnerships will be eligible to apply, ones that include, at a minimum, a cultural non-profit or artist collective, a local business or business association, and a branch of local government and/or a community development corporation. The majority of organizations in the partnership must be located in the district. In addition, to be eligible to apply, the cultural district must have at a minimum completed a preliminary cultural asset survey or inventory , as outlined in
appendix 7.
Ensuring that all parties have a good understanding of the full array of cultural assets present in the district will be critical to its long-term success. A comprehensive approach to cultural assets helps to ensure authenticity and the preservation of homegrown assets, both of which were indicators of a successful district based on the research. These were also areas of particular concern for the public based on the comments and survey.
10 See glossary, appendix 1
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
The application and review process will have three steps, including an open call for initial letters of interest, site visits for semi -finalists, and an invited finalist application. A multi- disciplinary and multi-sector selection panel, along with representatives from other state agencies that are partnering on the initiative, will review each phase and select the pilot cohort.
VII. RECOMMENDED TIMELINE AND BUDGET FOR THE PILOT
The application and selection process for the pilot cohort could be implemented over approximately six months if adequate staff and financial resources are available. Proposed key milestones include the following:
• January 2017
o Issue notice of opportunity for the pilot cohort and request letters of interest (open for 8 weeks)
o Issue an RFP for developmental evaluation consultant(s) to support the pilot process
• February 2017
o Conduct application/LOI webinar
o Develop lists of potential panelists
• March 2017
o Letters of interest due to the CAC
o Appoint panel
o Select developmental evaluation team
o Publish guidelines for the final application
o Identify site visitors and finalize site visit protocol • April/May 2017
o Panel selects semi-finalists (late April)
o Conduct site visits for semi-finalists
• May 2017
o Notify finalists, finalist application period opens
• June/July 2017
o Final applications due (allow a minimum of 30 days from notification) o Panel selects pilot cohort
In order to execute the pilot program as recommended, including stipends for the cohort, two annual convening sessions, and the extensive participation of a developmental assessment team, the CAC will need to identify between $150,000 and $175,000 per year for the two year period, in addition to dedicating a substantial amount of staff time.
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
VIII. CONCLUSION
With the adoption of AB 189, the state legislature put in place an important new tool for the development, support , and preservation of California’s extensive and diverse cultural assets.
Implementing the program will require a carefully tailored approach, one that harnesses the creative energy of the many individuals and organizations working in the field, and considers the unique circumstances of California.
As stated earlier in this report, the recommendations for the program’s structure and the selection of the initial group of designated districts are based on research, best practices, and public input regarding the divergent needs of individuals, organizations , and communities throughout the state. Working with a select group of intended beneficiaries to refine these recommendations as they are put into practice offers an exciting opportunity to innovate and craft a program that is truly responsive to, and reflective of, the breadth and complexity of the state. In implementing these recommendations, the CAC has the potential to build a new set of resources and partnerships that will complement the work it and other state agencies are doing to support thriving communities throughout the state.
FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER, 2016
LIST OF APPENDICES:
1. Glossary of terms
2. Selection framework for the pilot cohort
3. Template for preliminary cultural asset inventory
4. List of interviews
5. Interview protocol
6. Summary analysis of survey responses
7. Strategic Partnership Details (Visit California and Caltrans)
8. Bibliography
California Cultural Districts Appendix 1
CALIFORNIA
CULTURAL DISTRICTS
APPENDIX 1
GLOSSARY
Business improvement district (BID) - A defined area within which businesses pay an additional tax or fee in order to fund improvements within the district's boundaries. An example of a business improvement district with a cultural and historic focus is the new Central Avenue Historic District BID in Los Angeles http://www.centralavenuehistoricdistrict.org/
Community engaged design, as defined by the Surdna Foundation, one of the leading funders of the approach, is when community members contribute to decisions, policies and projects that impact their lives. We believe that artists, architects, and designers can play an important role in translating community values into design solutions that will benefit the communities where they live and work. Although most often used in reference to the design of physical resources, it also applies to policies and programs.
For additional information on community engaged design please see this site funded by the Surdna Foundation http://communityengageddesign.org/about-us/
Creative placemaking, as defined by the National Endowment for the Arts is when artists, arts organizations, and community development practitioners deliberately integrate arts and culture into community revitalization work - placing arts at the table with land-use, transportation, economic development, education, housing, infrastructure, and public safety strategies.
For additional information on creative placemaking please see ArtPlace America http://www.artplaceamerica.org and the Our Town Program at the National Endowment for the Arts https://www.arts.gov/grants-organizations/our-town/introduction.
Cultural asset inventory is a compilation of the people, places, organizations, and events that contribute to the history and culture of a neighborhood or district. It can take many forms including a list, a database or a map. Communities throughout the country, and throughout the world, are finding it to be a valuable tool in understanding the unique qualities that they value in a place. In California, the Alliance for Traditional Culture (ACTA) recently completed a ‘cultural treasures’ inventory for four communities.
For additional information on cultural asset inventories or mapping please see ACTA, http://www.actaonline.org/content/building-healthy-communities-cultural-treasures or the
California Cultural Districts Appendix 1
examples available on the National Endowment for the Arts website at https://www.arts.gov/exploring-our-town/showcase/type/Asset-Mapping or the comprehensive Australian site http://camra.culturemap.org.au/. Two useful handbooks on cultural asset mapping are available at the following links: one from Ontario Municipal Cultural Planning http://www.ontariomcp.ca/toolkits/CulturalResourceMapping_digital.pdf and from the Creative City Network of Canada https://www.creativecity.ca/publications/ccnc-toolkits.php
Cultural district is generally understood as a well-defined geographic area with a high concentration of cultural resources and activities. In AB 189, the legislation that establishes cultural districts in California, the following inclusive language is used to describe districts and the purposes they serve: “state-designated cultural district” means a geographical area certified pursuant to this chapter with a concentration of cultural facilities, creative enterprises, or arts venues that does any of the following:
(1) Attracts artists, creative entrepreneurs, and cultural enterprises. (2) Encourages economic development and supports entrepreneurship in the creative community.
(3) Encourages the preservation and reuse of historic buildings and other artistic and culturally significant structures.
(4) Fosters local cultural development.
(5) Provides a focal point for celebrating and strengthening the unique cultural identity of the community.
(6) Promotes opportunity without generating displacement or expanding inequality.
General information on cultural districts is available from Americans for the Arts at http://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-data/toolkits/national-cultural- districts-exchange-toolkit
Examples of cultural districts are available on the National Endowment for the Arts website at https://www.arts.gov/exploring-our-town/showcase/type/Cultural-District-Planning
Developmental evaluation is an emerging approach to evaluating complex processes that was pioneered by Michael Quinn Patton, and is considered to be particularly applicable to situations where a funder is developing and testing its strategies while it proceeds with a project or program. It is intended to combine the rigor of evaluation with the flexibility required for a project still in development.
Two publications on developmental evaluation are available from the JW McConnell Family Foundation here:
http://www.mcconnellfoundation.ca/assets/Media%20Library/Publications/A%20Developmental %20Evaluation%20Primer%20-%20EN.pdf
http://mcconnellfoundation.ca/assets/Media%20Library/Publications/DE%20201%20EN.pdf
California Cultural Districts Appendix 1
Land-use tools are multiple and varied, with the most common being land-use restrictions generally accomplished through zoning. Various articles on land-use written for non-planners are available here at Planners Web http://plannersweb.com/topics/basic-tools/zoning-land-use- regulations/. A primer on land-use in California is available through the Office of Planning and Research https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/StrategiesforSustainableCommunities.pdf
Technical assistance (TA) is the process of providing the expertise needed to an individual or organization in order to assist with a specific issue or to promote greater capacity within the organization. Some of the most common ways of providing technical assistance include one- on-one consultation, peer to peer learning, or through an on-line information resource. A resource for technical assistance in California is the Center for Non-Profit Management https://cnmsocal.org/
Types of cultural districts - this report proposes a basic typology for cultural districts in California, including geographic context (urban, suburban, & rural), focus (consumption, production, heritage) as well as where the district is in a life-cycle (emerging, mid-point & established).
• Cultural consumption district means a district that emphasizes experiencing art, with a concentration of venues and facilities where the public can go and have a range of art experiences. An example might be a theater district.
• Cultural production district means a district that emphasizes the creation of art, craft, and other creative products, with a concentration of artist studios, creative workplaces, and other assets focused on production. An example might be an artist studio district. • Cultural heritage district means a district that focuses on a particular culture, tradition or history. An example might be a Chinatown district or a downtown historic district. • Emerging means a district that is just forming or has been in existence, as a partnership or management structure with staff and programming, for less than five years. • Established means a district that has been in existence with a management structure, staff, and programming for more than ten years.
• Mid-point means a district, with a management structure, staff, and programming, that has been in existence for between five to ten years
California Cultural Districts Appendix 2
CALIFORNIA
CULTURAL DISTRICTS
APPENDIX 2
RECOMMENDED SELECTION FRAMEWORK
FOR THE PILOT COHORT
The California Arts Council’s (CAC) Cultural Districts program will assist Californians in leveraging the state’s considerable assets in the areas of culture, creativity, and diversity, as initially set out in the enabling legislation,
AB 189. A cultural district is generally understood as a well-defined geographic area with a high concentration of cultural resources and activities.
California’s cultural districts initiative offers an opportunity to create a program that is tailored to the nature and circumstances of a large, populous, and diverse state. It is recommended that the program be built around three major components: 1) certification, 2) funding, and 3) a resource center, which will be put in place over time. In addition, because of the tremendous interest in cultural districts, and the complexity of tailoring a program to adequately support the full range of types of cultural centers throughout the state, the consultants propose that the program be initiated via a two- year long pilot, where a select cohort of designated districts actively engage in refining the final design of the program.
An initial cohort of ten to fifteen districts will be selected through an open application process.
Applications will be solicited in early 2017 with the goal of identifying a small well rounded group of communities that are diverse in make- up, geography and purpose, and that represent the many possible manifestations of cultural districts present in California.
The typology of districts envisioned is discussed in the overall report, and is based on a flexible matrix that includes the following.
CONTEXT FOCUS LIFE-CYCLE
urban cultural production emerging
suburban cultural consumption mid-point
rural cultural heritage established
So, for example, a district might be rural, focused on cultural consumption and established, etc.
At a minimum the cohort should include representatives of each of these types.
California Cultural Districts Appendix 2
A. RECOMMENDED ELEMENTS OF THE APPLICATION AND SELECTION PROCESS The selection of the initial pilot cohort will take place through a three phase process, starting with an open call to all interested communities to submit a letter of interest (LOI). A panel will review the initial submittals and select a group of semi -finalists who will receive site visits. Findings from the site visits will be reviewed and a group of finalists will be invited to submit a full application.
At each stage of the process, applicants will be grouped by type, and each group will be reviewed separately to help ensure adequate representation of all types of cultural districts in the pilot cohort and to help ensure a fair and equitable review of all applications . The following are recommendations for the selection process and review criteria that will need to be operationalized by CAC staff in keeping with existing applicable CAC processes, criteria, and conventions.
The application materials and process are envisioned as the first step in technical assistance and will be developed accordingly, with the goal of cultivating widespread understanding of the potential benefits of cultural districts, and the tools associated with the designation, at the local and the state level. For example, the g uidelines for the LOI could provide examples of the types of resources each partner might bring to the table in the final application, which would help applicants in both planning and negotiating a final partnership.
B. MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY
The following are recommended as the minimum requirements that would need to be met for groups to be eligible to apply for cultural district certification during this pilot round. • Only partnerships will be eligible to apply
o At a minimum the partnership must include a cultural non- profit or artist collective, a local business or business association, and a branch of local government
o The partnership needs to be formalized, including formal acknowledgement by the local government partner through a letter or resolution by the time of final application.
o L ocal community development corporations (CDCs) can serve as a partner in lieu of government, which could be particularly important in low -income neighborhoods and traditional ethnic heritage communities • The majority of organizations in the partnership must have offices or facilities or conduct a majority of the organization’s programming within the area seeking designation as a district.
• There will be two tracks within the certification process, urban and rural, with different eligibility requirements in regards to geographic boundaries. o Urban cultural districts are generally expected to be a contiguous geographic area that is walkable.
California Cultural Districts Appendix 2
o Rural districts do not need to be walkable or even contiguous, but will need to make the case for how the participating areas/entities are complementary and synergistic
• C
ompletion o
f a preliminary cultural asset inventory by the time of the final application. A template will be provided for applicants who have not yet undertaken this process.
o Ensuring that all parties have a good understanding of the full array of cultural assets present in the district will be critical to its long -term success. A comprehensive approach to cultural assets helps to ensure authenticity and the preservation of homegrown assets, both of which were indicators of a successful district based on the research, including extensive public input.
C. ACCESS
The staff at the CAC will work to include in the process as broad a cross -section of places and groups as possible, including those that may not initially appear to have the administrative capacity or the structure to apply, in an effort to ensure that the pilot cohort is ultimately as representative of the state as possible. Staff will work with partner organizations throughout the state to notify groups of this opportunity and will provide application support to all interested parties via email and phone and via an online webinar.
It is envisi oned that designated staff at the CAC will be available by phone to discuss the application process, to clarify requirements and to direct potential applicants to resources on cultural districts. In addition the CAC will encourage nascent cultural districts to utilize available resources materials and to apply for professional development gran ts that could support the development of the district for future open applications.
D. APPLICATION
As previously stated, the application process will unfold in three phases, with each phase designed to solicit the information necessary to identify an inclusive and diverse pilot cohort.
1. Letter of Interest (LOI)
The letter of inter est phase will be open to all communities interested in receiving state certification in the first round of the program, and in participating in the pilot cohort by helping the CAC finalize the cultural districts initiative. Applicants will be asked to provide the following information for consideration. In addition, applicants will need to provide three letters of support from individual community members or artists located in the proposed district beyond the participating partners . Applicants will also be required to submit a completed eligibility checklist. • Who are the partners applying for cultural district designation?
California Cultural Districts Appendix 2
o Briefly describe each of the participating entities and the role each plays in the proposed district
• W here is this place?
o Provide the location and c ontext – including basic d em ographic and
socio-economic statistics (SES), as well as a map indicating the boundaries of the proposed district
• Where is the district in its lifecycle? Is it established, emerging, or some other point? If other, please describe.
• What is the primary focus or emphasis of the district: cultural production, cultural consumption or cultural heritage?
o W hat makes the district distinct and sets it apart?
o What facilities, activities, events, and history shape the district? • How is this place used by the community currently?
• How will existing residents and uses benefit from the establishment of a district?
• Do the boundaries of the district overlap with other districts or designations? o Such as a city designated cultural district or heritage district, Business Improvement District, Main Street, Promise Zone, etc.
• What types of public infrastructure and amenities, such as public transportation, parks, or plazas, support the district? • Are there municipal or development plans in place or in process that affect the district? If yes, please describe.
o Such as a general plan, specific plan, transportation plan, cultural plan, etc.
• What types of spac e for artists, arts organizations, and cultural activities are currently present in the district? If there is the potential or plans for additional space, please describe as well.
o Such as affordable housing (rental or purchase), studio and performance space; theaters, modular open spaces, live/work space, etc.
• What are the key issues and opportunities facing the district? And what do you seek to achieve with the cultural district designation? For example: Is displacement of artists a current community concern? If so, how will the proposed district address this concern?
2. Semi-Finalist Selection and Site Visits
The panel will review the letters of interest, grouped by type , and select a representative group of approximately 30 semi -finalists to receive site visit s. The primary purpose of the site visits will be to meet with the applicants and confirm the information provided in the LOI and provide additional insights to the panel during the final application review process. It is envisioned that a majority of the semi -finalists will be invited to submit full applications unless substantial discrepancies are encountered.
California Cultural Districts Appendix 2
At the time of selection sem i-finalists will be r
eminded that all finalists will be required
to submit a basic cultural asset inventory, completed within the last three years, as a part of the final application. The CAC will develop and make available a simple methodology for completing an initial cultural asset inventory that will help ensure that districts have a good understanding of the array of authentic cultural resources shaping the district, from places and organizations to people, history and events.
Site visits will be conducted by CAC staff, panelis ts, or contractors depending on which option proves to be the most feasible depending on the available resources and timeline. Site visits will adhere to the following general protocol.
Site visitors will be assigned a group of applications and will:
o Read the assigned applications and conduct due diligence, including review of select independent sources of information
o Contact the applicants to set up a tour and interviews with the partners as well as other stakeholders or residents of the district o Conduct a physical tour the proposed district and develop a written and photographic description of the place designed to ascertain the concentration of cultural resources and the physical qualities of the place o Conduct interviews with each of the partners using a standard list of questions designed to ascertain the commitment of the partners to the project and the capacity of the professionals participating in process o Meet with additional stakeholders, including the authors of letters of support designed to ascertain community buy -in for the process and authenticity of proposed district goals and leadership
o Complete a site visit report form
Staff will convene all of the site visit ors to discuss the findings and identify the participants who will be invited to submit full applications.
3. Full Application
A diverse group of fi nalists will be invited to submit full applications . The CAC will utilize the same application for all, and will include an introductory section designed to allow the applicant to define the nature of the proposed district, i.e. established or emerging, urban or rural, etc . The first section of the application will include a majority of the questions from the LOI, giving the finalists the opportunity to update or revise the original responses.
In addition, finalists will be asked to provide the following information:
• What are the intended outcomes for the district over the first five-year certification period? How will the outcomes be measured? • What specifically will the district accomplish in year one? In year two?
California Cultural Districts Appendix 2
o Such as programs, festivals, facility development, artist housing, planning or marketing initiative, fundraising, etc.
• W hat is the district’s budget for the first two years? • D
escribe what resources each entity bring s to the partnership and how they align with the issues and opportunities facing the district? • What are the roles and responsibilities of staff, volunteers, and partners organizations in planning and managing district activities? • Do you intend to collaborate with additional district stakeholders beyond the core partners? If so, please describe.
• Will the proposed cultural district impact the affordability of real -estate for current residents and stakeholders? Please explain.
• How will the applicant work to help maintain current residents and uses? • If changes in residents and uses are envisioned, please explain how the applicant will work to avoid displacement or other negative impacts.
E. REVIEW
Applications for t he pilot cohort will be evaluated based on the requirements and criteria articulated below at each phase of the selection process, as applicable. The overarching goal will be to identify a cohort that is representative of the state in order to demonstrate the potential of the cultural district program to positively impact diverse neighborhoods, cities, and regions throughout California. The pilot cohort will help shape the final cultural district certification process and as such it is vitally important that they collectively represent rural, urban and suburban areas; districts that are emerging and established; districts with a focus on cultural production, cultural consumption, and cultural heritage; and also include districts with a range of partnership approaches and goals.
1. Criteria
In evaluating each applicant the panel will consider the nature of the proposed cultural district, and the following aspects of the applicant’s engagement i n the promotion, preservation, and interpretation of the arts and culture of the district , as illustrated in the application and supporting materials:
• Presence of a high concentration of artistic, cultural, heritage, or entertainment resources
• Clear articulation of the following elements:
o Vision for the district
o Measurable goals and defined evaluation measures
o Achievable objectives for each of the first two years o Defined management budget with associated income and expenses • Quality, diversity, and commitments of participating partners • Degree to which the partners reflect the broader community • Demonstrated authentic community engagement from a broad and representative array of stakeholders
• Presence of clearly defined leadership
California Cultural Districts Appendix 2
• Presence of professional personnel dedicated (full or part-time) to district operations and programming
• A nticipated impact of designation
2. Review Panel
The CAC will appoint a panel of qualified professionals to evaluate the applications and to select the pilot cohort. In addition to cultural and geographic diversity, the panel will include representatives from different disciplines and sectors whose expertise reflects the varied fields and skills relevant to development of successful cultural districts, from the arts, to cultural heritage and community development. The same panel will serve throughout the selection of the first cohort, from LOI to final application. Ideally the panel will also include representat ives from other California departments and agencies, at a minimum those who are partnering with CAC on the program.
F. RECOMMENDED TIMELINE
The application and selection process could be implemented over approximately six months if adequate staff and financial resources are available. Proposed key milestones include the following:
• January 2017
o Issue notice of opportunity for the pilot cohort and request letters of interest (open for 8 weeks)
o Issue an RFP for developmental evaluation consultant(s) to support the pilot process
• February 2017
o Conduct application/LOI webinar
o Develop lists of potential panelists
• March 2017
o Letters of interest due to the CAC
o Appoint panel
o Select developmental evaluation team
o Publish guidelines for the final application
o Identify site visitors and finalize site visit protocol • April/May 2017
o Panel selects semi-finalists (late April)
o Conduct site visits for semi-finalists
• May 2017
o Notify finalists, finalist application period opens
• June/July 2017
o Final applications due (allow a minimum of 30 days from notification) o Panel selects pilot cohort
CALIFORNIA
CULTURAL DISTRICTS
APPENDIX 3
COMMUNITY CULTURAL ASSET INVENTORY
Background, Instructions, and Template
What is a Cultural Asset? P
rofessor Ross Gibson, Sydney College of the Arts
In every community that manages to sustain or revive itself over time, there are cultural factors that contribute to the vitality and robustness of the people living there. These factors are shared and creative, which is to say they are cultural and they are assets that make life valuable, that make life worth living. These cultural assets can be material, immaterial, emotional, or even spiritual. They can be 'solid' things like concert halls, galleries, gardens, parklands and stadiums. They can be special tracts of the natural environment which encourage particular types of cultural activities.
Or the climate itself might be a cultural asset if it encourages special kinds of creative and communal activities that bind people together in a place over time. Stories too might be cultural assets if they are attached to particular peoples and places if they are powerful enough to encourage people to care about and care for their place. In these stories, values can circulate, and special memories often reside in particular locations mentioned in the tales. Thus the places mentioned in the stories can be regarded as cultural assets if people tell of these places and visit them regularly and develop regular practices or rituals or ceremonies to care for them. http://camra.culturemap.org.au/page/what-cultural-asset BACKGROUND:
One of the best ways to document the density of cultural resources and activities in an area is to undertake the development of a cultural asset inventory; one that goes beyond just cultural organizations and facilities, and is inclusive of the many diverse contributing elements that make for a vibrant cultural center. A cultural asset inventory can take many forms, from a simple list, to a database or interactive map. In this case the product will be a categorized list, with location and notes sections (see attached template).
Ensuring that all parties have a good understanding of the full array of cultural assets present in the district will be critical to its long-term success. A comprehensive approach to cultural assets helps to ensure authenticity and the preservation of homegrown assets, both of which were indicators of a successful district based on the research conducted to develop this program.
HOW TO COMPLETE THE TEMPLATE:
Conduct an outreach process to engage members of the community in identifying cultural assets, through an in-person convening, as well an on-line survey, with the results of both being used to populate your list.
Prepare a list of questions for the survey, and to be used as prompts for the meeting. Possible questions include:
• W hat contributes to the community’s cultural identity? • Who are the people and organizations that help shape it? • What places and events give the community its character? • How does the history of the neighborhood contribute to the community’s cultural identity?
• Who are the creative people in the community?
• Where are the places pe
ople go to have a cultural experience, of any form?
• What organizations in the community are contributing to the arts and culture? In what ways?
Be inclusive. Reach out as broadly as possible and try and identify partners who will help you reach beyond your organization’s usual audience.
Be open to a variety of perspectives. Encourage participants to think broadly about what is important to document and include in the inventory. Include at a minimum the categories in the template, and expand the categories as needed to reflect community perspectives and priorities.
Be sensitive to potential barriers to participation, such as language. Make sure all materials are available in the primary alternate language used in the community, in addition to English. In addition, make sure to include native speakers as translators at the convening.
Additional information about cultural asset inventories or mapping is available through the Alliance of California Traditional Cultures (ACTA)
http://www.actaonline.org/content/building-
healthy-communities-cultural-treasures or the examples available on the National Endowment for the Arts website at https://www.arts.gov/exploring-our-town/showcase/type/Asset-Mapping The Artscape website also has a useful toolkit at http://www.artscapediy.org/Creative- Placemaking-Toolbox/Who-Are-My-Stakeholders-and-How-Do-I-Engage-Them/An-Introduction- to-Cultural-Asset-Mapping.aspx
DRAFT: Cultural Asset Inventory Worksheet
Applicants should use as many pages as necessary.
District Name:
Applicant Partners:
DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMUNITY PROCESS:
CATEGORY ASSETS LOCATION NOTES/ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
1. PEOPLE
2. PLACES
3. ORGANIZATIONS
4. EVENTS
a. Historic
b. Current
5. ADDITIONAL
CATEGORIES
California Cultural Districts Appendix 4
CALIFORNIA
CULTURAL DISTRICTS
APPENDIX 4
INTERVIEW LIST
As part of the research process the consultants conducted a number of one on one and group interviews with local and national thought leaders in a variety of disciplines to gather information for the California Cultural Districts initiative.
First Last Affiliation
Larry Baza Chair, San Diego Arts Commission
Marybel Batjer Secretary, Government Operations Agency, State of California
Ryan Becker Vice President, Communications, Visit CA
Roberto Bedoya City of Oakland, Cultural Affairs
Caroline Beteta President, Visit, CA
Ben Caldwell Artist, Los Angeles
Ada Chan Project Manager, SoMa Pilipinas
Laura Cole-Rowe Executive Director, CA Main Street Alliance Teri Deaver Vice President, Consulting & Strategic Partnerships, Artspace
Juan Devis Chief Creative Officer, KCET
Sherri Franklin Central Avenue Historic District
Kathy Gallegos ED, Avenue 50 Studios
Margaret Hunt Director, California Creative Industries Amanda J. Ashley Assistant Professor, Community and Regional Planning, Boise State University
Shannon Jackson Associate Vice Chancellor for Arts & Design, UC Berkeley Kelley Kahn Special Projects Director, City of Oakland
Amy Kitchener Executive Director, Alliance for California Traditional Arts Kelley Lindquist President, Artspace
Libby Maynard Executive Director, Ink People Center for the Arts Lynne McCormack Director of Creative Placemaking, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)
Steven Oliver Oliver and Company
Armando Pena Armando Pena and Associates
Peter Shapiro Executive Director, Revenue Authority of Prince George's County
Keith Robinson Principal Landscape Architect, Division of Design, Caltrans
Jason Shupbach Director of Design Programs, National Endowment for the Arts
Will Shuck Deputy Director, External Affairs, Caltrans
Nicole Winger Deputy Controller for Public Affairs, Office of State Controller, State of California
Kristin Zaremba City of Oakland, Public Art
California Cultural Districts Appendix 5
CALIFORNIA
CULTURAL DISTRICTS
APPENDIX 5
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Core Questions
• When you think of “cultural districts,” what comes to mind for you? • Are there any cultural districts that you know of that you think are particularly successful? Please describe any examples. Why do you think these are successful? • What are benefits of cultural districts? For whom?
• What are shortcomings of cultural districts? For whom? • Do you know of funding mechanisms for cultural districts? Other supports? • Do you personally have any experience in planning or developing a cultural district? • Who else do you think we should talk with about cultural districts?
Supplemental Questions Group 1
• What do you hope a cultural district program accomplishes? Do you have any concerns about a cultural districts program? Please discuss. • Whose involvement is essential to the success of this program? Why? • Who, if anyone, do you anticipate, would oppose it? Why?
Supplemental Questions Group 2
• How does/has the concept of cultural districts connect(ed) to your national work? • As it stands now, are cultural districts a significant factor in what you do? If so, how? Why?
• Are you aware of any discussions or debates focused on cultural districts? If so, please describe.
Supplemental Questions Group 3
• Could you envision cultural districts serving as a tool for community development? If so, how? If not, why not?
• Do you have any concerns about cultural districts in relation to displacement of vulnerable populations?
• Do you have any insights about how zoning and codes foster or impede cultural districts?
California Cultural Districts Appendix 6
CALIFORNIA
CULTURAL DISTRICTS
APPENDIX 6
CULTURAL ARTS DISTRICT SURVEY RESPONSES
ANALYSIS NOTES
Q1. In what Zip code are you located?
• 326 respondents
• The respondents are evenly represented across geographic areas. o 11% or 37 respondents are from “True North” zip codes including Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, Eureka, Humboldt, Butte, Shasta, Tehama, Siskiyou Counties. o 18% or 59 respondents are from “Central Valley” zip codes including Sacramento, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Fresno, Kern, Tulare and Yolo Counties. o 13% or 42 respondents are from a “San Diego region” zip codes including San Diego County.
o 21% or 70 respondents are from “Bay Area” zip codes including San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin Counties. o 16% or 51 respondents are from “Los Angeles area” zip codes including Los Angeles Counties.
o 21% or 67 respondents are from “other” zip codes which include San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Santa Cruz, Tuolumne, Mariposa and Placer and El Dorado Counties.
Q2. Please select the category that best describes your point of view. • The majority of the 326 respondents (197) describe themselves as either Artists/Creative Entrepreneurs or Arts Administrators.
• Very few respondents were developers or elected officials • Respondents describe their point of view as follows:
Artists/Creative Entrepreneurs 97
Arts Administrator 100
Business Owner 16
Community Activist 16
Cultural Tradition Bearer 14
Developer 2
Elected Official 4
Government Employee 22
Private Citizen 19
Other 36
Total 326
California Cultural Districts Appendix 6
• Other points of view were mostly related to arts administration and or arts sector and were described by respondents as follows:
o E xecutive Director of Downtown Los Angeles Art Walk
o Arts consultant
o Architecture Commissioner
o Teaching Artist/Multidisciplinary Artist
o Museum Employee
o owner of an arts marketing firm
o Museum of Earth Science and Paleontology
o Employee of a business
o Board member arts organization and business organization o Librarian
o m
useum professional - history museum
o Grant Writer
o Cultural tourism marketing
o Archivist
o Educator
o History Museum Director
o City of Selma. Theatre/Visual Arts/Murals, etc...
o Museums and Cultural Arts Commissioner
o Student
o Musician and Administrator of Non Profit Performing Art Space o President, Livermore Cultural Arts Council
o Educator/Art Critic
o Arts Educator/Arts Board Appointee
o An Executive Director of a nonprofit arts org and also a restaurant owner o Grassroots Filipino American Historian and Preservationist o Non profit theatre grant writer
o Art and jewelry maker
o Artist; Arts Admin; Business Owner; Private Citizen; Teaching Artist o Radio programmer
o Volunteer for countywide arts non-profit
o Private citizen, Business owner, artist , community activist o Arts Advocate
o Board Member Folsom Lake Community Concert Association o A rts org admin, arts biz owner, community arts activist EQUALLY! o Arts Consultant
o Community Radio Station Manager
Q3. Are you familiar with any Cultural Districts? Y/N
• 326 respondents
• Respondents did not indicate high familiarity with cultural districts. o 50% of respondents or 160 answered no.
California Cultural Districts Appendix 6
o 50% or 161 answered yes.
• Fam iliarity with cultural districts was equally spread across California regions.
Q4. If yes, please name.
Respondents provided a wide range of examples of cultural districts. The examples c lustered
within the following broad categories and indicate a varied interpretation of what is considered an “Arts District”.
The examples also reflect the respondents point of view, with the majority of the 326 respondents (60%) describing themselves as either Artists/Creative Entrepreneurs (97) or Arts Administrators (100).
1. Arts districts/Theatre districts (often downtown). Examples cited include Historic Theatre District-Seattle; Cleveland’s Arts District; Dallas Arts District; Eugene Gallery and Arts District; Downtown Portland; Downtown Los Angeles Arts District ; Broad Street Art and Cultural District-Richmond Virginia; Laurence, KS downtown cultural district; Noho Arts District; Portland Cultural District; San Pedro Water front Arts District; Wynwood-Arts District-Florida; Arts District, Portland Maine; Berkeley Theatre District; Downtown Riverside; Downtown Redlands; downtown San Diego; Downtown Santa Ana; Downtown Ventura; Downtown LA Eastside Arts District
2. Parks or outdoor/open spaces. Examples include Hutchins Street Square in Lodi-CA; Joshua Tree; Yerba Buena Garden; Balboa Park-San Diego; Barrio Logan, Chicano park;
3. Entire Cities/regions. Examples cited include Berkeley, CA; Boise; Chicago; Chula Vista; Culver City, CA; Davis; Denver; District of Beverly Hills; Escondido, CA; Idaho; Laguna Beach; Los Angeles; Long Beach; New Orleans; Boise; Grandville Island, Vancouver, BC; Laguna Beach; West Hollywood; Los Angeles County; San Francisco; New York; Monterey; Pasadena; Pittsburgh; Providence-RI; Massachusetts; Seattle; Redlands; Reno; San Rafael; Santa Ana; Santa Barbara; Santa Cruz; Santa Fe; Seattle; Sebastopol; Sonoma County; Washington DC; Oregon, Texas
4. Arts Organizations and their surrounding neighborhoods. Examples cited include Buffalo Arts Studio; Eugene Gallery and Arts District, Elk Grove Committee for Arts and Multicultural Committee; Elk Grove Fine Art Center; LA County Arts Council; Liberty Station Arts District; Lincoln Center-NYC; Music Center-Los Angeles; Los Angeles Dorothy Pavilion; Lodi Arts Commission; Los Angeles at MOCA, Geffen, Broad; Malonga Center for African Culture; Megijima Eco Arts, Miracle Mile LA Museum Row; Pilchuck Glass School; Regional Arts and Cultural Council-Portland/Vancouver; Riverside Mission Inn; Sacramento Arts Commission; Smac; SOFA; San Francisco War Memorial/Civic Centers
5. Historical ethnic neighborhoods. Examples cited include “Little Tokyo”; “Little Italy”; Leimert Park; Brooklyn; “Chinatown”; Chinatown-SF; Filipinotown-Los Angeles; Harlem; Barrio Logan-San Diego; San Jose Japantown; New Orleans French Quarter
California Cultural Districts Appendix 6
6. Other neighborhoods/ arts and cultural hubs: Arts and Entertainment district of H Street-NE Washington DC; Arts and entertainment district, Los Angeles Grand Avenue Corridor; Fruitvale Unity Village; Georgetown District in Seattle; Providence,RI; Creamery District, Arcata, CA; Arts District at Liberty Station; Midtown Atlanta; midtown San Francisco; Mission district-SF; Navy Pier Chicago; NE Minneapolis Riverfront; North Beach San Francisco, North Hollywood, North Park-SD; Chelsea, SoHo; East Austin; East Village; Pittsburgh Cultural District; Shell town San Diego; Short North-Columbus, Ohio; Temescal Neighborhood-Oakland; Wynwood -Florida; Uptown-Oakland; Willowbrook-LA County;
7. M ain Streets/Old Towns: Eureka Main Street; Old town S acramento, Old town New
Hall Cultural Districts; Old Town San Diego; Olvera Street-Los Angeles
Q5. What makes this cultural district successful?
Answers are clustered among the following key categories:
1. Accessibility- pedestrian friendly; easy access to public transportation
2. Geographic Concentration of diverse and “complimentary” institutions and cultural activity ( restaurants, galleries, museums, small independent retail shops, farmers market, outdoor venues/open space)
3. Public/Private partnerships/collaborations in support of arts, artists , and broad participation in arts and cultural activity including tax incentives, Cultural Arts Master plan, public art programming, place-making initiatives, open studio culturally events; art walk events)
4. Artist centric support institutions (affordable live work spaces, access to professional development,)
5. Unique/Iconic architecture/public art/built environment
6. Honoring/preserving historically/ significant hub/space
Q6. At best, what would be the benefits of cultural district designation? List up to three Features.
• 320 respondents.
• Overall, the listed benefits of cultural district were evenly spread across the 5 suggested categories.
Total Count Percent
Recognition 175 20%
Access to funding for district improvements 259 30%
Protection of pre-existing community assets 21%
Technical assistance with marketing resources 12%
Convening and connecting people involved in
cultural districts around the state 146 17%
California Cultural Districts Appendix 6
• Access to funding for district improvements received the most responses , followed by protecting of pre-existing community assets and Recognition. • T echnical assistance with marketing resources received the least responses.
Q6. Other
• “ Other” examples of benefits provided by respondents are clustered within the pr eviously
suggested 5 categories as well as the following three additional categories:
o Promoting Equity and Social Justice;
o Providing Opportunity for arts and cultural participation and connection with artists;
o Promoting economic development and growth via the arts.
Q. 6 Other Benefits Total Count
Recognition 5
Access to funding for district improvements 4
Protection of pre-existing community assets
Technical assistance with marketing resources
Convening and connecting people involved in cultural
districts around the state 9
Promoting Equity and Social Justice 11
Providing Opportunity for arts and cultural
participation and connection with artists 10
Promoting economic development and growth via the
arts. 12
Other 2
Q7. Do you have concerns about cultural district program? Y/N • 313 respondents and 13 blank responses.
• Responses were evenly split between
“
No”: 165 (53%) and “Yes”: 148 (47%)
No 165
Yes 148
(blank) 13
Grand Total 326
• T hose with no concerns about cultural districts were evenly spread among geographic areas.
Inquiry Area No Concerns %
1-True North 20 12%
2-Central Valley 34 21%
3-San Diego 23 14%
4-Bay Area 25 15%
California Cultural Districts Appendix 6
5-Los Angeles 24 15%
6-Other 39 24%
Total 165 100 %
• Of those with concerns about cultural districts, respondents from the Bay Area (Inquiry Area 4) recorded the highest number of concerns: 42 or 28%. This finding is likely associated with the regions high concentration of arts and cultural activity.
• Other respondents were evenly spread among remaining geographic areas.
• It is interesting to note that respondents from the Los Angeles area which could also be characterized as having a large concentration of cultural activity did not indicate a higher level of concern.
• Among the Bay Area respondents, Alameda County had the highest number of respondents indicating concerns (22), of which a little over half (14) were associated with respondents from the City of Oakland.
• Respondents from the County and City of San Francisco recorded the next highest number of concerns (9).
• This finding is likely associated with the cities’ availability and concentration of arts and cultural activity and associated experiences/impacts, particularly for low income communities and communities of Color.
Inquiry Area Yes Concerns %
1-True North 16 11%
2-Central Valley 23 16%
3-San Diego 16 11%
4-Bay Area 42 28%
5-Los Angeles 26 18%
6-Other 25 17%
Total 148 100%
4-Bay Area Y es Concerns
Alameda County
Alameda 2
Albany 1
Emeryville 1
Fremont 1
Livermore 2
California Cultural Districts Appendix 6
Q8. If You Answered Yes to Concerns about Cultural Arts Districts, please describe. • In general, concerns described by the 148 respondents that answered yes, fell within the following 8 broad categories.
• Concerns about a top down planning/development approach and associated lack of equitable distribution of resources and accountability surfaced as the top concern among the respondents. Respondents were particularly concerned about the selection criteria and possible exclusion of areas as well as competition between districts. • Concerns about the Arts districts triggering gentrification and displacement of existing residents including low income residents, arts and small non-profit arts organizations accounted for about 25% of the responses.
Types of concerns
Count of Types of
Concerns %
1. Gentrification (particularly of existing arts and cultural activity/communities) 25 13%
2. Displacement of existing residents including artists 23 12%
3. Lack of grass-roots focus and community inclusion including artists 26 14%
Oakland 14
San Leandro 1
Sub-Total 22
Contra Costa County
Richmond 1
Rodeo 1
Sub-Total 2
Marin County
Larkspur 1
Mill Valley 1
Sub Total 2
San Francisco County
San Francisco 9
Sub-Total 9
San Mateo County
Burlingame 1
Redwood City 1
Sub-Total 2
Santa Clara County
San Jose 5
Sub-Total 5
Total 42
California Cultural Districts Appendix 6
4. Lack of comprehensive and sustainable development focus (arts investment at exclusion of or in competition with other opportunities) 15 8%
5. Top down development, lack of equitable distribution of resources, and accountability 61 32%
6. Exclusion of Rural Areas 6 3%
7. Lack of funding and broad public support for long term sustainability 23 12%
8. Other 11 6%
Total 190 100%
• Among the respondents from the Cities of Oakland, San Francisco, concerns clustered around the following key issues:
1. Gentrification (particularly of existing arts and cultural activity/communities)
2. D isplacement of existing residents
3. Lack of grass-roots focus and community inclusion
4. Lack of comprehensive development focus
5. T op down development
6. Exclusion of Rural Areas
7. Lack of Funding
Oakland Issue Area
1. Black cultural district will focus on pat nd be a historical district while former Black Oakland residents continue to be displaced and cannot afford to live in a place dedicated to cultural group • Gentrification/
• Displacement of Black Oakland
Residents
2. Displacement of existing communities within and at the edges of the district. The speed of the organized shift to a named district is it affects neighboring communities.
• Displacement of existing
communities
3. Do not want to stifle thoughtful development particularly in regards to housing and indie retail and other important opportunities for economic development in Oakland.
• Lack of Comprehensive
development focus
4. Gentrification • Gentrification
5. I believe this will lead to continued gentrification and displacement of people of color and low-income people in the San Francisco Bay Area.
• Gentrification and displacement
6. I love whole communities. The emphasis on "marketing" concerns me because I read it as a an external orientation (read tourism or shifting market orientation read: gentrification) do not want to lose the more organic qualities of how cultures evolve. Would like some thinking around how to support communities in being whole - with lived arts and culture. vs. arts and culture being a consumer commodity.
• Lack of Grass roots
focus/community inclusion
• Top down Development
7. My concern is that the district is well funded from the state and federal levels.
• Lack of sufficient funding?
8. Once any program becomes top-down managed, it dies. Gov. assistance comes with strings.
• Top down Development
9. That it would be window dressing and full of useless bureaucratic hurdles instead of being genuine.
• Lack of Grass roots
focus/community inclusion
10. That political considerations and considerations from outside the culture being highlighted will steer the district away from its • Lack of Grass roots
focus/community inclusion
California Cultural Districts Appendix 6
intended purposes
11. That the authentic arts neighborhoods become replaced by gentrified arts districts (SOHO, DUMBO, etc). That affordable housing not be included with affordable warehouse studio spaces, that industrial lands with manufacturing/maker
opportunities convert to residential.
• Cultural Gentrification
• Displacement of existing
communities
12. That the district would become something commercial, lose its identity and price out present homeowners
• Gentrification
13. The artists build up the "cultural capital" and then get displaced when market forces take over.
• Displacement of existing
communities
14. There must be room for creative growth within all cultures and at all levels and ages, of creative development. It will fail the community if it is purely a competitive process for
"professionals".
• Cultural Gentrification
• Lack of Grass roots
focus/community inclusion
San Francisco Issue Area
1. After CCA meeting, I am concerned about rural areas in huge geographic parts of state that wouldn't be eligible. They need help to connect.
• Exclusion of Rural Areas
2. How do we get culture bearers a dedicated venue when we don't have $ to compete with tech companies buying up
everything?
• Lack of Grass roots
focus/community inclusion
• Displacement of existing
communities
3. I care. • ?
4. I'm concerned that it will be taken over by big money interests such a big real-estate, big art "non-profits" etc. and be transformed into a gentrifying rather than one that truly protects the interests of blue collar low income residents of the culture (e.g. Latinos)
• Gentrification (commercial and
arts)
• Lack of Grass roots
focus/community inclusion
5. It puffs up overrated, self-interested, charming, and sociopathic Executive Directors who use professional association
involvement to inflate their credentials and create barriers to entry for true artistic entrepreneurs, siphoning off funds from artists, and creating a well-connected elite capable of blackballing.
• Gentrification (arts/culture elite)
• Lack of Grass roots
focus/community inclusion
6. Not enough to develop districts • Lack of Comprehensive development focus
7. place keeping' services and reflecting the culture and arts of folks who live & work in the district instead of 'place making' code for new comers to be made comfortable as they take over neighborhoods and displace the very people whose culture have been essential to the unique features the district. • Gentrification (arts/culture)
• Lack of Grass roots
focus/community inclusion
• Displacement of existing
communities
8. That a designation could become limiting. • Lack of Comprehensive development focus
9. They must be done in away that will not cause gentrification. • Gentrification
California Cultural Districts Appendix 6
Q9. Do you have any additional comments about cultural districts? • 163 r espondents
Inquiry
Areas
Count of Q9-Do you have any additional
comments on cultural districts?
1-True North 21
2-Central Valley 29
3-San Diego 21
4-Bay Area 31
5-Los Angeles 25
6-Other 36
163
• Respondents were fairly equally represented among regions. • In general, respondents to this question were supportive the formation Cultural Arts District and sought more information about the planning and district designation process which needs to be inclusive of all geographic areas of California and seek broad community support
• Benefits and concerns mirrored the categories of benefits and concerns discussed in earlier questions.
California Cultural Districts Appendix 7
CALIFORNIA
CULTURAL DISTRICTS
APPENDIX 7
STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP DETAILS
(as of 12/8/2016)
Partner: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Recipients of the State of California Cultural Districts certification may benefit from access to the following Caltrans resources:
• Transportation Art and Community Identifier Programs– Certified Cultural Districts in municipalities where participation in the Caltrans Transportation Art program is feasible will have access to Caltrans liaison services provided by the California Arts Council. These services may result in technical assistance for Districts to navigate the application process for the Caltrans Transportation Art and Community Identification programs. This may include the development of murals and other public art projects as well as aesthetic features on Caltrans properties.
• Street Closures on Caltrans Properties – Certified Cultural Districts in municipalities where state highway street closures are proposed for festivals or other public cultural activities will have access to Caltrans liaison services provided by the California Arts Council in order to process closure and access requests.
• Signage – Certified Cultural Districts in municipalities where Caltrans signage is feasible per the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) will have access to Caltrans liaison services provided by the California Arts Council. The California Arts Council and Caltrans will work to provide technical assistance to determine if Certified Cultural Districts are eligible for signage based on the MUTCD.
• Other opportunities as mutually arranged by the California Arts Council and Caltrans.
Additionally, a Caltrans staff representative will be invited to serve on the adjudication panel as part of the review and selection process for district certification.
Partner: Visit California
• General Organizational Benefits – The California Arts Council and Visit California may collaborate in the following ways:
o Governance – sharing best practices for programmatic and promotional related activities.
o Advisory – providing guidance for organizational activities and efforts.
California Cultural Districts Appendix 7
o Leverage – utilizing strategic partnership to foster mutually beneficial opportunities as they arise.
• E
valuation of Potential Certified Districts –
Visit California representative invited to serve on
the adjudication panel as part of the review and selection process for district certification.
• Benefits for Certified Districts – Recipients of the State of California Cultural Districts Certification may benefit from inclusion in the following Visit California initiatives:
o Promotion at California Welcome Centers.
o Inclusion in Visit California promotional efforts as appropriate. o Inclusion in Visit California press efforts as appropriate. o Inclusion in Visit California public and industry events and presentations as appropriate.
• Other opportunities as mutually agreed upon by the California Arts Council and Visit California.
Cecilia Lunaparra
Councilmember, District 7
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]
CONSENT CALENDAR
December 3, 2024
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Lunaparra (Author), Councilmember Humbert (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Kesarwani (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution affirming the City of Berkeley’s support for permanent 24/7 protected bicycle and pedestrian access to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail.
BACKGROUND
Following decades of advocacy, in 2019, the protected bicycle and pedestrian trail opened on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, completing a 6-mile link in the Bay Trail and connecting Contra Costa and Marin counties.
Since the opening of the barrier-separated shared bike and pedestrian path, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Phase II After Study for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge found that both weekday and weekend vehicle flows have dropped, and weekday emissions have decreased. In the summer of 2021, the path received an 8.19 out of 10 safety rating by users. The report also states that “there is no statistical evidence that the bridge modifications are producing longer crash-related incidents or changing the location where crashes tend to occur on the bridge,” or that the modifications are increasing the time needed to clear crashes.1
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is proposing a weekday (Monday through Thursday) closure of Richmond-San Rafael pathway designated for pedestrians and people on bicycles. Under this proposal, the closed pathway would become a non- 1 After Study for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (Phase II), California PATH, UC Berkeley, https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/meetings/attachments/6005/4a_ATTACHMENT_B_Phase_II_Pilot_St udy_Final_Report.pdf
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] drivable breakdown lane on weekdays. Unfortunately, doing so would eliminate critical access for people who do not drive and rely on the Bridge as the primary connection between the East & North Bay. Although MTC’s movable barrier proposal would allow bikes and pedestrians to safely cross the Bridge on weekends, many are concerned about “equitable access needed for those who must cross during the week.” 2 MTC’s proposal requires approval from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) at an upcoming meeting. The Cities of Richmond and Albany have recently passed similar resolutions in support of a permanent protected Richmond-San Rafael Bay Trail with unanimous support.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Maintaining permanent 24/7 access to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail would continue to encourage safe and equitable access to transbay multimodal transportation.
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, 510-981-7170
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2 Bike East Bay, https://bikeeastbay.org/rsr2024-2/
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AFFIRMING BERKELEY’S SUPPORT FOR THE RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL
BRIDGE TRAIL
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley is proud to promote connections between communities via the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Council recognizes that the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail is a keystone section of the 500-mile regional San Francisco Bay Trail linking the East Bay and North Bay; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley City Council by unanimous vote adopted Resolution No. 68,486 - N.S., declaring a climate emergency and calling for urgent action to restore a safe climate; and
WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that an increase in the number of vehicle miles driven to and on the bridge increases pollution affecting vulnerable communities; and WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that active transportation allows people to be physically active in everyday life by enabling them to walk, bike, or roll to their destinations; and
WHEREAS, bicyclists and pedestrians have enjoyed over 400,000 trips on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail since it opened in November 2019; and WHEREAS, the Bay Area Toll Authority Report data showed no increase in westbound car congestion, a decrease in the number of motorist crashes, and no negative impact on the Air Quality Index (AQI); AQI is primarily impacted by vehicle miles traveled, road dust, tire wear, and brake wear, not by traffic congestion; and WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that a closure of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail would cause individuals who currently rely on this trail to drive for more trips, and if they don't have access to a car they could be left with no other options; and
WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that access to transportation is a human right and reliable mobility options for those unable to afford or drive a car should be available.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Berkeley does hereby support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week access to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail for pedestrians and bicyclists.
BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED, that upon passage, a copy of this Resolution be sent to the members of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the members of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
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 3, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager Subject: Renewal of the Solano Avenue BID for Calendar Year 2025
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution confirming the Annual Report and Budget for the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District (hereafter, “Solano BID Advisory Board” or “the BID”) for 2024-2025 and, if no majority protest exists, levy annual assessments in the District for calendar year 2025 to finance services and improvements and authorize a fiscal agency contract for receipt and expenditure of District funds.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Projected BID revenue of approximately $30,000 will be deposited into the Solano Avenue BID Fund, revenue budget code 783-21-208-251-0000-000-000-412110 and expensed from budget code 783-21-208-251-0000-000-446-636110. The BID constitutes an independent funding source that must be targeted to commercial revitalization efforts that are recommended by the Solano BID Advisory Board. The work of the Solano BID enhances the economic development of Solano Avenue and its business climate over the long term, and therefore 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 Solano Avenue BID, the City Council must hold a public hearing before levying assessments for 2025. The renewal process was initiated on October 29, 2024, when Council approved by Resolution No. 71,558–N.S. (See Attachment 1, Exhibit A) the Annual report and budget for 2024-25 sent to it by the Advisory Board and set the public hearing date for December 3, 2024. (The Annual Report with a budget is part of Attachment 1, Exhibit A). The City Clerk noticed businesses in the Solano Avenue BID area by publishing Resolution No. 71,558–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 2025 and levy assessments.
Renewal of the Solano Avenue BID for Calendar Year 2025 PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 2024
BACKGROUND
Since its revival in May 2012, the Solano BID Advisory Board has used Solano BID revenues to finance three programs: 1) a tree watering contract to ensure the health of 48 young street trees on Solano; 2) installing a program of 40 hanging planter baskets on light poles; and 3) sponsorship of events that attract customers to the district and improvements that enhance the pedestrian experience. In recent years, the BID program has focused on sponsoring activities and improvements intended to market and promote the Solano Avenue business district. In the wintertime, the BID in conjunction with the Solano Avenue Association (which represents both Albany and Berkeley businesses along Solano Avenue) pays a contractor to erect holiday lights and decorations on City street light poles. This will continue for the upcoming winter season.
Due to expenditures in prior years, the Solano BID will use less of its funds on the holiday décor program, and, instead, explore expanded landscaping services to better maintain existing tree wells and water existing hanging flower baskets. BID expenditures are to be made through an established fiscal agency contract with Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation (Telegraph PBMC).
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
By maintaining and enhancing the district, the Solano BID creates shopping opportunities for residents and visitors alike while encouraging alternative forms of transportation. The environmental enhancements such as the added street trees, hanging planters, parklet, and holiday decorations contribute to making Solano a more pleasant walking destination. Because the District is well served by public transportation and biking infrastructure, these services indirectly support environmental sustainability goals of encouraging alternative transportation modes to decrease carbon emissions.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
State law requires that the City Council annually renew the Solano BID by conducting a public hearing on the proposed renewed assessment for the coming year.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered.
CONTACT PERSON
Vincent McCoy, Office of Economic Development, (510) 981-7043.
Attachments
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Resolution No. 71,558–N.S. with incorporated Annual Report, Budget, District Map, and Assessment table
2: Public Hearing Notice
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL REPORT AND BUDGET FOR THE SOLANO AVENUE
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID), LEVYING AN ANNUAL
ASSESSMENTFOR THE SOLANO AVENUE BID FOR 2025, AND AUTHORIZING A
CONTRACT OR CONTRACT AMENDMENTS WITH A SUITABLE NON-PROFIT TO
SERVE AS FISCAL AGENT FOR RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF SOLANO AVENUE BID FUNDS.
WHEREAS, the Solano Avenue 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 2025, 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 October 29, 2024, the City Council by Resolution No. 71,558–N.S. (attached as Exhibit A) approved the Annual Report and proposed budget of the Solano Avenue BID for 2024-25 and declared its intent to levy an assessment in the District to finance the proposed activities for the calendar year 2025; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 71,558–N.S.. also scheduled a public hearing for December 3, 2024, 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 protests are over-ruled and the Annual Report of the Solano Avenue BID is confirmed, thereby levying an annual assessment for the Solano Avenue BID for calendar year 2025.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract or contract amendments with a suitable non-profit to receive and spend funds for purposes approved in the Annual Report and Budget and as directed by the Solano Avenue BID Advisory Board.
Exhibit A: Resolution No. 71,558–N.S. (October 29, 2024), including the 2024-25 Annual Report and Budget, District Map, and Assessment Table
RESOLUTION NO. No. 71,558–N.S.
APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT AND PROPOSED BUDGET OF THE SOLANO AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR 2024-25; DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT IN THE DISTRICT FOR 2025; AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR DECEMBER 3, 2024 TO CONSIDER LEVYING A RENEWED ASSESSMENT FOR 2025.
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 December 9, 2003 the Berkeley City Council established such an area known as the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District (the "District"); and WHEREAS, the City Council established a Solano Avenue 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 2025 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 Solano Avenue 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 Solano Avenue Business Improvement District Annual Report 2024 and Budget for the year 2025 (Exhibit A) as submitted to the City Clerk by the Solano Avenue 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 Solano Avenue Business Improvement District.
Section 3. The boundaries of the District are set forth in Exhibit A1 to the 2024-25 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 Solano Avenue 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 3, 2024.
Following the hearing the Council will consider adoption of a resolution levying an assessment as recommended by the Solano Avenue 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 Solano Avenue 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 3, 2024 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 seven days prior to the public hearing.
Exhibits
A: Report for the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District 2024-25 A1: Map of the Solano BID
A2: Assessment Rates
Exhibit A
Report for the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District for 2024 and Budget for 2025
Background
The first version of the Solano Business Improvement District (BID) operated from 2002-2007, with administration of the BID headed by the Solano Avenue Association (SAA). In 2012, the Council appointed the Solano BID Advisory Board to administer the Solano Avenue BID, to fund physical improvements to the street and dedicate marketing and promotion efforts towards the businesses on the portion of Solano Avenue that lies in Berkeley. This Annual report and budget updates the most recent year of operational programs of the Solano BID.
Landscape Program
In 2013, the Solano BID financed a tree watering program for young street trees along upper Solano Avenue. In 2016, per the City of Berkeley arborist, the trees were mature enough to not require additional water services. In early 2016, the board voted to enhance Solano’s landscape by installing 41 hanging planter baskets on light poles distributed throughout the district, utilizing the Downtown Berkeley Association’s (DBA) services. The DBA watered and maintained the baskets though the end of calendar year 2018. From 2019 to 2021, rainwater alone supported the baskets, and in 2022 the Solano BID entered into a contract with The Peralta Services Corporation to supplement other efforts to clean, weed, and level the tree wells through the district, and to develop an ongoing watering and maintenance system for the hanging flower baskets. Peralta's services began in July of 2022 and, per Peralta, the latest contract is renewed on a quarterly basis with regularly scheduled landscaping in tree wells, including porous pavement on a weekly basis. Additional services have been considered and further options and changes will be discussed in the context of the 2025 Work Plan.
In 2020, funds were approved and a selection process was conducted for a revitalization & public realm plan study on Solano. The BID was supportive of the process and was deeply committed to involving both local merchants and local residents in the effort to re-imagine Solano Avenue in a way that brings more vitality to the Avenue in concert with the efforts of the City of Albany, with the intention of strengthening the Solano Avenue brand overall.
Marketing and Promotion of Solano
Marketing and promotion of Solano Avenue constitutes a second priority of the Solano BID. The commission has engaged with Solano Avenue Association for the purpose of increased marketing to member businesses, improved online presence, and higher visibility during events, minor and major, along Solano Avenue. Since 2018, the board approved funding for a new vendor under the direction of the SAA, with BID reimbursement to the SAA, which covered more poles and provided greater decoration coordination opportunities with neighboring Albany, all at a lower cost than previous seasons. The BID used the same vendor and process last season and plans to do the
same in the 2024-2025 season. This partnership underscores the leverage the BID obtains in working with the SAA to provide support for BID priorities for the Berkeley portion of Solano Avenue. In the remainder of 2024, the Advisory Board may again decide to participate in the development of holiday campaigns and activities (e.g., supporting the SAA in producing the ‘Santa on Solano’ event or similar).
The details of the 2025 Work Plan, to be developed over the remainder of the year include engaging with the City regarding traffic safety improvements, increased marketing of the Berkeley portion of Solano Avenue, and improvement programs to deploy merchant fees effectively and equitably.
Commissioner Recruitment
In the spirit of vibrant and effective service to the merchants of the Solano BID, the Advisory Board continues to recruit new board members. In June of 2024 the board increased from three to four members and ongoing recruitment is a focus for the remainder of 2024 and 2025. Merchant owners are often busy operating, and sometimes expanding, their businesses. The Advisory Board reminds merchants that they can assign a proxy, from inside or outside their organization, to represent them on the Board. City of Berkeley residence is not required for Board membership.
Solano BID Administration
The Solano BID has contracted with a fiscal agent, the Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation (Telegraph PBMC), which charges a 5% fiscal agent fee on new BID revenue annually. For example, the anticipated new Solano BID revenue for 2025 is $30,000 so the fiscal agent fee is estimated to be $1,500.
FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE SOLANO BID, AUGUST 2024
Solano BID Balance, as of 8/31/2024 $40,681
Accounts Receivable - Remaining 2024 Carryover from City of Berkeley $13,582 Less fall and winter payments remaining for Solano Ave Assn Contract, for 2024-25 holiday-related events ($10,000)
Less payments for holiday decor installation, removal and storage, Nov ‘24 to Jan ‘25 ($2,875) Less fall and winter payments for Peralta Svcs Corp sidewalk/tree maintenance ($3,080) Allocated Expenditures ($15,955)
Unallocated as of 8/31/2024 $38,308
BUDGET FOR THE SOLANO BID FOR 2025 (Calendar Year)
Estimated new revenue 2025 $30,000
Carryover from 2024 (estimated) $38,308
Estimated SAA Events Payments ($20,000)
Estimated Holiday Decorations Payments ($6,000)
Estimated Peralta Svcs Corp sidewalk/tree maintenance ($6,500) Less fiscal agent fee to Telegraph PBMC (5%) - of estimated new revenue ($1,500) Total additional available for expenditure in 2025 $34,308
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Advisory Board recommends that Council:
Approve the 2024 Annual Report and 2025 Budget.
Make no changes in the boundaries of the Solano Business Improvement District or in the two Benefit Zones, A & B, as shown in Exhibit A1. Make no changes in the method and basis for merchant assessments, as shown in Exhibit A2.
Carry over to 2025 the estimated surplus revenues from 2024, as stated in the 2025 Budget.
Exhibit A1
SOLANO
Business
Improvement
District
Exhibit A2
Berkeley Solano Avenue Business Improvement District Annual Assessment Formula Annual
Assessments
Type of Business Zone A Zone B
a. Retailers and
Restaurants
1-5 employees $200 $125
6-9 employees $300 $175
10+ employees $400 $225
b. Service
Businesses
$175 $100
c. Professional
Services
$100 $65
d. Financial
Institutions
$500 $500
SOLANO
Business
Improvement
District
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
RENEWAL OF THE SOLANO AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT AND LEVYING OF ASSESSMENT FOR 2025
The Solano Avenue Business Improvement District (BID) Advisory Board is proposing that the Berkeley City Council confirm the Annual Report of the Solano Avenue BID for 2024 and levy an assessment for 2025.
The hearing will be held on December 3, 2024 at 6:00 p.m.
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.berkeleyca.gov as of November 21, 2024.
For further information, please contact Vincent McCoy, Office of Economic Development, at (510) 981-7043.
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.
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 981- 6900 or [email protected] for further information.
Published: November 15, 2024 – Berkeley Voice
Resolution of Intention No. 71,558–N.S., 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 21, 2024.
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: https://berkeleyca.gov/
PUBLIC HEARING
December 3, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Keep Innovation in Berkeley
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Title 23 to encourage Research and Development (R&D) uses in Berkeley.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission has recommended the City Council adopt the following zoning ordinance amendments (Attachment 1):
1. Revise the C-T (Telegraph Avenue Commercial), C-C (Corridor Commercial), C-W (West Berkeley Commercial), C-U (University Commercial), C-NS (North Shattuck Commercial) and C-DMU (Downtown Mixed-Use) zoning districts to allow R&D uses under 20,000 square feet with a Zoning Certificate (ZC) and R&D uses 20,000 square feet or larger with an Administrative Use Permit (AUP);
2. Revise the “District Purpose” sections of the MM (Mixed Manufacturing) and MU-LI (Mixed Use-Light Industrial) zoning districts to specifically encourage R&D;
3. Remove the regulation of Biosafety Level (BSL) Class organisms in the MU-LI zoning district;
4. Revise minimum parking requirements for R&D uses to 1 per 1,000 square feet for locations outside of a half mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor; and
5. Revise the definition of the Laboratory use to clarify the difference between a testing laboratory and a laboratory associated with research or experimentation.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Keep Innovation in Berkeley PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 2024
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed amendments are intended to simplify the planning review process for R&D uses, including new business starts and expansions. The proposed amendments may result in a modest increase in business license tax and sales tax revenues due to increased business activity. The proposed amendments may also result in a modest decrease in staffing-related expenditures and land use permitting fee collections, as more uses would be permitted at a lower permit threshold.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are in response to the Keep Innovation in Berkeley referral, adopted on September 13, 2022. The referral was ranked #12 overall in the Re-Weighted Range Voting (RRV) prioritization process undertaken by the City Council in April 2023, and was the highest-ranked referral to the Planning and Development Department that year.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are intended to encourage the growth and retention of innovative companies by reducing permit review processing times for R&D uses. In addition to providing jobs and supporting local economic development, R&D companies create solutions that improve human health and community well-being, combat global warming, and address other social and environmental challenges. Staff with the City’s Office of Economic Development (OED) have indicated that there is a clear demand for R&D space from companies who have outgrown their facilities on the UC Berkeley campus, or in local incubators and coworking spaces.1 These companies seek to grow their enterprises close to UC Berkeley and/or Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) talent, facilities, and entrepreneur support programs. An amended zoning code that permits R&D uses and streamlines land use approval processing will give the City of Berkeley a competitive advantage for business retention and attraction.
R&D firms operate differently than they did in past decades, and current permitting and land use requirements have not kept pace with changes in the industry. Over the past five years, OED staff have spoken with Berkeley R&D business leaders, real estate brokers, and others involved with supporting local startups, and have attended group discussions of the Berkeley Startup Cluster Advisor meeting, the Berkeley Real Estate Working Group, and a “Keep Innovation in Berkeley” land use policy feedback session for others involved in Berkeley’s innovation ecosystem. Berkeley based business owners and operators, industry groups, educational institutions, and sector leaders shared their experiences with the City’s land use regulations. They identified that R&D regulations were more restrictive or onerous compared to neighboring jurisdictions. This is especially true for startups, early-stage R&D businesses, or small enterprises lacking expertise or financial resources to navigate the existing permitting process. 1 City of Berkeley, Office of Economic Development (OED), Berkeley’s Innovation Ecosystem, published to the Berkeley Planning Commission, February 1, 2023.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Keep Innovation in Berkeley PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 2024
On May 1, 2024 the Planning Commission held a discussion on the Keep Innovation in Berkeley Referral Response (Attachment 3) and provided policy direction to staff. On July 17, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing (Attachment 4) and recommended that the following proposed zoning amendments be forwarded for City Council adoption (M/S Sanderson/Merker. Ayes: Merker, Shere, Capitelli, Sanderson, and Ghosh. Noes: Oatfield. Abstain: Mikiten and Twu. Absent: Moore. (5-1-2-1)).
Revise Permit Requirements for R&D Uses
Currently, R&D is permitted in the C-W zoning district (with an AUP), the MM and MU-LI zoning districts (with a ZC if under 20,000 square feet and an AUP if over 20,000 square feet), and in the C-T, C-C, C-NS and the C-DMU zoning districts (with an AUP with additional findings).
Permitting R&D spaces under 20,000 square feet with a ZC supports businesses looking to relocate off campus and/or access the labor pool of university students, professors, and others who spend a portion of the work week at UC Berkeley and LBNL. Furthermore, permitting R&D in the University Avenue commercial corridor (C-U) would play an important role in connecting West Berkeley and UC Berkeley, the city’s two primary hubs of innovation.2 A threshold of 20,000 square feet for such projects would also ensure that larger R&D uses would be subject to additional staff analysis.
This square foot permit threshold is consistent with the requirements in the MM and MU-LI zoning districts for R&D uses.
Consistent with the Keep Innovation in Berkeley referral, staff presented to the Planning Commission a recommendation to revise permit requirements for R&D uses in the C-T, C-W, C-U, and C-DMU zoning districts to a ZC for R&D uses under 20,000 square feet and an AUP for uses 20,000 square feet or larger.
At its May 1, 2024 meeting the Planning Commission recommended expanding this revision to include the C-NS (North Shattuck) district. The rationale for revising the permit requirements in the C-T (Telegraph), C-DMU (Downtown) and C-U (University) zoning districts was based on the proximity of these zoning districts to UC Berkeley.
The Planning Commission noted that including the C-NS zoning district, which is similarly close to campus, was consistent with the policy direction recommended in the referral.
The revised permit requirements would apply only to R&D uses. New construction, new added floor area, and reconfigurations of tenant floor area would still be subject to the permit requirements included in BMC Section 23.204.030 (Commercial Districts – Additional Permit Requirements) and BMC Section 23.206.030 (Manufacturing Districts – Additional Permit Requirements).
2 See map of Berkeley’s innovation sector companies here: https://berkeleystartupcluster.com/startups/ (February 2024).
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Keep Innovation in Berkeley PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 2024
Additionally, the C-W (San Pablo) zoning district includes designated nodes (BMC Section 23.204.140(D)) which restrict ground-floor uses to intensify retail activity and reinforce pedestrian-oriented uses. The proposed zoning amendments would not change these regulations; R&D would not be permitted on the ground floor in the C-W zoning district’s designated nodes.
Add R&D to District Purpose Statements
The District Purpose sections of the Zoning Ordinance identify the intent of each zoning district, detailing which uses characterize the district and the types of uses that are encouraged to further the City’s goals. When approving an AUP for any use, the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustment Board must find that the proposed use is compatible with the Purposes of the district in which the business would be located.
In the MM and MU-LI zoning districts, R&D is currently permitted with a Zoning Certificate for uses less than 20,000 square feet and with an AUP for uses larger than 20,000 square feet. The Purpose sections do not mention R&D, despite calling out similar uses, such as manufacturing, industrial, and laboratory, by name. An explicit mention of R&D provides greater transparency to potential applicants that R&D uses are encouraged in these locations.
Staff presented a recommendation to the Planning Commission to revise the purpose statements for the MM and MU-LI zoning districts to explicitly note that R&D uses were encouraged in those zoning districts. The Planning Commission expressed support for these changes, which are included in the proposed zoning amendments.
Removal of Regulation of Biosafety Level (BSL) Class Organisms The referral also called for staff to consider amending or repealing BMC sections that include regulation of Biosafety Level. Staff reviewed the BMC’s language in this area to ensure that it was consistent with neighboring jurisdictions and was not an unnecessary obstacle to the establishment of R&D uses in Berkeley.
Biological Safety Levels (BSL) are defined by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) to prescribe the work practices, engineering controls, personal protective equipment, and facility requirements required for working with biological agents in a lab setting. BSL levels, ranked from one to four (BSL-1 to BSL-4), are designated based on the agents or organisms that are being researched or used in the laboratory and the level of risk associated with them, as determined by the CDC and NIH. The lower the number, the lower the risk, where the factors considered in the rating include the nature of the work conducted and the infectivity, severity of disease, and transmissibility associated with the biological agents used in the lab.
For example, in a BSL-1 lab, the microbes studied are not known to consistently cause disease in healthy adults and present minimal potential hazard to lab workers or the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Keep Innovation in Berkeley PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 2024
environment. BSL-2 labs work with pathogenic or infectious organisms that pose a moderate health hazard and therefore must include enhanced measures, in addition to the standard microbial practices as BSL-1 labs. BSL-2 labs are typically utilized by biotechnology companies, and many are located on research university campuses, including UC Berkeley. BSL-3 labs (of which there are only three in California) and BSL- 4 labs (of which there are none on the West Coast and just over a dozen nationwide)3 work with microbes that can cause serious or potentially lethal disease through inhalation and microbes that are often fatal without treatment or vaccines, respectively, and therefore have even more stringent requirements, and the lab setting is strictly controlled by a number of government agencies.
Staff has reviewed the zoning ordinances of Bay Area jurisdictions,4 as well as other cities across California and the nation that support a broad range of R&D uses, such as Sacramento, San Diego, and Cambridge, Massachusetts. The City of Berkeley’s regulation of BSL activities is more restrictive than all of these jurisdictions; most nearby jurisdictions do not note BSL at all in their zoning ordinances.5 Generally, local zoning ordinances do not regulate labs. Rather, health, safety, toxic substances and hazardous materials regulations at the city, state and federal levels typically regulate labs. UC Berkeley, comprising more than 1,200 acres within the city, has many BSL-2 labs within 500 feet from other types of buildings, including student housing and classrooms, and has not encountered safety problems associated with such co-location.
The prevalence of potentially hazardous materials has been a longstanding community concern in Berkeley, particularly in areas covered by the West Berkeley Plan that include manufacturing uses in proximity to residential uses. However, the West Berkeley Plan includes a policy to “periodically review the City’s regulation of biotechnology to assure that it both meets City regulatory objectives and does not unnecessarily interfere with the creation and expansion of biotechnology firms.” At the May 1, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners expressed support for removing the provision in the BMC that regulates BSL activities for uses in the MU-LI zoning district. The Planning Commission reasoned that biological resources, hazardous materials, hazardous waste and other potential hazards are regulated through a variety of existing local, state and federal regulations and agencies, and given 3 Global locations of BSL 3-4 labs can be viewed on this interactive map (https://www.globalbiolabs.org/map).
4 Including the cities of Alameda, Belmont, East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Milpitas, Mountain View, Oakland, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Francisco, San Leandro, San Jose, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and South San Francisco.
5 The cities of Alameda, Belmont, East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Hayward, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Milpitas, Mountain View, Sacramento, San Bruno, San Jose, San Leandro, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and South San Francisco do not reference BSLs or organism risk groups at all in their zoning ordinances. Oakland prohibits only BSL-4; Palo Alto permits up to BSL-3; and Richmond permits BSL-3 with a conditional use permit.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Keep Innovation in Berkeley PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 2024
the extent of existing regulations, the inclusion of BSL-related rules in the Zoning Ordinance was redundant, and served as more of an obstacle to the establishment of R&D uses rather than a necessary rule to protect public health and safety.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommended removal of the provision regulating BSL in the MU-LI zoning district and removal of the definitions of Class 1, 2 and 3 BSL Organism(s) in the Glossary (BMC 23.502.020.L.1, c,d,e).
Revise Parking Requirements for R&D Uses
Staff presented recommendations to the Planning Commission to revise minimum off- street parking requirements for R&D uses, to align with other similar uses.
BMC 23.322.030 (Required Parking Spaces) details the minimum off-street parking spaces required for each use. R&D uses are required to provide 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area in manufacturing zoning districts. In contrast, laboratory uses require 1 space per 650 square feet of floor area. R&D uses typically include similar numbers of employees and visitors per square foot as laboratory uses, and R&D uses are often at a disadvantage when required to provide more parking. The proposed zoning amendments include revising the off-street parking requirements for R&D uses to 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area to bring the standard closer to that for laboratories.
Notwithstanding the proposed change, BMC Section 23.322.020.D (Applicability- Location Exemption) reflects recent State law (AB 2097) changes that prohibit a public agency from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on most residential, commercial, or other development project that is located within one-half mile of public transit. R&D uses proposed within these areas would have no required off- street parking.
The Planning Commission expressed support for these changes, which are included in the proposed zoning amendments.
Revise Definition of Laboratory
The Keep Innovation in Berkeley referral included a request that any additional recommendations identified by staff or the Planning Commission that would encourage R&D in Berkeley be presented to the City Council.
Consistent with that request, the Planning Commission recommended the following revision to the definition of Commercial Physical or Biological Laboratory in BMC Section 23.502.020(L)(1):
(a) Commercial Physical or Biological Testing. A facility that provides controlled conditions in which scientific or technological testing research, experiments, and measurements may be performed. Any facility established as a Commercial
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Keep Innovation in Berkeley PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 2024
Physical or Biological Laboratory to conduct scientific or technological research, experiments and measurements prior to [effective date of the ordinance] shall be considered a conforming Commercial Physical or Biological Testing use.
Staff had noted that the current definition of Commercial Physical or Biological Laboratory overlaps with the definition of R&D in the Glossary.6 Both definitions include the words “biological,” “scientific,” and “research” in relation to laboratories. Such overlap has led to confusion as to how a proposed use would be classified, a difficulty that is exacerbated by the fact that there are different permit requirements for Laboratory and R&D uses in the same zoning districts. There is a concern that an otherwise permitted R&D use may mischaracterize itself as a Laboratory and exclude itself from considering certain locations in Berkeley due to stricter permit requirements for Laboratories.
The proposed revision attempts to clarify the type of use that constitutes a Commercial Physical or Biological Laboratory. Such a use would be characterized by the testing or measurement of materials that are collected or received on-site, but are not part of new research or product or process development. The most common use that would meet this new definition would be a laboratory that processes blood samples for a hospital or other health service use. Laboratories that are engaged in scientific or product research would more easily be classified under R&D with this clarification.
The Planning Commission received public testimony from some existing R&D businesses expressing concerns about the revision of the definition of Laboratory.
These R&D businesses were established before the BMC included a R&D definition and land use category, so were approved as Laboratory uses.
As shown above, the current definition of Laboratory includes the words “research” and “experiments,” which provided the rationale for approving R&D uses as Laboratory uses before an R&D definition was in the BMC. However, existing R&D businesses that are approved as Laboratory uses are concerned that their approved use may be considered legally non-conforming or even Not Permitted if the definition of Laboratory were to remove “research” or “experiments,” as proposed above. While these existing R&D uses would fit into the existing R&D definition, without formal action to reclassify each of these uses as R&D, these businesses were concerned of the potential adverse impacts of being considered legally non-conforming or Not Permitted.
The Planning Commission did not want the proposed change in the definition of Laboratory to adversely impact these existing permitted R&D uses. To address this concern, additional language has been added to the definition to clarify that any existing 6 BMC Section 23.502.020.R.8: 8. Research and Development. An establishment engaged in the following activities: 1) industrial, biological or scientific research; and/or 2) product or process design, development, prototyping, or testing. This may include labs, offices, warehousing, and light manufacturing functions as part of the overall Research and Development use.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Keep Innovation in Berkeley PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 2024
R&D use that was approved as a Commercial Physical or Biological Laboratory prior to this change of definition would be considered a conforming use after the definition change is effective. The definition modification is being made to ensure that current and future occupants of facilities with the established Use of Commercial Physical or Biological Laboratory (such as those developed by Wareham Development in West Berkeley on Seventh Street, Potter Street, Anthony Street and Heinz Avenue) can continue to legally perform the research, experiment and measurement activities permitted under that use.
BACKGROUND
In response to the September 13, 2022 Keep Innovation in Berkeley referral (Attachment 2), and previous work on the March 10, 2020 referral to Update the Definition of Research and Development, OED gathered input from a number of scientists and business leaders in the biotechnology, clean technology, hardware and other local innovation industries. Keep Innovation in Berkeley referred to the Planning Commission a set of four items and accompanying zoning changes to provide relief from regulations that are “inhibit[ing] innovation in Berkeley.” The 2023 Berkeley Economic Dashboard (published by OED in Q1 2024) reported robust growth opportunities in the innovation sector.7 As of December 2023, the City of Berkeley had 400 businesses in the “innovation sector.” The number included 325 startups8 in software, biotechnology, clean technology and other technology industries, as well as established and subsidiary companies conducting R&D, incubators and coworking facilities supporting the local innovation ecosystem, and other STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) consulting companies. The “innovation sector” includes established businesses such as Bayer, which unveiled a new Cell Therapy Launch Facility in 2023, and subsidiary companies like Carmot Therapeutics, a startup which was acquired in 2023 by the multinational firm, Roche Pharmaceutical. It also includes early-stage startups focused on new product design and development.
Of Berkeley’s innovation companies, 35% develop life science and healthcare technologies, 32% develop software, and 14% develop clean technologies to support environmental sustainability and address climate change. In addition to creating local jobs, these companies attract investment in the city: in 2023 alone, 84 Berkeley companies raised $840 million of venture and seed capital and 11 companies received nearly $17 million in federal and state government grants for R&D.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
7 View the full report online: Economic Dashboards and Reports | City of Berkeley (berkeleyca.gov) 8 Startups are defined as companies or for-profit businesses that sell innovative technology products or services or substantively use innovative technologies to develop and manufacture their products or provide their services and are developing repeatable and scalable business models that aren’t yet profitable.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Keep Innovation in Berkeley PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 2024
The Planning Commission recommendation includes the removal of existing provisions that regulate Class 2 and Class 3 organisms, defined as organisms classified as BSL-2 and BSL-3 by the CDC, respectively. As removal of this provision would permit these uses in areas where they are currently prohibited, further CEQA analysis was performed.
Activities undertaken in R&D and Laboratory uses that involve Class 2 and Class 3 organisms, the use of hazardous materials, or produce hazardous waste are required to follow federal, state and local regulations. This overlapping regulatory regime imposes extensive environmental, health, and safety regulations on these labs. The oversight of Class 2 and Class 3 organisms, as well other potentially infectious disease-causing agents, falls under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), which serves as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for Berkeley. CDPH regulates the generation, handling, storage, treatment, and disposal of medical waste by providing oversight for the implementation of the Medical Waste Management Act (MWMA).
Hazardous materials and waste regulations are enforced by a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), a local agency certified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). The City of Berkeley’s Toxics Management Division (TMD) is the CUPA for Berkeley. It oversees subsurface drilling and stormwater pollution prevention, reviewing building plans and permit applications with potential toxics implications, and enforces five state hazardous waste and materials regulatory management programs.
These plans and permits ensure that the City has an accurate inventory of hazardous materials, and that they are being stored and disposed of in ways that ensure community health and safety, as well as ensure businesses follow environmental best practices. In light of these regulatory requirements, the existing zoning restrictions are not necessary to regulate environmental impacts. Therefore, the zoning code amendments that would remove zoning restrictions for facilities handling Class 2 and Class 3 organisms would not result in any additional new environmental impacts.
Further, the proposed amendments would not affect building potential; they are limited to changes to allowed uses and permit requirements, while standards such as building height, lot coverage, setbacks and general operational controls would remain essentially unchanged in the affected zoning districts.
Based on the above analysis, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because “[i]t can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Therefore, staff have determined that the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are exempt from CEQA.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are intended to encourage the growth and retention of innovative companies in Berkeley by reducing permit review processing times for R&D uses, particularly smaller startups that would be located close to UC
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Keep Innovation in Berkeley PUBLIC HEARING December 3, 2024
Berkeley and would utilize existing commercial spaces. An AUP requirement for larger R&D uses, and existing permit requirements for new buildings, substantial additions and major tenant reconfigurations, would ensure that larger-scale R&D uses are not permitted without an opportunity for more detailed staff review, public comment, and the ability to appeal.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
On July 17, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received public testimony, and discussed the proposed amendments. Topics discussed by the Planning Commission included limiting the applicability of the proposed permit changes to certain subareas along University and San Pablo Avenues and limiting the establishment of R&D uses on the ground floor in certain districts.
CONTACT PERSONS
Justin Horner, Principal Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7476 Elizabeth Redman Cleveland & Eleanor Hollander, Office of Economic Development, 510-981-7530.
Attachments:
1: Ordinance
2: Keep Innovation in Berkeley Referral, September 13, 2022 3: Planning Commission Staff Report, May 1, 2024
4: Planning Commission Staff Report, July 17, 2024
5: Public Hearing Notice
1 ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.204), MANUFACTURING DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.206), PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS CHAPTER (BMC 23.322) AND GLOSSARY (BMC 23.502), TO SUPPORT BERKELEY’S INNOVATION BUSINESSES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. That the line named “Research and Development” in Table 23.204-1 in BMC Section 23.204.020 is amended, and a new line “Research and Development, 20,000 sq. ft. of larger” is added, to read:
Table 23.204-1 Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative
Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
NP = Not Permitted
-- = Permitted with AUP,
see 23.204.020(B)
[#] = Table Note Permit
Requirement
* Use-Specific
Regulations Apply
Commercial Districts USE-
SPECIFIC
REGULATI
ONS
C-C C-U C-N C-E C-NS C-SA C-T C-SO C-DMU C-W C-AC
Research and
Development Under
20,000 sq. ft.
ZC ZC – – ZC – ZC – ZC ZC --
Research and
Development,
20,000 sq. ft. or
larger
AUP AUP -- -- AUP -- AUP -- AUP AUP --
Section 2. That BMC Section 23.206.070(A)(3) and 23.206.070(A)(5) are amended to read:
3. Encourage development of a manufacturing district targeted to manufacturing and industrial uses including research and development, so that manufacturers and industrial businesses will not be interfered with by incompatible uses;
5. Provide an appropriate location for the development of compatible industries which can provide high quality employment for people at all educational levels, and add significantly to the tax base, such as the biotechnology industry and other research and development uses;
2 Section 3. That BMC Section 23.206.080(A)(7) is amended to read:
7. Provide the opportunity for laboratory development and research and development facilities in appropriate locations;
Section 4. That a line named “Research and Development” is added to Table 23.322- 2 in BMC Section 23.322.030(B) to read:
Table 23.322-2. REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (EXCLUDING C-T)
Research and
Development
C-DMU District: 1.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.
All Other Commercial Districts: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Section 5. That a line named “Research and Development” is added to Table 23.322- 4 in BMC Section 23.322.030(C) to read:
Table 23.322-4. REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING IN MANUFACTURING
DISTRICTS
Research and
Development
1 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Section 6. That BMC Section 23.206.080(B)(5) to B(13) are amended to read:
5. Commercial Physical or Biological Laboratories. Commercial physical or biological laboratories using Class 3 organisms are not permitted the MU-LI district. Use of Class 2 organisms are permitted only in locations at least 500 feet from a Residential District or a MU-R district.
6.5. General Retail. Allowed general retail uses in the MU-LI district are limited to food product stores and building materials and garden supply stores. Other types of general retail uses are not permitted. Food product stores are not permitted if over 2,000 square feet. Building materials and garden supplies stores are permitted with an AUP if under 20,000 square feet and with a Use Permit if 20,000 square feet or more.
7.6. Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing. Pharmaceuticals manufacturing is allowed in the MU-LI district only in locations at least 500 feet from a Residential District or the MU-R district.
8.7. Public Market, Open Air. Open air markets in the MU-LI district with 5,000 square feet or less of lot area are allowed with AUP.
3 9.8. Recycling Facilities. Recycled materials processing and recycling redemption centers are allowed in the MU-LI district only on lots greater than 20,000 square feet.
10.9. Theaters. Only live stage performances are allowed in a theater in the MU-LI district. Motion picture theaters are not permitted.
11.10. Vehicle Wrecking. Permits required for vehicle wrecking the MU-LI district is determined by size of lot, not floor area.
12.11. Vocational Schools. A vocational school in the MU-LI district must provide training for occupations and/or industries found in the West Berkeley Plan area.
13.12. Wholesale Trade Proximity to Residential Use. For wholesale trade use in the MU-LI district otherwise allowed with a Zoning Certificate, an AUP is required to establish the use within 150 feet of a residential use in a Residential District or in the MU-R district.
Section 7. That BMC Section 23.502.020(L)(1) is amended to read:
1. Laboratories.
(a) Commercial Physical or Biological Testing. A facility that provides controlled conditions in which scientific or technological testing research, experiments, and measurements may be performed. Any facility established as a Commercial Physical or Biological Laboratory to conduct scientific or technological research, experiments and measurements prior to [effective date of ordinance] shall be considered a conforming Commercial Physical or Biological Testing use. (b) Cannabis Testing. A facility for the testing of the properties of cannabis intended for consumer use.
(c) Class 1 Organism. A microbe or biological agent classified as Biosafety Level 1 (BSL-1) by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (d) Class 2 Organism. A microbe or biological agent classified as Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (e) Class 3 Organism. A microbe or biological agent classified as Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section 8. 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
4 be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7170 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
CONSENT CALENDAR
September 13, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Author), Councilmember Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Jesse Arreguín (Co-Sponsor), and Councilmember Kate Harrison (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Referral: Keep Innovation in Berkeley
RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager and the Planning Commission to consider and return to Council with Zoning Ordinance amendments, codified performance standards, and other actions to encourage the growth and retention of Research & Development (R&D) in Berkeley. Staff and the Commission should explore:
1. Naming R&D as an allowed land use in the commercial districts of Telegraph (C- T and C-C), West Berkeley (C-W), University (C-U), and Downtown Berkeley (C- DMU) with a Zoning Certificate, subject to performance standards. a. Performance standards should regulate and mitigate potential impacts on quality of life, public health, and environmental health, such as noise, odors, fumes, vibrations, dust, light pollution, hours of operation, and disposal and storage protocols for flammable, combustible, chemical, and hazardous substances.
2. Updating the “District Purpose” sections of the MM and MU-LI districts to specifically embrace R&D. Consider doing the same for other districts where R&D is allowed, if deemed appropriate.
3. Amending R&D parking requirements in M-prefixed districts to align with Laboratory parking requirements and in C-prefixed districts, excluding C-T, to align with Manufacturing parking requirements.
4. Reviewing Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.080 to ensure that language regulating Biosafety Level (BSL) Classes 1-4 is clear and consistent with regulations in neighboring jurisdictions and other cities that support a broad range of R&D. Consider repealing the section or amending it to permit BSL-2 in all districts where research and development facilities or laboratories are permitted.
5. Returning to Council with additional recommendations, if any, that would serve to encourage R&D in Berkeley, as determined by staff or that present themselves through the Planning Commission process.
POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
30 ATTACHMENT 2
Referral: Keep Innovation in Berkeley CONSENT CALENDAR September 13, 2022
On July 19, 2022, the Land Use, Housing, & Economic Development Policy Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Robinson/Bartlett) to approve the item with a positive recommendation. Vote: All Ayes.
BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has over 400 “innovation sector” businesses in tech, biotech, R&D, and other STEM industries. The 2021 Berkeley Economic Dashboard (published in Q1 2022) reported robust growth opportunities in this sector, with 10 Berkeley-based companies receiving a total of nearly $9 million in federal and state grants for R&D.1 35% of Berkeley’s innovation companies develop software, 31% develop biotechnology and healthcare technologies, and 13% develop clean technologies to support environmental sustainability and address climate change. Nearly 87% of these innovation companies are relatively early stage and take advantage of the city’s coworking spaces, accelerators, and incubators.
It is critical for the City to continue efforts to encourage the growth of R&D in Berkeley.
In addition to providing jobs and fueling economic development locally, innovation companies make a global impact across sectors, including in the healthcare field and the fight against climate change. Berkeley benefits from the presence of the University of California, Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), whose affiliates go on to found startups supported by the Berkeley Startup Cluster and accelerators or incubators like Berkeley SkyDeck or Bakar Labs.2 There is a clear demand for R&D space from companies who have grown out of UC Berkeley and are seeking to build their enterprise in Berkeley, close to the talent, facilities, and entrepreneur support programs on campus. If the City’s zoning regulations do not provide sufficient opportunities for emerging growth companies, they have no choice but to leave Berkeley and settle in nearby cities that accommodate them with open arms, such as Oakland, Emeryville, San Leandro, and Alameda.
On March 22, 2022, Council adopted the first reading of a Zoning Ordinance amendment that modified the land use definition of Research and Development (R&D) in Berkeley Municipal Code 23.502.020.R.8.3 This amendment came to Council as a referral response to a March 20, 2020 referral from Mayor Arreguín and Councilmember Wengraf.
The original definition read:
Research and Development. An establishment comprised of laboratory or other non-office space, which is engaged in one or more of the following activities:
1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-03- 22%20Item%2038%20Economic%20Dashboards%20Update.pdf
2 https://berkeleystartupcluster.com/
3 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/2022-03- 22%20Agenda%20Packet%20-%20Council%20-%20WEB.pdf
Referral: Keep Innovation in Berkeley CONSENT CALENDAR September 13, 2022
industrial, biological or scientific research; product design; development and testing; and limited manufacturing necessary for the production of prototypes.
The updated definition reads:
Research and Development: An establishment engaged in the following activities: 1) industrial, biological or scientific research; and/or 2) product or process design, development, prototyping, or testing. This may include labs, offices, warehousing, and light manufacturing functions as part of the overall Research and Development use.
The March 2020 referral observed that the R&D definition in the BMC did not adequately reflect present-day R&D business activities. For example, the definition prohibited R&D establishments from including office space and required the inclusion of a laboratory. The referral requested that the new definition reflect evolving business practices and provide flexibility for R&D establishments to occupy spaces that meet their operating needs. Modifying the R&D definition supported the City’s Strategic Plan goal of fostering a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy.
Through that process, additional issues have come to light that have the effect of inhibiting innovation in Berkeley, which this referral aims to address.
Recommendation #1: Naming R&D as an allowed land use in the commercial districts of Telegraph (C-T and C-C), West Berkeley (C-W), University (C-U), and Downtown Berkeley (C-DMU) with a Zoning Certificate, subject to performance standards.
BMC 23.204.020.A Table 23.204-14 and 23.206.020.A Table 23.206-15 lay out allowed land uses for each commercial and manufacturing district, respectively. Currently, R&D is permitted in three districts across the city: C-W (with an Administrative Use Permit) and MM and MU-LI (with a Zoning Certificate if under 20,000 sq. ft. and an AUP if over 20,000 sq. ft.).
Notably, the commercial districts in Southside (C-T), the southern portion of Telegraph (C-C), and the Downtown (C-DMU) do not currently allow R&D. R&D spaces close to campus would be extremely valuable to students, alumni, and others affiliated with UC Berkeley and LBNL. By allowing R&D in these districts, the City would make it easier to keep the innovation and talent that flows from the university in Berkeley. Furthermore, permitting R&D in the University Avenue commercial corridor (C-U) would play an important role in connecting West Berkeley and UC Berkeley, the City’s two primary hubs of innovation.
4 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.204.020
5 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.206.020
Referral: Keep Innovation in Berkeley CONSENT CALENDAR September 13, 2022
Startups have expressed that the City’s permitting process remains a challenge, particularly if the Zoning Ordinance requires an AUP. This process can take months or even years, which is problematic for R&D companies whose runway for finding a suitable space to develop proof of concept is limited by the funding they have available from early-stage investors. The timelines associated with an AUP provide founders no concrete assurance and can jeopardize operations during the most critical time for startups.
However, noise disruption and biohazard safety are of particular concern when permitting new uses in commercial districts due to their mixed-use residential buildings and proximity to residential districts. It is important that staff and the Planning Commission consider strategies for mitigating any impacts of R&D in C-prefixed districts, including the use of performance standards. Performance standards, which lay out metrics and regulations that the applicant must agree to before being issued a Zoning Certificate, are an important tool to ensure conformance to the neighborhood without imposing lengthy permit approval timelines.
One example that the City of Berkeley can look towards is the City of Fremont. Fremont utilizes performance standards in their industrial districts, which house R&D activities, to ensure that “adjoining properties, persons and the community as well as the region are provided protection against adverse conditions which may be created by the various uses operating within the industrial zoning districts.” The performance standards regulate noise, vibration, glare or heat, fire hazards, liquid or solid wastes, fissionable or radioactive material, and aesthetics.6 See Attachment 1.
The City of San Diego serves as a case study of how R&D can co-exist with commercial and residential uses. In 2019, the San Diego City Council approved the creation of two new mixed-use zones, RMX (Residential Mixed-Use) and EMX (Employment Mixed- Use).7 The stated purpose of the zones was to “provide housing and jobs near commercial centers and corridors to reduce dependency on the automobile, promote access to transit and multi-model transportation systems, and to provide for a walkable, pedestrian-oriented setting, including infill of existing development.” In both RMX and EMX zones, R&D is permitted by-right alongside multi-family residential development, retail, and most commercial services. San Diego also permits R&D in several of its commercial zones.8
Recommendation #2: Updating the “District Purpose” sections of the MM and MU-LI districts to specifically embrace R&D. Consider doing the same for other districts where R&D is allowed, if deemed appropriate.
6 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fremont/#!/html/Fremont18/Fremont1850.html (18.50.040 Performance Standards)
7 https://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter13/Ch13Art01Division07.pdf 8 https://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter13/Ch13Art01Division05.pdf
Referral: Keep Innovation in Berkeley CONSENT CALENDAR September 13, 2022
The “District Purpose” sections of the Zoning Ordinance determine the purpose of each zoning district, detailing what uses are allowed, welcomed, and explicitly stated to further the City’s goals. R&D applicants need to feel confident that they will have a place in the district if they choose to locate there. In MM and MU-LI, where R&D is currently permitted, the Purpose sections do not mention R&D despite calling out the importance and belonging of similar industries, including manufacturing, industrial use, and laboratories.
Staff and the Commission should consider amending BMC 23.206.070.A and
23.206.080.A with the following language:
23.206.070 MM Mixed Manufacturing District.
A. District Purpose. The purpose of the Mixed Manufacturing (MM) district is to:
1. Implement the West Berkeley Plan MM designation;
2. Encourage development of a general manufacturing district for the full range of manufacturers, including larger scale materials processing manufacturers sometimes known as heavy manufacturers;
3. Encourage development of a manufacturing district targeted to manufacturing and industrial uses including research and development, so that manufacturers and industrial businesses will not be interfered with by incompatible uses;
4. Encourage the creation and continuation of well paid (often unionized) jobs for men and women without advanced degrees;
5. Provide an appropriate location for the development of compatible industries which can provide high quality employment for people at all educational levels, and add significantly to the tax base, such as the biotechnology industry and other research and development uses;
6. Allow reuse of upper story industrial space as offices to facilitate use of upper story space;
7. Maintain and improve the quality of the West Berkeley environment, while allowing the lawful and reasonable operation of the full range of manufacturers; and
8. Support the development of industrial businesses which contribute to the maintenance and improvement of the environment.
23.206.080 MU-LI Mixed Use-Light Industrial District.
A. District Purpose. The purpose of the Mixed Use-Light Industrial (MU-LI) district is to:
1. Implement the West Berkeley Plan Light Manufacturing District designation;
2. Encourage development of a mixed use-light industrial area for a range of compatible uses;
Referral: Keep Innovation in Berkeley CONSENT CALENDAR September 13, 2022
3. Encourage development of an area where light manufacturers can operate free from the economic, physical and social constraints caused by incompatible uses;
4. Encourage the creation and continuation of well-paid jobs which do not require advanced degrees;
5. Provide for the continued availability of manufacturing and industrial buildings for manufacturing uses, especially of larger spaces needed by medium sized and larger light manufacturers;
6. Provide opportunities for office development when it will not unduly interfere with light manufacturing uses and/or the light manufacturing building stock;
7. Provide the opportunity for laboratory development the development of research and development facilities in appropriate locations;
8. Support the development of businesses which contribute to the maintenance and improvement of the environment;
9. Allow on-site ancillary retail as a tool to maintain and enhance the economic viability of manufacturers in the district; and
10. Maintain and improve the quality of the West Berkeley environment, while allowing the lawful and reasonable operation of light industrial uses.
Recommendation #3: Amending R&D parking requirements in M-prefixed districts to align with Laboratory parking requirements and in C-prefixed districts, excluding C-T, to align with Manufacturing parking requirements.
BMC 23.322.030 details the minimum off-street parking spaces required for each use.
Currently, in M-prefixed districts, R&D is not explicitly named in Table 23.322-4, meaning that it is parked under “All non-residential uses except uses listed below” at 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. In contrast, laboratories are parked as 1 space per 650 sq. ft., despite R&D spaces typically accommodating a similar number of people per square foot as laboratories. This disadvantages R&D by requiring them to provide more parking than their laboratory counterparts, which is expensive and creates incentives for employees to drive to work that run counter to the City’s Climate Action Plan goals. For the purposes of consistency, R&D parking requirements should be amended to align with Laboratory parking requirements.
In C-T, off-street parking is not required, so no amendments are needed. In C-prefixed districts excluding C-T, R&D is also not listed in Table 23.322-2. It may be unclear to applicants whether R&D falls under Manufacturing (which requires 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. in C-DMU, 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. in C-W, and 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. in all other C-prefixed districts), or under “All non-residential uses except uses listed below,” (which requires
1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. in C-DMU and 2 per 1,000 in all other C-prefixed districts).
This can create confusion for R&D companies looking to locate in C-W. Adding an R&D section here to align parking requirements with Manufacturing would improve clarity and consistency.
Referral: Keep Innovation in Berkeley CONSENT CALENDAR September 13, 2022
In addition to considering the following changes to BMC 23.322.030 Table 23.322-2 and Table 23.322-4, staff and the Commission may take up the R&D parking discussion in concert with other Council referrals that address off-street parking, such as Councilmember Taplin’s “Parking Minima for Mixed-Use Projects and Manufacturing Districts” item referred on June 28, 2022.
Table 23.322-2. REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS (EXCLUDING C-T)
Land Use Required Parking Spaces
Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling Unit See Chapter 23.306
Dwellings, including Group
Living Accommodations
If located on a roadway less than 26 feet in width in the Hillside Overlay: 1 per unit
All Other Locations: None required
Hotel, Residential None required
Mixed-Use Residential
(residential use only)
None required
Senior Congregate Housing None required
Non-Residential Uses
All non-residential uses except
uses listed below
C-DMU District: 1.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.
All Other Commercial Districts: 2 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hospital 1 per each 4 beds plus 1 per each 3 employees
Library C-DMU District: 1.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.
All Other Commercial Districts: 1 per 500 sq. ft. of publicly accessible floor area
Nursing Home 1 per 3 employees
Medical Practitioners C-DMU District: 1.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.
All Other Commercial Districts: 1 per 300 sq. ft.
Hotels, Tourist C-DMU District: 1 per 3 guest/sleeping rooms or suites C-C, C-U, C-W Districts: 1 per 3 guest/sleeping rooms or suites plus 1 per 3 employees
All Other Commercial Districts: 2 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Motels, Tourist C-DMU District: 1 per 3 guest/sleeping rooms or suites