Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, April 29, 2025 (part 2 of 5)

Page 164 ends

Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Non-Discrimination Policies & Procedures Copyright © 2025 Zum Services, Inc. All rights reserved. 3/5/25, 2:51 PM Zum Deploys Nation’s First 100% Electric School Bus Fleet in Oakland, California for the 2024-2025 School Year - Zum https://www.ridezum.com/press-release/nations-first-all-electric-school-bus-fleet-oakland-ca/ 7/7

Page 9 of 9 ends

Page 165 ends

Page 166 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7120 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin
Subject: Budget Referral Funding F and G Dock Deck Replacement

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $250,000 for F and G dock replacement funding to the Fiscal Year 26 Mid- Biennial Budget Update.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$250,000 and staff time.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The wooden decking on the F and G docks at the Berkeley Marina is heavily worn and weathered from over 27 years of use and constant exposure to the marine environment.

The average life expectancy of such wood decking is roughly 15-20 years in a non- marine environment. In the last few years, staff have received many complaints of trip hazards, splinters, and overall concern for the safety of the docks.

City maintenance staff strongly recommends that the entirety of the dock decking, consisting of 2x6 foot wooden planks, be replaced with composite decking immediately.

Completing this task would also require the removal and replacement of roughly 500 cleats, 118 dock boxes, and 40 electrical pedestals.

BACKGROUND
The F and G docks were installed in 1997 in the eastern side of the basin. They are wooden docks floating on encapsulated foam tubs, held in place with concrete piles.

The docks have 118 slips ranging from 22’ to 84’ which are used by fishermen, sailors and liveaboards. The docks are popular and have an occupancy rate of 91%.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
N/A

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Terry Taplin, District 2, 510-981-7120.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Page 167 ends

Page 168 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Subject: Berkeley Juneteenth Festival: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the expenditure of funds, including $2500 from Councilmember Bartlett for pre- planning of the Berkeley Juneteenth Festival (organized by Berkeley Juneteenth Association, Inc. 501(c)3), with funds relinquished to the City’s General Fund for this purpose from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Bartlett and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

CURRENT SITUATION:

The 2025 Berkeley Juneteenth Festival will be held on Sunday, June 15, 2025, in the heart of South Berkeley’s historic Lorin District on Adeline Street beginning at 11:00 AM, welcoming the diverse Berkeley and East Bay population. Throughout the week leading up to the Sunday celebration, which will feature local artisans, food vendors, musical, dance, and cultural presentations, and information booths staffed by local non-profit organizations, we will hold educational and cultural events at various locations, including the Ed Roberts Campus.

BACKGROUND:

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, declaring freedom for enslaved individuals in Confederate states. However, in Texas, enslaved people remained unaware of their freedom for more than two years, as their captors deliberately withheld this information. On June 18, 1865, Major General Gordon Granger of the Union Army arrived in Galveston, Texas, accompanied by 1,800 soldiers, to enforce the emancipation of over 250,000 enslaved people in the state.

The following year, on June 19, 1866, newly freed individuals in Texas took to the streets to commemorate their emancipation, establishing an enduring celebration tradition. Over time, local communities preserved this annual observance, and in 1979, Texas officially recognized June 19th as Black Heritage Day with the passage of H.B. 1016. Today, Juneteenth is widely celebrated nationwide as a day honoring African American culture, heritage, and resilience.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 169 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] The Berkeley Juneteenth Festival was founded by R.D. Bonds, Bradley Walters, and Sam Dyke to foster community pride and unite South Berkeley residents and businesses in celebrating this significant cultural event. The establishment of Berkeley Juneteenth Association, Inc. (BJAI) led to the first annual Festival in 1987. Former City Councilmembers Mary Wainwright and the late Maudelle Shirek played pivotal roles in securing City sponsorship, while the late Lothario Lotho and Giselle Thomas contributed over 25 years of dedicated service to the event’s development.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No negative impact.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impact; $2500 is available from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett.

CONTACT PERSON:

Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected]
James Chang [email protected]
ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution to authorize the expenditure of surplus funds added.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 170 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT

TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE WHEREAS, Councilmembers Bartlett has surplus funds in his office expenditure account; and
WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax-exempt corporation – Berkeley Juneteenth Association, Inc. – will receive the funds; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the following municipal public purpose: Berkeley Juneteenth Association, Inc. (BJAI) Promotes greater societal cohesiveness and well-being by educating and involving the community-at-large in historical, family, and cultural activities pertaining to people of color; and WHEREAS, BJAI hosts various activities including Black History Month Celebrations and the Berkeley Juneteenth Festival; and
WHEREAS, cultural celebrations are critical to the social and spiritual unity of our community, and are integrated into BJAI events; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their council office budget, of an amount to be determined by each Councilmember, shall be granted to Berkeley Juneteenth Association, Inc.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 171 ends

Page 172 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
Adena Ishii, Mayor
Igor Tregub, Councilmember District 4
Terry Taplin, Councilmember District 2
Shoshana O’Keefe, Councilmember District 5
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● E-Mail: [email protected] To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmembers Igor Tregub (Author), Shoshana O’Keefe (Co-Sponsor), Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsor), and Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds to Bay Area Robotics Education Sustainability Alliance for the 2025 Berkeley High Robotics Team’s East Bay Regional Robotics Competition.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $250 per member of the City Council from the D13 Discretionary Accounts of members of the Berkeley City Council, including $250 from Mayor Ishii and Councilmembers O’Keefe, Taplin, and Tregub, and inviting other members of the City Council to contribute, to support the Berkeley High Robotics Team (Berkelium 54191) in hosting the East Bay Regional FIRST2 Robotics Competition3. Funds will be transferred to the City’s general fund and to Bay Area Robotics Education Sustainability Alliance, a fiscal agent for the 2025 Berkeley High Robotics Team’s East Bay Regional Robotics Competition to support this valuable community event.

The relinquishment of funds from the respective discretionary Council Office Budgets of such members of the Berkeley City Council who wish to contribute will support this important initiative, fostering STEM education, student leadership, and international collaboration.
1 https://team5419.wixsite.com/team5419
2 https://www.firstinspires.org/
3 https://cafirst.org/frc/east-bay-regional/#

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 173 ends

BACKGROUND
The East Bay Regional FIRST Robotics Competition4, hosted annually by the Berkeley High Robotics Team (Berkelium 54195), is a premier science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) event that brings together high school robotics teams from across California, the nation, and around the globe. This year, 56 teams were competing in the exciting "Reefscape" challenge at Berkeley High School, drawing students, mentors, parents, and supporters from all corners of the world.

The competition offers an unparalleled opportunity for students to engage in hands-on learning, collaboration, and friendly competition in the STEM fields. The event highlights the talents and innovations of over 80 student members of the Berkeley High Robotics Team, which is entirely student-run with invaluable guidance from volunteer mentors.

As a student-led team without the backing of corporate sponsors or paid mentors, Berkelium 5419 faces unique financial challenges. To ensure the event's success and maintain its high standards, the team is working to raise $15,000-$20,000 to cover essential costs such as event logistics, equipment, and travel expenses for both local and international teams.

The Berkeley High Robotics Team also proudly hosts participants from Hawaii, as well as other countries like Turkey, Japan, Australia, further elevating the event's prestige and showcasing the City of Berkeley’s commitment to fostering global STEM education.

This event not only provides a transformative educational experience but also serves as a point of pride for the community, drawing positive attention to Berkeley as a leader in STEM innovation and collaboration.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The escalating costs of hosting the East Bay Regional FIRST Robotics competition have put significant financial pressure on the Berkeley High Robotics Team. These costs include expenses for the venue, essential equipment, safety measures, and travel for both local and international teams. In order to ensure the event's continued success and to provide ongoing STEM opportunities to Berkeley students, additional funding is crucial to cover the following needs:
 Event logistics and venue rental;
 Materials and equipment required for competition setup;  Travel expenses for participating teams; and
4 https://team5419.wixsite.com/team5419/support-us

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 174 ends

 Support for both local and international teams, enhancing the event’s diversity and scope
As the Berkeley High Robotics Team operates independently and is not categorized as a formal school "club," it does not receive regular funding from the school district.

Therefore, financial support from the City Council is vital to the successful hosting of this prestigious event and to ensuring that students from all backgrounds continue to benefit from these valuable educational experiences.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact. Up to $250 is available from contributing Mayor’s and Councilmembers’ Council Office Budget discretionary accounts.

ATTACHMENTS
#1 Resolution

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Igor Tregub | [email protected] | 510-981-7140 Shamaila Ahmed | Legislative Aid | [email protected]

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 175 ends

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT TO SUPPORT THE BERKELEY HIGH ROBOTICS TEAM’S EAST BAY REGIONAL FIRST ROBOTICS

COMPETITION
WHEREAS, Mayor Ishii and Councilmembers O’Keefe, Taplin, and Tregub have surplus funds in their D13 discretionary office expenditure account and will contribute $250, and invite other Councilmembers to join in contributing; and WHEREAS, the Berkeley High Robotics Team, "Berkelium 5419," is a fully student-led team competing in the prestigious FIRST Robotics international league, dedicated to fostering innovation, teamwork, and STEM education among high school students; and WHEREAS, from April 3-6, 2025, Berkelium 5419, along with their newly established Freshman team, "Bearium 5499," hosted the East Bay Regional FIRST Robotics Competition at Berkeley High School, attracting 56 teams from across California and Hawaii, and the world, including international teams from Turkey, Japan, Australia, to compete in the "Reefscape" challenge; and
WHEREAS, this event brings recognition and prestige to Berkeley High School and the City of Berkeley, highlighting student achievements and fostering collaboration among local and international teams; and
WHEREAS, the successful execution of this large-scale competition requires additional funding to cover logistics, materials, equipment, and operational expenses, with an estimated funding need of $15,000 to $20,000; and
WHEREAS, as a student-run team without school district funding, the Berkeley High Robotics Team relies on community donations, sponsorships, and fundraising to cover costs associated with participation and event hosting; and WHEREAS, the provision of such funding fulfills the municipal public purpose of supporting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, youth leadership, and community engagement through a high-profile, student-led competition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their discretionary office budgets, up to $250 per office, shall be granted to Bay Area Robotics Education Sustainability Alliance for the 2025 Berkeley High Robotics to support the successful hosting of the East Bay Regional FIRST Robotics Competition.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 176 ends

Internal
Kate Harrison
Councilmember, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Harrison
Subject: Resolution: Opposition to Police Brutality and Use of Force on Nonviolent Protesters

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution reaffirming the City of Berkeley’s opposition to and condemning police brutality towards nonviolent protesters and discouraging use of “less-lethal” weapons for crowd control.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On March 24, 2025, the Public Safety Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Kesarwani/O’Keefe) to send item to City Council with a negative recommendation. Vote: All Ayes.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has a long and storied history of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience. Unfortunately, that history is coupled with one of police brutality directed at nonviolent protesters. The most infamous example of police brutality in Berkeley occurred on “Bloody Thursday” in 1969 when James Rector was murdered by the Alameda County Sheriff force and a National Guard helicopter sprayed CS (tear gas) on thousands of protesters shortly following the founding of People’s Park and deputies shot birdshot and buckshot at demonstrators.

While CS gas and pepper spray are both banned in warfare by international law, police in the United States commonly use them for crowd control purposes. On June 9, 2020, the City Council unanimously passed a motion to prohibit the use of CS gas by the Berkeley Police Departments or by any agency called for mutual aid in Berkeley.1 This motion also prohibited the use of pepper spray and smoke by the Berkeley Police Department and by any agency called for mutual aid response in Berkeley, during the 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/06- 09%20Annotated%20Agenda%204pm.pdf

Page 1 of 7 ends

Page 177 ends

Internal
Opposition to Police Brutality and Use of Force on Nonviolent Protesters

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]
COVID-19 pandemic and until such time that the City Council removes this prohibition.2 The City’s recent suspension of the local COVID emergency does not mean that the COVID-19 pandemic is over, nor does it overturn the Council’s 2020 pepper spray and smoke prohibition policy.

Other devices can also harm people. LRADs, or Long-Range Acoustic Devices, have dire consequences for the protesters and bystanders who are exposed to them.

According to the Berkeley Police Department’s 2022 Police Equipment and Community Safety Annual Report, BPD currently has two LRADs in its possession. Use of LRADs in crowd control situations can be dangerous according to Physicians for Human Rights, and the City of Berkeley regulates their use. LRADs are “capable of causing not only permanent hearing loss, but also migraine, vestibular, and other auditory symptoms” and emit decibels up to 162 dB SPL (sound pressure level), exponentially higher than jet engines at 130 dB SPL, as decibel levels increase exponentially.3 Batons are commonly used by police to brutalize protesters, and recent legislation strongly restricts their use by the Berkeley Police Department. Under international law, “batons must never be used as a means of punishment, to disperse peaceful protests, or against people who are already restrained.”4 Yet batons were used by police forces across the United States to disperse peaceful protests during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, for example. During Berkeley Black Lives Matter protests in December of 2014, police forces used CS gas, blast rounds, and harmed protesters with batons to force crowds to disperse—which led to a successful civil rights lawsuit against the city.5 As a result, the City now is required to apply standards when less lethal weapons are used in a crowd using a standard closer to the lethal force standard. In addition, the policy requires BPD personnel to have a clear shot at an allegedly violent target to prevent injury to others, expansive use of force reporting, implementation of body worn cameras, cite and release provisions, crowd liaisons, and prohibitions on skirmish lines advancing rapidly into a crowd. Berkeley has to live up to its commitments, and other jurisdictions must adopt similar policies.

So-called less-lethal or “kinetic impact” projectiles, including rubber bullets, are used by police forces across the country against nonviolent protesters, and their use should be strongly restricted. According to Amnesty International, “there has been an alarming increase in eye injuries, including eyeball ruptures, retinal detachments and the 2https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/AfRL%C3%89LmUm28As5bQtd10Au1FO SJIk1QHHaoDvg0JDhYupGbecgfU%C3%89KphfxL4BQWn%C3%81GtBMi8Z0%C3%81w8NXdky5p xceo%3D/
3 https://www.asha.org/news/2020/long-range-acoustic-devices-for-crowd-control-can-cause-serious- hearing-loss-and-harm/
4 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/06/global-20-rules-for-ending-widespread-misuse-of- police-batons/
5 https://www.berkeleyside.org/2015/06/11/police-report-mistakes-challenges-in-berkeley-protests

Page 2 of 7 ends

Page 178 ends

Internal
Opposition to Police Brutality and Use of Force on Nonviolent Protesters

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]
complete loss of sight, as well as bone and skull fractures, brain injuries, the rupture of internal organs and hemorrhaging, punctured hearts and lungs from broken ribs, damage to genitalia, and psychological trauma” by less-lethal munitions. 6 These weapons also include hard foam, rubberized buckshot, and CS gas. Amnesty International also states that “at least 53 people died from projectiles fired by security forces, according to a peer-reviewed study based on medical literature worldwide between 1990 and June 2017. It also concluded that 300 of the 1,984 people injured suffered permanent disability.” All less-lethal munitions can still be lethal, and should not be used for crowd control in Berkeley by UCPD or mutual aid agencies.

Finally, the practice of corralling, or “kettling,” can pose severe dangers to nonviolent and peaceful protesters. When police corral protesters in a confined space, there is nowhere to go if police begin to use force against protesters. As nonviolent and peaceful protesters are corralled into the same confined and potentially dangerous space, protesters may become victims of excessive police force more easily. Beyond the inability to escape police use of force, corralled protesters are put in a plainly frightening situation that may cause immense psychological distress. Importantly, even if police are focused on certain protesters, kettling places all protesters, including nonviolent and peaceful protesters, into the same confined and dangerous space. The City of Berkeley should strongly discourage any police departments responding to civil disobedience and protest in Berkeley from utilizing this strategy for crowd control. “Less-lethal,” which is often erroneously described as “less-than-lethal," is only relatively so. It can maim and even kill. It is known to have a disproportionate impact on persons with both physical disabilities and mental challenges. CS can be very detrimental to persons with asthma, COVID-19 or other respiratory diseases. Crowd control is a dynamic setting, and officers’ ability for precise shots is greatly impaired. The chances of hitting the intended individual with a projectile are low, and of hitting uninvolved protesters is high. Chemical munitions by their nature affect large numbers of people and even spread far beyond the immediate area. BPD Chief Meehan confirmed this in a Berkeleyside account from June 11, 2015:
“Chief Meehan noted that, even when an officer is focused on an individual, the projectile does not always find its mark due to the unpredictable movements of a crowd. A similar explanation was provided regarding baton strikes. Police said they are trained to avoid areas such as the head and neck, but that blows don’t always land in the right place because subjects move.”7 6 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/03/global-dozens-killed-and-thousands-maimed-by-police- misuse-of-rubber-
bullets/#:~:text=There%20has%20been%20an%20alarming,damage%20to%20genitalia%2C%20and %20psychological
7 https://www.berkeleyside.org/2015/06/11/police-report-mistakes-challenges-in-berkeley-protests

Page 3 of 7 ends

Page 179 ends

Internal
Opposition to Police Brutality and Use of Force on Nonviolent Protesters

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]
Use of less-lethal weapons in an indiscriminate manner against a demonstration that is non-violent, or even mixed, is a denial of First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. In fact, it is tantamount to collective punishment, a denial of due process.

In September of 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 48, which restricts police departments use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, and AB 481, which requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of military equipment. While these laws restrict the use of “less-lethal” munitions California law enforcement agencies, they also do not preclude municipalities from adopting more stringent policies or reaffirming their opposition to their use on nonviolent protesters.

This subject is of particular concern because the University of California is currently awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. The Regents of University of California that could allow the University to begin building housing there, with resulting protests a likely outcome. On September 19, 2023, the City of Berkeley adopted a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to submit an amicus brief in support of the University of California Regents, defending the University’s proposed development of People’s Park. It is important that the Berkeley City Council immediately adopt a resolution denouncing the use of “less-lethal” devices and any police brutality against nonviolent protesters in Berkeley from any agencies and police departments, whether or not our police department participates in enforcement actions.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Following Berkeley’s policies on crowd control will reduce the need for resource- intensive and expensive paramedic and medical care for injured protestors.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with adopting this recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS
1: Resolution

Page 4 of 7 ends

Page 180 ends

Internal
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-N.S.

REAFFIRMING OPPOSITION TO AND CONDEMNING POLICE BRUTALITY TOWARDS NONVIOLENT PROTESTERS AND DISCOURAGING USE OF “LESS- LETHAL” WEAPONS FOR CROWD CONTROL
WHEREAS, Berkeley’s Southside neighborhood has historically been the site of violent police use of force and brutality towards protesting students and community members, most famously during “Bloody Thursday” in 1969 where the Alameda County Sheriff force murdered James Rector and a National Guard helicopter sprayed CS (tear gas) on thousands of protesters shortly following the founding of People’s Park; and WHEREAS, the Chemical Weapons Convention and Geneva Convention prohibit CS gas and pepper spray in warfare; and
WHEREAS, the State of California recently enacted AB 4818 and AB 48,9 which demilitarize and regulate police departments’ acquisition and use of projectiles, chemical weapons, military equipment, and others, and protect protesters’ First and Fourth Amendment rights; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, the Berkeley City Council unanimously passed an ordinance to oversee and make transparent militarized police equipment used for crowd control and SWAT operations; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley Police Department’s 2022 Police Equipment and Community Safety Annual Report provided an inventory of reportable equipment, including 20 Less Lethal single 40MM launchers, 2 Less Lethal Milkor LTL 40 MM multi-launchers, 724 associated 40mm rounds, 8 Less Lethal FN 303 Launchers, 5,445 associated FN rounds, 190 Oleoresin capsicum (OC spray), 204 Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile and Oleoresin capsicum, 2 Long Range Acoustic Devices, and 195 36’ batons; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020,10 the Berkeley City Council unanimously voted to prohibit the use of CS gas by the Berkeley Police Department or any outside department or agency called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley and of pepper spray or smoke for crowd control by the Berkeley Police Department, or any outside department or agency called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley, during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond; and
WHEREAS, the University of California’s University-wide Police Policies and Procedures11 allow the University of California Police Department to apply intermediate force, including batons, tasers, pepper spray, chemical agents (such as CS gas), and 8 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB481. 9 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB48. 10 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/06- 09%20Annotated%20Agenda%204pm.pdf.
11 https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/tools-and-services/administrators/policies/proposed/police- procedures-manual.pdf.

Page 5 of 7 ends

Page 181 ends

Internal
rubber bullets, on nonviolent protesters displaying active resistance, which is defined as intentionally and unlawfully opposing the lawful order of a peace officer in a physical manner; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, UC Berkeley police forces in riot gear confronted protesters,12 arrested students and community members participating in civil disobedience, and allegedly forcibly shoved nonviolent defenders of the park, resulting in severe injuries;13 and
WHEREAS, following the conflict on August 3, 2022, police forces retreated and UC Berkeley declared construction paused indefinitely; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, the Berkeley City Council called for a special meeting on August 4th, 2022 to discuss and consider the temporary suspension of the June 9, 2020 policy prohibiting the use of CS gas, smoke, and pepper spray for the duration of the City Council recess following pressure from the Alameda County Sheriff, and then canceled it on August 4, 2022 following public outrage; and WHEREAS, in 2020, 84% of Berkeley voters14 approved amending the city charter to establish an independent police accountability board and director to provide oversight of local law enforcement, pointing to the public’s desire for police reform; and WHEREAS, violent, less-lethal forms of crowd control used by BPD, UCPD or mutual aid agencies, include but are not limited to Long Range Acoustic Devices, plastic and rubber bullets, hard foam, batons, corralling, launch projectiles, and Active Denial Systems; and15
WHEREAS, less-lethal weapons and tactics deployed in crowd control have disproportionate impacts on persons with both physical disabilities and mental challenges, can have detrimental impacts to persons with asthma, COVID-19 or other respiratory diseases; and
WHEREAS, less-lethal crowd control is a dynamic operation in which officers’ ability for precise shots is greatly impaired and the chances of hitting the intended individual with a projectile are low, and of hitting uninvolved protesters is high; and WHEREAS, chemical munitions by their nature affect large numbers of people and even spread far beyond the immediate area; and
12 https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/08/03/uc-berkeley-fences-off-peoples-park-begins-construction- process.
13 https://www.instagram.com/p/ChYn3ZYrU9j/?img_index=2. 14https://ballotpedia.org/Berkeley,_California,_Measure_II,_Police_Accountability_Charter_Amendment_( November_2020).
15 https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/06/05/are-crowd-control-weapons-dangerous-very-says-uc-berkeley- expert.

Page 6 of 7 ends

Page 182 ends

Internal
WHEREAS, use of less-lethal weapons or tactics in an indiscriminate manner against a demonstration that is non-violent, or even mixed, is a denial of First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, and is tantamount to collective punishment, and a denial of due process.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley reaffirms its objection to and denounces any and all police brutality and use of force against nonviolent protesters, including those participating in nonviolent civil disobedience.

BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley strongly urges the University of California Police Department and any outside departments or agencies called to respond to mutual aid in Berkeley against using “less-lethal” weapons and tactics—including but not limited to CS gas, pepper spray, smoke, Long-Range Acoustic Devices, batons, rubber bullets, launched projectiles, and corralling—against nonviolent protesters, including those participating in nonviolent civil disobedience.

Page 7 of 7 ends

Page 183 ends

Page 184 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe (Author)
Subject: Letter in Support of SB 456: Muralist Exemption

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter to Senator Angelique Ashby (cc: Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Jesse Arreguín, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks) in support of Senate Bill 456, which would exempt muralists from having to obtain a contractor’s license through the Contractors State Licensing Board (CSLB) before being commissioned for public and private art projects.

SUMMARY STATEMENT
The State of California’s Contractors State Licensing Board (CSLB) oversees the state's licensing requirements for various types of contractors, including fines or misdemeanor charges for violators. Current law makes it a misdemeanor for a person to engage in the business, or act in the capacity of a contractor without a license, unless exempted.

Currently, muralists who paint their artwork on permanent structures are subject to the same licensing requirements as commercial painters under the Business and Professions Code, even though these two roles are not equivalent in a variety of important ways. This bill would exempt from that law a muralist pursuant to an agreement with a person who could legally authorize the work.

Public art and murals are proven drivers of community and economic health, attracting tourists, supporting jobs, generating revenue, and improving public safety and wellbeing. Murals are also works of art protected under federal copyright laws and are fundamentally different from the roles of other CSLB licensees.

BACKGROUND
In 2023, public notices began being issued to municipalities indicating that muralists fall within the definition of a "contractor" under Business and Professions Code section 7026. As a result, muralists must carry a contractor's license if they undertake a mural on a building for more than $500. Additionally, per Business and Professions Code section 7028.15 (e), city staff may be fined for knowingly hiring an unlicensed muralist. Due to these licensure requirements, cities across California have had to cease or stall the implementation of mural projects.

To qualify for these commercial licenses, muralists must accumulate four years of specialized experience under a licensed contractor, pass the Law and Business examination, and pay

Page 1 of 7 ends

Page 185 ends

annual licensing fees. These requirements create unnecessary barriers to work on public art projects, and expose city employees and artists to fines if such requirements are not met.

Muralists provide a fundamentally different service than a painting contractor, as their work is an artistic expression rather than addressing the structural integrity of a building. It is appropriate to provide a narrow exception to the state’s licensing requirements for muralists, as SB 456 seeks to provide them with the flexibility to continue their artistic expression.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Local arts activities play an important role in community life and have a positive impact on the social health and economic vitality of cities. Muralists are vital contributors to public artistic and cultural expression, especially community-based artists and others who have not found the same support in the traditional art world.

The State Legislature should create an exception for muralists under the Business and Professions code. This would help further safeguard artists and communities from potential legal issues and risk associated with practicing this valuable form of art. This would also provide the City of Berkeley with a legal path to be able to (once again) commission murals for our public spaces.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
N/A

FISCAL IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT
Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe, (510) 981-7150
Attachments:

1. Letter of Support

2. Senate Bill 456

Page 2 of 7 ends

Page 186 ends

The Berkeley City Council
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
April 29, 2025
The Honorable Angelique Ashby
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 8620
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Berkeley’s Support for SB 456
Dear Senator Ashby:

The Berkeley City Council writes to express its strong support for Senate Bill 456, which would exempt artists who draw, paint, apply, execute, restore, or conserve murals from having to obtain a contractor’s license through the Contractors State Licensing Board (CSLB).

Under current law, muralists are categorized alongside commercial painters, subjecting them to licensing standards that do not reflect the nature of their work. These requirements present unnecessary barriers to artistic and creative expression. Public art and murals are proven drivers of community and economic health, attracting tourists, supporting jobs, generating revenue, and improving public safety and wellbeing. They can also be catalysts for public dialogue, and aid efforts at neighborhood revitalization and beautification.

The State Legislature should create an exception for muralists under the Business and Professions code to safeguard artists and communities from potential legal issues and risk associated with practicing this valuable form of art. The City of Berkeley strongly supports the re-creation of a viable legal pathway to commission murals for our public spaces.

We believe our community and city at large, as well as artist communities across California stand to benefit greatly from this change in law, and we thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council
cc:

Governor Gavin Newsom

Page 3 of 7 ends

Page 187 ends

Senator Jesse Arreguín
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks

Page 4 of 7 ends

Page 188 ends

SENATE BILL NO. 456
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 02, 2025
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Senator Ashby
(Coauthor: Senator Laird)
February 19, 2025
An act to amend add Section 7044 of 7050 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to professions and vocations.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 456, as amended, Ashby. Contractors: exemptions: muralists.

Existing law, the Contractors State License Law, establishes the Contractors State License Board within the Department of Consumer Affairs and sets forth its powers and duties relating to the licensure and regulation of contractors. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person to engage in the business, or act in the capacity, of a contractor without a license, unless exempted. Existing law exempts from the Contractors State License Law, among other things, a nonproﬁt corporation providing assistance to an owner, as speciﬁ ed.

This bill would exempt from that law a muralist, as deﬁned, who produces a mural, as deﬁned, pursuant to an agreement with a person who could legally authorize the work.

This bill would exempt from that law an artist who draws, paints, applies, executes, restores, or conserves a mural, as deﬁned, pursuant to an agreement with a person who could legally authorize the work.

Digest Key
V ote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no Bill Text

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 7050 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:
7050. (a) This chapter does not apply to an artist who draws, paints, applies, executes, restores, or conserves a mural pursuant to an agreement with a person who could legally authorize the work. 4/4/25, 10:09 AM California-2025-SB456-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB456/id/3199736/California-2025-SB456-Amended.html 1/3

Page 5 of 7 ends

Page 189 ends

(b) For purposes of this section, ”mural” means a unique work of ﬁne art that is protected by copyright, trademark, label, or patent and that is drawn or painted by hand directly onto interior or exterior walls or ceilings, ﬁxtur es, or other appurtenances of a building or structure. “Mural” does not include painted wall signs.

SECTION 1.Section 7044 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:
7044.(a)This chapter does not apply to any of the following:
(1)An owner who builds or improves a structure on the owner’s property, provided that both of the following conditions are met:
(A)None of the improvements are intended or offered for sale. (B)The property owner personally performs all of the work or any work not performed by the owner is performed by the owner’s employees with wages as their sole compensation. (2)An owner who builds or improves a structure on the owner’s property, provided that both of the following conditions are met:
(A)The owner directly contracts with licensees who are duly licensed to contract for the work of the respective trades involved in completing the project.
(B)For projects involving single-family residential structures, no more than four of these structures are intended or offered for sale in a calendar year. This subparagraph shall not apply if the owner contracts with a general contractor for the construction.
(3)A homeowner improving the homeowner’s principal place of residence or appurtenances thereto, provided that all of the following conditions exist:
(A)The work is performed prior to sale.
(B)The homeowner has actually resided in the residence for the 12 months prior to completion of the work. (C)The homeowner has not claimed the exemption in this paragraph on more than two structures more than once during any three-year period.
(4)A nonproﬁt corporation providing assistance to an owner-builder, as deﬁned in subdivision (a) of Section 50692 of the Health and Safety Code, who is participating in a mutual self-help housing program, as deﬁned in Section 50078 of the Health and Safety Code.
(5)A muralist who produces a mural.
(A)For purposes of this section, a “muralist” means an artist who draws, paints, applies, executes, restores, conserves, or afﬁxes visual art directly onto walls, ceilings, or other ﬁxtures of a building or structure pursuant to an agreement with a person who could legally authorize the work. (B)For purposes of this section, a “mural” means a unique work of visual art that is protected by copyright, trademark, label, or patent and that is drawn or painted by hand directly upon, or afﬁxed directly to, an exterior or interior wall or ceiling of a building or structure. (b)In all actions brought under this chapter, both of the following shall apply:
(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), proof of the sale or offering for sale of a structure by or for the owner- builder within one year after completion of the structure constitutes a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that the structure was undertaken for purposes of sale. 4/4/25, 10:09 AM California-2025-SB456-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB456/id/3199736/California-2025-SB456-Amended.html 2/3

Page 6 of 7 ends

Page 190 ends

(2)Proof of the sale or offering for sale of ﬁve or more structures by the owner-builder within one year after completion constitutes a conclusive presumption that the structures were undertaken for purposes of sale. 4/4/25, 10:09 AM California-2025-SB456-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB456/id/3199736/California-2025-SB456-Amended.html 3/3

Page 7 of 7 ends

Page 191 ends

Page 192 ends

Brent Blackaby
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Blackaby (Author), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-sponsor), Councilmember Tregub (Co-sponsor), Mayor Ishii (Co-sponsor) Subject: Budget Referral: Deportation Defense Legal and Education Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget Process an allocation of $200,000 for Deportation Defense Legal and Education Funds.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$200,000 in FY 2026.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
When President Donald Trump was elected he promised “Mass Deportations.” On his first day of office, President Trump rescinded the Biden Administration’s guidelines to not allow immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas such as schools, hospitals, social service centers and places of worship, unless there are exigent circumstances. Now Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can enter and deport Berkeley residents at those sites as well as others.

This Budget referral would fund additional legal and educational services to help protect our immigrant communities against the national mass deportation movement. Wait lists for these services are already at 200+ people at our Berkeley-based Immigration Service Providers (Social Justice Collaborative, Oasis Legal Services, Multicultural Institute, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, East Bay Community Law Center). East Bay Sanctuary Covenant would distribute the funds among the five agencies for coordinated Legal Consultation and Support for Immigrants, including:
 Legal consultations/screenings
o 20 min legal consultations/screenings - from trained attorney or DOJ accredited representative
o Pro-se clinics for I-589 (affirmative asylum)
o Virtual consultations and screenings
 Legal immigration services and limited scope representation, including limited relief and defensive relief.
 Community legal consultation events

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 193 ends

Budget Referral: Deportation Defense Legal and Education Funds CONSENT CALENDAR April 29, 2025

Page 2 ends

 Know Your Rights (KYR) events
 Support Family Preparedness Preparation Trainings across the schools.  Coordination with BUSD to implement 1-2 Train the Trainer workshops for all school staff (with follow up support).

The funding would allow our local immigration services agencies to implement urgently needed legal support services for Berkeley residents, demonstrate the City of Berkeley’s commitment to protect and defend immigrant communities, and leverage additional funding. County funding recently allocated for emergency legal services is not going to any Berkeley based non-profits.

The City shall enter into a contract with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant that requests documentation at six months and 12 months to ensure that funds were used for the purpose for which they were allocated.

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant is currently seeking additional funding for coordinated legal consultation and support for immigrants through a grant from the Vera Institute of Justice SAFE Network catalyst funding of $100,000, participation in a California Funder briefing on April 17th to leverage additional funds, and partnering with county organizations like Alameda County Immigration Legal and Education Partnership.

BACKGROUND
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant has been supporting Berkeley’s sanctuary movement for over 40 years. They are one of the largest affirmative-asylum programs in the U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with adopting this recommendation.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Brent Blackaby Council District 6 510-981-7160

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 194 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 195 ends

Page 196 ends

Brent Blackaby
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [[email protected]]

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Blackaby (Author), Councilmember Tregub (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Adding ADA expertise to the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee

RECOMMENDATION
Approve an amendment to the Measure FF SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee (SSCOC) Resolution and Ordinance approved for establishment at the March 18, 2025 Council Meeting, to add an additional qualifying skillset for appointment:
a background in ADA compliance and the accessible infrastructure challenges that seniors and disabled community members face.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On March 18, 2025 City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 71,695–N.S. to support the establishment of a SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee (SSCOC), and authorized the City Manager to further implement Section 7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, to ensure compliance with all requirements. Councilmember Blackaby stated at the meeting his interest in ensuring one of the SSCOC members have a background in ADA compliance and the accessible infrastructure challenges that seniors and disabled community members face and that he would bring an amendment to a near future meeting to do so.

Measure FF, approved by Berkeley residents on November 5, 2025, stated the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee members must have a background in one of the following:
 civil engineering
 transportation engineering
 infrastructure program management
 implementation of municipal bond or tax measures

Page 1 of 11 ends

Page 197 ends

Adding ADA expertise to the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee CONSENT CALENDAR April 29, 2025

Page 2 ends

However, it is also critical that at least one SSCOC member have a background in ADA compliance and the accessible infrastructure challenges that seniors and disabled community members face to ensure accessible infrastructure development for all.

This item amends BMC 7.11.040 SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee to add expertise in ADA compliance and a background in senior and disability issues to the list of backgrounds necessary to be appointed to the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee. The amended language of BMC 7.11.040 B. 2. shall read, “…Members of the public shall be required to have a background in civil engineering, transportation engineering, infrastructure program management, the implementation of municipal bond or tax measures, or ADA compliance and the accessible infrastructure challenges that seniors and disabled community members face.”
This item also amends the Resolution to reflect the additional expertise requirement to the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee.

Measure FF amendments can be made to the Ordinance without voter approval, per Section 7. of the Measure, under special circumstances, including changes that do not “reduce the public input, oversight, and accountability processes set forth in section

7.11.040 and 7.11.050.”
Amending the Measure FF Ordinance to require additional expertise for Oversight Committee members does not reduce public input, oversight and accountability, rather it enshrines input representing our senior and disabled communities.

BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2025, Berkeley residents voted for Measure FF: Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax with 60% approval. The Measure calls for a Safe Streets Citizen Oversight Committee to help oversee funding for city streets, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and stormwater management.

On March 18, 2025, Public Works Director Terrance Davis put forward, Council Item #7, Establishing a Measure FF SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee. Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 71,695–N.S.,

1. Establishing a SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee (SSCOC) to review expenditures and progress reports from the City Manager and City Auditor to ensure compliance with the intent of Measure FF, evaluating the impacts and outcomes of tax expenditures on stated goals and prepare public reports on the Committee’s findings; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to further implement Section 7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, to ensure compliance with all requirements.

Page 2 of 11 ends

Page 198 ends

Adding ADA expertise to the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee CONSENT CALENDAR April 29, 2025

Page 3 ends

Requirements for establishing the SSCOC through Council Resolution are explicitly laid out in Section 7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, with a specific membership composition detailed in Section 7.11.040 (B):

B. Composition:

1. The SSCOC shall consist of seven members, as follows:
a. Two members of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Commission
b. One member of the Environment and Climate Commission c. Four members of the public who are Berkeley residents

2. SSCOC members from commissions shall be appointed by their respective bodies, and members of the public shall be appointed by the City Council as a whole. Members of the public shall be required to have a background in civil engineering, transportation engineering, infrastructure program management, or the
implementation of municipal bond or tax measures.

3. The SSCOC annually shall elect one of its members as the chairperson and one of its members as the vice-chairperson.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no environmental sustainability effects directly associated with the recommendations in this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Input from the senior and disability communities.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Increasing the number of members from seven to eight so that one could be appointed from the Commission on Disabilities. However, the desire to keep the Commission at seven won over with the thought that the expertise can come from one of the four members of the public.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Brent Blackaby, (510) 981-7160
Attachments:
1: Resolution with Tracked Changes
2: Resolution Clean Copy
3: Ordinance Adding an Additional Qualifying Skillset for Appointment – Tracked 4: Ordinance Adding an Additional Qualifying Skillset for Appointment – Clean Copy

Page 3 of 11 ends

Page 199 ends

Attachment 1 Resolution tracked changes

Page 4 ends

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

ESTABLISHING A MEASURE FF SAFE STREETS CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, Measure FF, also known as the known as the Sustainable and Accountable Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS) Initiative, was passed by voters on November 5, 2025 and adopted as Ordinance 7,952-N.S. on December 10, 2025, requires the establishment of the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee (SSCOC) in Section 7.11.040; and WHEREAS, Implementation of SAFE STREETS Initiative will be managed by the Department of Public Works in alignment with existing City Plans, as detailed in Ordinance 7,952-N.S.; and
WHEREAS, Requirements for establishing the SSCOC are explicitly laid out in Section

7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, with a specific membership composition detailed in Section 7.11.040 (B).

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee is hereby created.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, According to Ordinance 7,952-N.S., Section 7.11.040 (B):

1. The SSCOC shall consist of seven members, as follows:
a. Two members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission
b. One member of the Environment and Climate Commission c. Four members of the public who are Berkeley residents

2. SSCOC members from commissions shall be appointed by their respective bodies, and members of the public shall be appointed by the City Council as a whole.

Members of the public shall be required to have a background in civil engineering, transportation engineering, infrastructure program management, or the implementation of municipal bond or tax measures, or ADA compliance and the accessible infrastructure challenges that seniors and disabled community members face.

3. The SSCOC annually shall elect one of its members as the chairperson and one of its members as the vice-chairperson.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SSCOC is established to review expenditures and progress reports from the City Manager and City Auditor to ensure compliance with the intent of Measure FF, passed by voters on November 5, 2024, evaluating the impacts and outcomes of tax expenditures on stated goals and prepare public reports on the Committee’s findings.

Page 4 of 11 ends

Page 200 ends

Attachment 1 Resolution tracked changes
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the committee may make and alter rules governing its organization and procedures which are consistent with this Chapter or any other applicable ordinance or resolution of the City. A majority of the members appointed to the committee shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members appointed is required to take any action.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Committee shall prepare an annual independent report of progress and performance. Each report shall be made publicly available on the City's website and submitted to the City Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SSCOC shall sunset pursuant to BMC 7.11.030 and Section 7 of Ordinance 7,952-N.S.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if there are remaining funds or remaining reporting requirements after the completion of the SAFE STREETS implementation, completion of these requirements may be fulfilled by the SSCOC as a subcommittee to be absorbed by either the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission or the Environment and Climate Commission, or their successors, as deemed appropriate by the City Manager.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to further implement Section 7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, to ensure compliance with all requirements.

Page 5 of 11 ends

Page 201 ends

Attachment 2 Resolution Clean Copy
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, with a specific membership composition detailed in Section 7.11.040 (B).

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee is hereby created.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, According to Ordinance 7,952-N.S., Section 7.11.040 (B):

4. The SSCOC shall consist of seven members, as follows:
a. Two members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission
b. One member of the Environment and Climate Commission c. Four members of the public who are Berkeley residents

5. SSCOC members from commissions shall be appointed by their respective bodies, and members of the public shall be appointed by the City Council as a whole.

Members of the public shall be required to have a background in civil engineering, transportation engineering, infrastructure program management, the implementation of municipal bond or tax measures, or ADA compliance and the accessible infrastructure challenges that seniors and disabled community members face.

6. The SSCOC annually shall elect one of its members as the chairperson and one of its members as the vice-chairperson.

Page 6 of 11 ends

Page 202 ends

Attachment 2 Resolution Clean Copy
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the committee may make and alter rules governing its organization and procedures which are consistent with this Chapter or any other applicable ordinance or resolution of the City. A majority of the members appointed to the committee shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members appointed is required to take any action.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SSCOC shall sunset pursuant to BMC 7.11.030 and Section 7 of Ordinance 7,952-N.S.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to further implement Section 7.11.040 of City Ordinance 7,952-N.S, to ensure compliance with all requirements.

Exhibits
A: Ordinance 7,952-N.S, SAFE STREETS Initiative (Adopted December 10, 2024)

Page 7 of 11 ends

Page 203 ends

Attachment 3 Ordinance Tracked Changes
ORDINANCE NO. X,XXX-N.S.

ADDING AN ADDITIONAL QUALIFYING SKILLSET FOR APPOINTMENT TO MEASURE FF SAFE STREETS CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (SSCOC); AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 7.11.040
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 7.11.040 is amended to read as follows:

7.11.040 SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee
A.The City Council shall establish a SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee (SSCOC) to review expenditures and progress reports from the City Manager and City Auditor to ensure compliance with the intent of this chapter, evaluate the impacts and outcomes of tax expenditures on this chapter's stated goals, and prepare public reports on the committee's findings.

B. Composition:

1. The SSCOC shall consist of seven members, as follows:
(a) Two members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission (b) One member of the Environment and Climate Commission (c) Four members of the public who are Berkeley residents

2. SSCOC members from commissions shall be appointed by their respective bodies, and members of the public shall be appointed by the City Council as a whole.

3. The SSCOC annually shall elect one of its members as the chairperson and one of its members as the vice-chairperson.

C.The City Manager shall designate a staff person to serve as secretary of the committee.

D.The committee shall establish a regular place and time for meeting. All meetings shall be noticed as required by law and shall be scheduled in a way to allow for maximum input from the public. The frequency of committee meetings shall be as determined by City Council Resolution, but no less than four per year.

E.The committee may make and alter rules governing its organization and procedures which are consistent with this Chapter or any other applicable ordinance of the City. A majority of the members appointed to the committee shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members appointed is required to take any action.

F. The Committee shall prepare an annual independent report of progress and

Page 8 of 11 ends

Page 204 ends

Attachment 3 Ordinance Tracked Changes
performance. Each report shall be made publicly available on the City's website and submitted to the City Council.

Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Page 9 of 11 ends

Page 205 ends

Attachment 4 Ordinance Clean Copy
ORDINANCE NO. X,XXX-N.S.

ADDING AN ADDITIONAL QUALIFYING SKILLSET FOR APPOINTMENT TO MEASURE FF SAFE STREETS CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (SSCOC) ; AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 7.11.040
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 7.11.040 is amended to read as follows:

B. Composition:

2. SSCOC members from commissions shall be appointed by their respective bodies, and members of the public shall be appointed by the City Council as a whole. Members of the public shall be required to have a background in civil engineering, transportation engineering, infrastructure program management, the implementation of municipal bond or tax measures, or ADA compliance and the accessible infrastructure challenges that seniors and disabled community members face.

3. The SSCOC annually shall elect one of its members as the chairperson and one of its members as the vice-chairperson.

C.The City Manager shall designate a staff person to serve as secretary of the committee.

E.The committee may make and alter rules governing its organization and procedures which are consistent with this Chapter or any other applicable ordinance of the City.

A majority of the members appointed to the committee shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members appointed is required to take any

Page 10 of 11 ends

Page 206 ends

and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members appointed is required to take any action.

F. The Committee shall prepare an annual independent report of progress and performance. Each report shall be made publicly available on the City's website and submitted to the City Council.

Page 11 of 11 ends

Page 207 ends

Page 208 ends

Brent Blackaby
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]]

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Blackaby (Author), Councilmember Taplin (Co-sponsor), Councilmember O’Keefe (Co-sponsor), Councilmember Humbert (Co- sponsor)
Subject: Amend AB-645 (2023-2024) to add the City of Berkeley to California’s Automated Speed Enforcement Pilot

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to send to Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and Senator Jesse Arreguín, requesting that the Legislature amend AB-645 (Friedman) Vehicles: Speed Safety Pilot Program (2023-2024), in order to add the City of Berkeley to the pilot.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None. If the City of Berkeley is selected for inclusion in the pilot, additional costs for acquiring and operating new speed cameras will be identified before implementation.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley is densely populated with over 124,000 people living within its 10.5 square miles of land. Its community is passionate about eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2028, which is the goal of the Vision Zero plan that Berkeley enacted in 2019. Yet 2024 saw four more fatal traffic incidents than 2023 (which had zero).

Unsafe speed was the leading cause of the 877 collisions in 2024, according to the 2024 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report.

Based on traffic data, the City of Berkeley believes that reducing traffic speeds will reduce collisions, injuries, and deaths. Without sufficient enforcement resources, especially in a challenging budgetary environment, speed cameras can play a crucial role.

AB-645 (Friedman), approved Oct 13, 2023, permits selected cities to establish a Speed Safety Pilot Program, to run until Jan 2032. The initial measure included six (6) cities – Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco. Berkeley requested inclusion but was not selected.

California cities not included in the Pilot are not permitted to use speed safety systems.

The Legislature wants to ensure the speed safety programs meet certain requirements and are using this pilot to measure their effectiveness. The City of Berkeley, after

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 209 ends

Amend AB-645 to add Berkeley CA Automated Speed Enforcement Pilot

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025

Page 2 ends

significant public input, has developed several strategic plans towards creating safer transit infrastructure and made progress on their implementation. These include:
 The Berkeley Strategic Transportation (BeST) Plan to improve the physical transportation infrastructure for increased access, mobility and safety for everyone traveling within our city (adopted June 2016)
 The Berkeley Bicycle Plan to make Berkeley a model bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a safe, attractive, easy, and convenient form of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and bicycling abilities (adopted May 2, 2017)  The Vision Zero Action Plan to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on our city streets by 2028 (adopted March 10, 2019)
 The Berkeley 2020 Pedestrian Plan to move forward with pedestrian infrastructure improvements focused on safety and equity (adopted Jan 26, 2021)
The City has also taken steps to use modern technology to support safety and enforcement. Berkeley is ideally situated to implement a Speed Safety Pilot Program and to reap the benefits. Such programs offer a high rate of detection, and, in conjunction with education and traffic engineering, can significantly reduce speeding, improve traffic safety, and prevent traffic-related fatalities and injuries. Further, they can reduce disparate impacts on communities of color, and implicit or explicit racial bias in police traffic stops which put drivers of color at risk nationwide.

This item seeks to urge the State Legislature to amend AB-645 to include the City of Berkeley in the Pilot. If that is not possible, then we request Berkeley be included in the next phase of California’s Speed Safety Program as soon as possible.

BACKGROUND
Adopted by the California Legislature and approved by Governor Newsom on October 13, 2023, AB-645 (Friedman) included six California Cities in its automated speed enforcement pilot: Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco. The pilot runs through January 1, 2032. The City of Berkeley requested inclusion1 before the bill was passed, but was not selected as one of the initial six cities.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
By reducing traffic speeds, the City of Berkeley can improve traffic safety and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Slower speeds support alternate forms of transportation such as biking and walking.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Brent Blackaby Council District 6 510-981-7160 Attachments: 1: Resolution
1 Berkeley City Council Agenda, April 11, 2023, Sending a letter to Assemblymembers Friedman and Wicks to request Berkeley’s Inclusion in AB 645

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 210 ends

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

AMEND AB-645 (FRIEDMAN) TO ADD THE CITY OF BERKELEY TO CALIFORNIA’S

SPEED SAFETY PILOT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, The City of Berkeley is densely populated with over 124,000 people living within its 10.5 square miles of land; and
WHEREAS, AB-645 (Friedman) Vehicles: Speed Safety Pilot Program was approved on October 13, 2023 and authorized six California cities to implement an automated speed enforcement pilot, but Berkeley’s initial request to be included was not accepted; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley saw 877 total collisions in 2024, including 4 fatal incidents, with unsafe speed the leading cause, according to the 2024 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, given budget constraints and hiring challenges, Berkeley does not have sufficient traffic enforcement capacity to serve speeding tickets to every unsafe driver to change behavior; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2016 the City Council adopted the Berkeley Strategic Transportation (BeST) Plan to improve the physical transportation infrastructure for increased access, mobility and safety for everyone traveling within our city; and WHEREAS, on May 2, 2017, the City Council approved the Berkeley Bicycle Plan to make Berkeley a model bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a safe, attractive, easy, and convenient form of transportation and recreation for people of all ages and bicycling abilities; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2019, the City Council adopted its Vision Zero Action Plan to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on our city streets by 2028; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2021, the City Council adopted the Berkeley 2020 Pedestrian Plan to move forward with pedestrian infrastructure improvements focused on safety and equity; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024 the City Council approved a controlled pilot of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) to support investigations and efficient response to stolen vehicles and vehicles associated with a felony; and WHEREAS, the ALPR pilot proved successful, playing a role in 14 arrests, helping recover 10 stolen vehicles, generating 14 investigative leads, and contributing to the issuance of 2 warrants in the first three months – and led to Council approval of full roll- out of the ALPR program; and

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 211 ends

Resolution: Amend AB-645 to add the City of Berkeley to the Pilot CONSENT CALENDAR April 29, 2025

Page 4 ends

WHEREAS, in 2025 the City of Berkeley will be installing Fixed Surveillance Cameras in intersections with high pedestrian traffic to capture incidents in real time; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has a track record of deploying modern technology to support safety and enforcement and has developed several strategic plans to create safer transit infrastructure, making significant progress on their implementation.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley, a densely populated city with passion and drive towards eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2028, requests that the California Legislature amend AB-645 (Friedman) Vehicles: Speed Safety Pilot Program (2023-2024) to expand the program to include the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley has experience with modern technology to support safety and enforcement, and speed cameras would be a natural extension of existing investments.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if it is not deemed possible to include the City of Berkeley in the AB-645 pilot program at this time, we ask the Legislature to include Berkeley in the next phase of California’s Speed Safety Program as soon as possible.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution shall be transmitted to the offices of Senator Jesse Arreguín and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks to request their support in amending AB-645.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 212 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Lunaparra

Subject: Refer $25,000 to the June 2025 Mid-Biennial Budget Process to Partially Cover Street Spirit’s Operational and Programming Costs

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $25,000 to the June 2025 Mid-Biennial budget process to subsidize the cost of running Street Spirit’s drop-in center and vendor coordination program.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In the summer of 2023, Street Spirit’s non-profit parent organization had a budgetary crisis and pulled all funding overnight. In March 2024, Street Spirit waged an emergency fundraising campaign that enabled its continuation as an independent organization. It has been operating independently under a fiscal sponsor since the spring of 2024, but is still in the early stages of creating a sustainable base of funding that can keep the program alive.

As Street Spirit faces a precarious moment as an organization, our local and regional communities are similarly witnessing unprecedented challenges in the lives of unhoused individuals. With the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass ruling and the subsequent local and regional policy amendments, the number of places where unhoused people are legally allowed to exist is steadily shrinking. Soon after moving into its new South Berkeley office in February 2024, Street Spirit became a critical resource hub for the neighborhood. As the local policy that governs homelessness becomes stricter in Berkeley, unhoused people rely on grassroots support to navigate these changes and make ends meet.

On average, 70 Street Spirit vendors visit the office each month and that number is steadily growing, according to Street Spirit’s data collection. 80% of these people are African American and 76% report being born in Berkeley or Oakland. 88% are over the age of 50, and many are seniors in their 70s. 98% are either currently homeless or have moved off the streets and into housing sometime in the last 10 years. There are also numerous people who visit the office to access resources who are not enrolled in the program.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 213 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]

BACKGROUND
Before Street Spirit was founded in 1995, the Oakland Tribune paid homeless people to sell their newspaper across the East Bay. Founders Terry Messman and Sally Hindman believed that the stories published in the Tribune were often degrading to unhoused people and felt that there should be a better option for people living on the street: one that uplifts their humanity and gives them space to tell their own stories. In the mid- nineties, the street newspaper movement began to blossom across America and around the world. With the help of San Francisco organizers who started Street Sheet in San Francisco, Messman and Hindman set out to launch a street newspaper for the East Bay.

Now, Street Spirit is an independent, monthly newspaper that has been dedicated to covering poverty and homelessness for 30 years. It is also a vital source of income for the homeless people who sell the paper on the streets of Berkeley, Oakland, and beyond. These people keep 100% of the money they earn selling newspapers and use the funds to cover the costs of essential resources such as food, medication, temporary lodging, transit, and more. Street Spirit provides vocational training for the people in the program, and the South Berkeley office has become a critical resource hub to distribute food, clothing, and hygiene supplies. It also provides unhoused people a healthy social environment where they can sit down and relax.

For homeless newspaper vendors, Street Spirit is an opportunity to rebuild healthy social connections; for their customers, a chance to understand the lives and experiences of a growing population of people living outside. The challenge of homelessness is no longer abstract and intractable when there is a trusted and effective channel of communication.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Building and nurturing strong relationships with community partners is one of the few proven solutions to addressing the current crisis. For 30 years, Street Spirit has demonstrated unwavering passion and commitment in covering the lived experiences of unhoused individuals. With the new opportunities at hand, the organization is poised to expand its services without increasing its budget. This is possible because Street Spirit is deeply embedded in the community, engaging directly with unhoused individuals every day and understanding their needs firsthand. Through creative problem-solving in an increasingly complex funding landscape, they have remained steadfast in keeping their programs running.

A recent Street Spirit Instagram post sums up the most significant and meaningful interaction Street Spirit enables: “Street newspapers are a quiet catalyst for connection in our hectic, ever-changing cityscapes, and the vendors--the core of the street news operation–each bring different lived experiences to the task of engaging with strangers, making conversation, and forging lasting relationships that begging on the streets and sidewalks”.1

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
1 https://www.instagram.com/streetspiritnews/?hl=en

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 214 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] A grant of $25,000 would provide significant support to the vendor program. While Street Spirit has received grant funding and donations from individuals to support editorial operations, carrying the financial burden of providing resources and programming to unhoused residents of the East Bay has been a challenge. $25,000 covers half of the salary and benefits cost of the vendor coordinator, who staffs the drop-in center, which is open from 10:00am-5:00pm Monday-Thursday. The vendor coordinator:
● helps both Street Spirit vendors and other unhoused community members utilize our resources, such as free clothing, hot food, coffee, hygiene supplies, a bathroom, bus passes (these are only for SS vendors) and a place to sit down; ● makes sure the space is clean and organized;
● onboards new Street Spirit vendors. This includes walking them through our vendor handbook, doing an intake form, showing them our vendor training video, and providing ongoing vocational training (where and how to sell the paper successfully;.
● resolves occasional vendor conflicts with de-escalation methods; ● organizes monthly vendor lunches;
● conducts new vendor outreach and visits The Hope Center twice a month to talk to residents about Street Spirit programming and is currently securing similar outreach projects with the Suitcase Clinic, Downtown Streets Team, and Dorothy Day House;
● organizes and facilitates poetry workshops.

Street Spirit’s current structural deficit threatens the unique, life-changing, and individual-centered programming they provide. Supporting this organization impacts all who live in Berkeley by providing the tools and opportunities for people to attain and maintain security. The services and resources Street Spirit provides are vital for helping homeless residents build stability, routine, and relationships that help them transition into housing. This benefit to our community is worth far more than $25,000; if Street Spirit were to shut down operations, replacing their impact would cost the City of Berkeley exponentially more.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
This recommendation is not expected to have any impacts on the city’s environmental sustainability.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, 510-981-7170
Sara Cerami, Chief of Staff

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 215 ends

Page 216 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Lunaparra (author)
Subject: Supporting State and Regional Funding for Bay Area Public Transit

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution Supporting State and Regional Funding for Bay Area Public Transit

BACKGROUND
Our nation has been underfunding public transit relative to other forms of transportation for decades. In particular, California, as a state, has been underfunding transit operations relative to many other states for decades. In 2019, transit agencies in the Bay Area received, on average, less than 16 percent of their operating funding from the state, compared to 21 percent state funding in Chicago, 30 percent in New York City, 44 percent in Boston, and 50 percent in Philadelphia. California spends over 80% of its transportation budget on infrastructure and services in support of personal automobiles.

The residents and economy of the City of Berkeley depend on public transit, particularly AC Transit, BART and East Bay Paratransit. BART experienced ridership of over 50 million in calendar year 2024, while AC Transit experienced ridership of nearly 40 million for fiscal year 2024. Our communities are at risk of losing public transit service and suffering fare increases, as a result of the expiration of federal operations funds for transit. Transit service is fundamental to access for affordable housing and cuts to service combined with increased fare costs impede development of new affordable housing. Reliable, frequent, affordable, safe and sustainable public transit is essential to the mobility needs of many in our community, including youth, elders, disabled people and the estimated 30% of us who do not have drivers’ licenses, as well as those who simply cannot afford to own and drive an automobile.

Major cuts to public transit would cause massive ripple effects for our local economy.

Without good quality public transit, fewer customers and employees will be able to access businesses, fewer fans will be able to attend concerts and sporting events, and thousands of low income people will lose their only transportation option. There are 800,000 jobs within a 15-minute walk to a BART station and major cuts to public transit could cause traffic on the Bay Bridge to increase by 72% and cause commutes for key routes connecting the East Bay to San Francisco to increase by up to 10 hours per week.

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 217 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
BART is facing a budget shortfall of $385M and AC Transit is facing a shortfall of $60 million annually, and will face drastic service cuts by 2027. To address this, State Senator Arreguín, together with Assemblymember Gonzalez, has submitted an urgent budget request to increase public transit funding by $2 billion in the next fiscal year.

Senators Arreguín and Weiner have introduced a bill to authorize a multi-county transit ballot measure, SB 63. In order to generate the needed funding on the timeline needed to avert service cuts, that bill must be signed this year, and a measure brought to the voters no later than November 2026.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
It is crucial to our climate goals that more people use public transit to reduce vehicle miles traveled and get more people using zero-emission vehicles sooner, since public transit vehicles are required to be zero-emission earlier than any other segment. Cutting service threatens our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while increasing traffic congestion and costs for cash-strapped households.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, 510-981-7170
Jonah Gottlieb, Chief of Staff

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 218 ends

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

SUPPORTING STATE AND REGIONAL FUNDING FOR BAY AREA PUBLIC TRANSIT WHEREAS, The residents and economy of the City of Berkeley depend on public transit, particularly AC Transit, BART and East Bay Paratransit; and WHEREAS, Our communities are at risk of losing public transit service and suffering fare increases, as a result of the expiration of federal operations funds for transit systems; and WHEREAS, Transit service is fundamental to access for affordable housing and cuts to service combined with increased fare costs impede development of new affordable housing; and WHEREAS, Reliable, frequent, affordable, safe and sustainable public transit is essential to the mobility needs of many in our community, including youth, elders, disabled people and the estimated 30% of us who do not have drivers’ licenses as well as those who simply cannot afford to own and drive an automobile; and
WHEREAS, It is crucial to the State’s climate goals that more people use public transit to reduce vehicle miles traveled and get more people using zero-emission vehicles sooner, since public transit vehicles are required to be zero-emission earlier than any other segment; and WHEREAS, Cutting transit service threatens our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while increasing traffic congestion and costs for low income households; and WHEREAS, Our nation has been underfunding public transit relative to other forms of transportation for decades and California spends over 80% of its transportation budget on infrastructure and services in support of personal automobiles; and WHEREAS, Major cuts to public transit would cause massive ripple effects for our local economy. Without good quality public transit, fewer customers and employees will be able to access businesses, fewer fans will be able to attend concerts and sporting events, and thousands of low income people will lose their only transportation option; and WHEREAS, There are 800,000 jobs within a 15-minute walk to a BART station and major cuts to public transit could cause traffic on the Bay Bridge to increase by 72% and cause commutes for key routes connecting the East Bay to San Francisco to increase by up to 10 hours per week; and
WHEREAS, California, as a state, has been underfunding transit operations relative to many other states for decades. In 2019, transit agencies in the Bay Area received, on average, less than 16 percent of their operating funding from the state, compared to 21 percent state funding in Chicago, 30 percent in New York City, 44 percent in Boston, and 50 percent in Philadelphia; and

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 219 ends

WHEREAS, BART experienced ridership of over 50 million in calendar year 2024, while AC Transit experienced ridership of nearly 40 million for fiscal year 2024; and WHEREAS, BART is facing a budget shortfall of $385M and AC Transit is facing a shortfall of $60 million annually, and will face drastic service cuts by 2027; and WHEREAS, AC Transit plans for over $500 million over the next 25 years to make transit faster, more frequent and more reliable; and
WHEREAS, State Senator Arreguín, together with Assemblymember Gonzalez, has submitted a budget request to increase public transit funding by $2 billion in the next fiscal year; and WHEREAS, A bill to authorize a multi-county transit ballot measure, SB 63 (Wiener, Arreguín), has been introduced in the state Legislature this year; and WHEREAS, In order to generate the needed funding on the timeline needed to avert service cuts, that bill must be signed this year, and a measure brought to the voters no later than November 2026.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The City of Berkeley supports the vision shared by rider, climate and labor groups of a measure that (1) provides enough funding to preserve and increase transit service levels across the region and distributes the funds equitably, (2) is funded primarily with progressive sources, rather than a sales tax, to ensure that the burden of paying for improved transportation options does not fall most heavily on those with the least resources, and (3) prioritizes funding for transit operations, and does not prioritize funding for projects which could increase carbon emissions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The City of Berkeley urges Assemblymember Wicks and Senator Arreguín to champion a bill that achieves that vision in the Legislature this year; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The City of Berkeley urges Assemblymember Wicks, Senator Arreguín, and their colleagues, as well as Governor Newsom, to support the current $2 billion budget request and further budget actions that significantly increase the state’s support for transit operating needs on a sustainable basis; and
FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED, that upon passage, a copy of this Resolution be sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senator Jesse Arreguín, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 220 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Lunaparra (Author), Councilmembers Humbert (Co-Sponsor), Councilmembers Bartlett (Co-
Sponsor), Mayor Ishii (Co-Sponsor)

Subject: Resolution Supporting a State Budget Request for the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program and Endorsing
AB 936 (CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable Supplemental
Benefits Program)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution supporting a State Budget Request to reinstate CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program and endorsing AB 936

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program was forced to shut down on January 31, 2025, due to a depletion of its funding. As a result, families experiencing food insecurity are no longer able to receive up to $60 in rebates to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables with their CalFresh benefits. Since its inception in 2023, the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program has been successful in subsidizing fresh fruit and vegetables to individuals and families experiencing food insecurity, making fresh and nutritious food more affordable. Research has shown that communities with limited access to fresh produce experience increased risk for chronic diseases, emphasizing the critical need for this program.

In response, Assemblymember Alex Lee submitted a budget request for $63 million for one-time funding from the State to restart the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable Supplemental Benefits Program (previously referred to as the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Pilot Project). This funding would allow the program to operate continuously for 12 months and expand its reach, doubling the number of households it serves each month to a total of 111,000 households statewide, making healthy food more affordable for those in need. The budget request has been endorsed by a coalition of over 60 state and local organizations with an interest in promoting healthy food access.

Additionally, Assemblymember Lee introduced AB 936, which would help make the pilot program permanent and modify its framework to allow the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable Supplemental Benefits Program to expand its reach to additional retail locations, allowing more families across the state to participate.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 221 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] This resolution supports both the budget request and AB 936, which jointly facilitate the ongoing operations of the program.

BACKGROUND
The California Association of Foodbanks cites that as of September 2024, 22% of California households and 27% of California households with children face food insecurity, making this program crucial for reducing hardship and improving access to nutritious food for low-income residents of the state.1 Subsidizing nutritious fruit and vegetables ensures that individuals, especially those facing financial barriers, have access to affordable, nutritious options, improving public health and reducing healthcare costs in the long term.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
A one-time allocation of $63 million from the state’s general fund would enable the program to operate for a full year, effectively doubling its impact and expanding its reach to more retailers across California. With sufficient funding from the state budget, the program can continue to combat hunger and promote better health for CalFresh participants statewide.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No fiscal impacts of the recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
This recommendation is not expected to have any impacts on the city’s environmental sustainability.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, 510-981-7170
Jonah Gottlieb, Chief of Staff
1 https://www.cafoodbanks.org/hunger-data-reports/

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 222 ends

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

SUPPORTING A STATE BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE CALFRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE EBT PROGRAM AND ENDORSING AB 936 (CALFRESH FRUIT AND

VEGETABLE SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PROGRAM)
WHEREAS, the CalFresh Fruit & Vegetable EBT Program was forced to shut down on January 31, 2025, due to a depletion of its funding; and WHEREAS, as a result, families experiencing food insecurity have decreased access to nutritious food; and
WHEREAS, Assemblymember Alex Lee submitted a budget request for $63 million to revitalize the CalFresh Fruit & Vegetable EBT Program; and WHEREAS, the budget request has been endorsed by over 60 state and local organizations with an interest in promoting healthy food access; and WHEREAS, Assemblymember Lee also introduced AB 936, which would help make the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Pilot Project permanent and modify its framework to allow the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable Supplemental Benefits Program to expand its reach to additional retail locations, allowing more families across the state to participate; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley is committed to supporting those experiencing food insecurity, as evidenced by its investment in local food banks and nonprofits that provide hot meals to individuals in our city; and
NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the Berkeley City Council hereby declares its support for the $63 million state budget request to ensure wider access to nutritious fruits and vegetables for those in need; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Berkeley City Council hereby declares its support for AB 936 to make the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Pilot Project permanent; and
FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED, that upon passage, a copy of this Resolution be sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senator Jesse Arreguín, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, and Assemblymember Alex Lee.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 223 ends

Page 224 ends

Berkeley City Councilmember
Mark Humbert, District 8
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected]
www.MarkHumbert.com

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 29, 2025
To: Members of the Berkeley City Council
From: Councilmember Mark Humbert (Author)
Subject: Defer $150,000 referral for Round Park from Nov 2024 FY2025 AAO#1 RECOMMENDATION: Place a hold on or otherwise defer the FY2025 $150,000 budget referral from the November 2024 AAO#1 budget, which set aside funding for initiating a process to potentially convert the median informally known as “Round Park” (and possibly other nearby medians) to an official City park in District 8.

FISCAL IMPACT: None or net positive for FY2025. The $150,000 in funds for the potential Round Park public engagement and planning process were allocated but not spent. This item seeks to defer that budget allocation while maintaining the referral among other outstanding referrals for consideration at a future budget, thereby freeing up $150,000 for other immediate FY25 budget priorities.

BACKGROUND: City Council approved this $150,000 allocation as part of its Fall 2024 Annual Appropriations Ordinance process for the FY2025 budget. The referral was initiated by Councilmember Humbert at the behest of neighbors who wished to explore this project. The budget allocation was approved at the November 19, 2024 meeting.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS: Subsequent input from neighbors revealed insufficient consensus existed for the City to move forward with further engagement and planning efforts. Additional discussion among neighbors and members of various neighborhood-level organizations is needed before the City considers next steps.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS: Since this proposal pauses a planning effort that was not yet underway, no environmental effects exist.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION: The Council would need to re-approve the allocation of these funds as part of a future budget adoption/action. Upon completion of consultant work, conceptual design, and public outreach, additional Council actions and City funding would be necessary to create final designs and begin physical improvements.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Mark Humbert — [email protected], 510-981-7180

Page 1 of 1 ends

Page 225 ends

Page 226 ends

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
April 29, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan and Program Year 2025 Annual Action Plan

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing on the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan and Program Year (PY) 20251 Annual Action Plan (AAP), including allocations of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and HOME Investment Partnership Grant (HOME); and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to:

1. Execute any resultant agreements and amendments for agencies receiving funding under the CDBG, ESG, or HOME Program in accordance with the proposal approved hereunder. If the federal government does not allocate sufficient funds to cover the allocations attached to this resolution in this year or subsequent years, the City may either terminate the resultant agreements with agencies without any liability occurring to the City, adjust the community agency agreement that reflects a reduced award amount, or identify other sources of funding to keep contract at original funded amount. A record copy of said contracts and any amendments are on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and

2. Allocate 20% of the PY 2025 (FY2026) CDBG funds to the Planning and Administration, up to 17.83% for public services, and the remaining to be distributed to Housing Services and Community Facility Improvements as outlined in Exhibit A with the Public Facility Improvements being a flexible line item should the HUD allocation differ than the amount currently allocated; and

3. Allocate the allowable 10% of PY 2025 (FY2026) HOME funds for program administration, up to the allowable 5% for CHDO operating support, and allocate the remainder to the Housing Trust Fund; and
1 PY 2025 is the federal program year coinciding with the City’s Fiscal Year 2026.

Page 1 of 215 ends

Page 227 ends

Submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, PUBLIC HEARING Including the PY25 Annual Action Plan April 29, 2025

Page 2 ends

4. Allocate the allowable 7.5% of the PY 2025 (FY 2026) ESG to Administration, $6,676 to the HMIS system and the remaining amount to Rapid Rehousing, and shelter activities (not to exceed 60% of PY2025 ESG entitlement); and

5. Carry over any ESG earlier unspent funds from PY 2024 (FY 2025) into PY 2025 (FY 2026) and allocate those funds to the Stair Navigation Center operator (currently Bay Area Community Services (BACS)) for ESG eligible activities (e.g., rapid re-housing). The BACS Stair Center has used ESG funding for shelter operations and rapid rehousing activities for the past few years and is well- equipped to meet HUD’s program and administrative requirements. These funds will be included in the First Amendment to the FY 2026 Annual Appropriations Ordinance; and

6. Finalize the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, including the PY 2025 Annual Action Plan, and the Regional Analysis of Impediments, including responses to public comments received until April 29, 2025 adding required U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) application forms and certifications, and including other HUD required information, submit it to HUD, and execute all documents necessary to receive the City’s entitlement grants under the CDBG, ESG and HOME Programs.

SUMMARY
The City is required to submit a five-year Consolidated Plan, including the first year AAP, to HUD by mid-May in order to receive its annual allocation of CDBG, ESG, and HOME funds. The Consolidated Plan is a planning document that sets Strategic Plan Priority Projects, advancing the City’s goals to create affordable housing and housing support services for the City’s most vulnerable community members. The AAP contains the first-year funding allocations (estimates), and the City’s plan to implement its housing and community development programs.

As detailed in Attachment 1, Exhibit A, for the PY 2025 AAP, the Health, Housing, and Community Services Department (HHCS) and Housing Advisory Commission (HAC), recommends allocating $2,697,750 (estimated) in CDBG funds, $1,319,637 of which would be used for housing services activities, $453,921 for public services, and $261,978 for public and community facility improvements program. HHCS also recommends allocating $237,965 (estimated) in ESG funds to support people who are homeless; and $570,245.01 (estimated) in HOME funds, $485,708 of which would be allocated to the Housing Trust Fund to support the production and preservation of affordable housing.

This report includes authorization for the required submission of the AAP (Section AP- 15 through AP-85 of Attachment 2), which details the City’s plans for implementing the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs in PY 2025.

Page 2 of 215 ends

Page 228 ends

Submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, PUBLIC HEARING Including the PY25 Annual Action Plan April 29, 2025

Page 3 ends

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the Consolidated Plan and PY 2025 AAP does not have an impact on the General Fund as it is solely committing the City’s entitlement grant allocations under the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development’s CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs. Resources from the General Fund, including required leveraged funds for HUD programs, are awarded separately.

Federal funding allocations for PY 2025 have not yet been finalized by HUD, therefore this report is based on estimated amounts. Federal funding allocations have historically been provided by April or May of each year. Additionally, CDBG program income from CDBG-funded activities that the City receives, such as loan repayments, is an estimate of what the City anticipates receiving by the end of the fiscal year. The current estimate of CDBG program income available to use in PY 2025 is $46,520.

Staff also estimate $115,000 in unexpended funds from prior years will be available for allocation, for a total of $2,697,750 in CDBG funds to allocate for PY 2025. Unexpended prior year funds cannot be used for public services or administration, which are both capped funding categories. These additional funds can be used on housing services, community facility projects and the Housing Trust Fund program. If the City receives a revised allocation of CDBG funds from HUD other than the estimated $2,536,229, the adjusted amount will be allocated to the Public Facility Program accordingly.

Table 1: CDBG
PY 2025 (FY 2026) HUD Award Program
Income
Carry
Forward
Funds
Total
Funds Available
(estimated) $2,536,229 $46,520 $115,000 $2,697,750

Proposed Funding Plan
Housing Services $1,319,637 $1,319,637
Public Services (17.83%
cap) $446,943 $6,978 $453,921
Public & Community Facility
Improvements $262,404 $39,542 $115,000 $416,946
Planning and Admin (20%
cap) $507,245 $507,245
Total Expenditures 2,536,299 $46,520 $115,000 $2,697,750 The City will receive $550,245.01 (estimated) in HOME funds, plus $20,000 (estimated) in HOME program income, for a total of $570,254.01 in HOME funds available for allocation for PY 2025. Staff recommend that the City utilize up to the maximum

Page 3 of 215 ends

Page 229 ends

Submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, PUBLIC HEARING Including the PY25 Annual Action Plan April 29, 2025

Page 4 ends

possible for administration (10%) and Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) operations (up to 5%) and place the remainder into the Housing Trust Fund.

This same proportion would apply should the HOME allocation be adjusted by HUD.

Table 2: HOME
PY 2025 (FY 2026)
HUD Award Program
Income Total
Funds Available
(estimated)
$550,245.01 $20,000 $570,245.01

Proposed Funding Plan
CHDO Operations $27,512.25 $27,512.25
HTF Projects $467,708.26 $18,000 $485,708.26
Administration (10%) $55,024.50 $ 2,000 $57,024.50
Total Expenditures $729,633.01 $20,000 $570,245.01
The City’s ESG entitlement for PY 2025 is $237,965 (estimated). If actual ESG funding differs from the estimate, it is recommended that the City utilize the maximum possible for administration (7.5% of the grant), allocate $6,676 to Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) support, and allocate the remaining funds for rapid rehousing and shelter operations at the Stair Navigation Center (with shelter not to exceed 60% of the allocation, which is the HUD cap for shelter activities).

Table 3: ESG
PY 2024 (FY 2025) HUD Award
Funds Available (estimated) $237,965

Proposed Funding Plan
Rapid Rehousing $70,663
Emergency Shelter Operations (60%) $142,779
Homeless Management Information System $6,676
Administration (7.5%) $17,847
Total Expenditures $237,965
Proposed expenditures of CDBG, ESG and HOME Funds are detailed in Attachment 1, Exhibit A.

Page 4 of 215 ends

Page 230 ends

Submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, PUBLIC HEARING Including the PY25 Annual Action Plan April 29, 2025

Page 5 ends

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City is required to submit a five-year Consolidated Plan, including the first year AAP, to HUD by mid-May in order to receive its annual allocation of CDBG, ESG and HOME funds. The Consolidated Plan is a planning document that sets Strategic Plan Priority Projects, advancing the City’s goals to create affordable housing and housing support services for the City’s most vulnerable community members. The AAP contains the anticipated first year funding allocations and the plan to implement housing and community development programs.

The proposed PY 2025 AAP includes the following estimated funding sources and proposed activities:

PY 2025 AAP - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The City’s CDBG entitlement for PY 2025 is expected to be $2,536,229. Projected program income is $46,520 and it is anticipated to have $115,000 in unexpended prior year funds. CDBG funds are proposed to be used for Public Services, Housing Services and Community Facilities Improvements. Of the funds available, the City will allocate an estimated $507,245, a capped amount at 20%, to Planning and Administration, $453,921, also a capped amount at no more than 17.83% to public services, $1,319,637 to Housing Services and $261,978 to Community Facility Improvements.

Detailed CDBG proposed allocations are summarized in Attachment 1, Exhibit A.

PY 2025 AAP - Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
ESG funds can be used for homeless emergency shelter renovations, operations and services, homeless street outreach, the operation and development of a Homeless Management Information System, rapid re-housing, homeless prevention, and administration. The City’s ESG entitlement allocation for PY 2025 is expected to be $237,965 and should Council approve this recommendation the majority of the ESG funds will be used to continue to fund rapid re-housing and emergency shelter activities (capped at 60% of entitlement award). The Stair Navigation Center operator, BACS, will administer the rapid rehousing program to eligible shelter participants ESG funds in the amount of $6,676 will continue to support the County-wide Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), and 7.5% of the overall allocation will be allocated to HHCS to administer the funds (see Attachment 1, Exhibit A).

PY 2025 AAP - Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) HUD will allocate an estimated $550,245.01 in HOME funds to the City of Berkeley for PY 2025. Projected program income of $20,000 is estimated for PY25. Of the funds available, approximately 85% is recommended for the Housing Trust Fund, up to 5% for CHDO operating and 10% for program administration (Attachment 1, Exhibit A).

Page 5 of 215 ends

Page 231 ends

Submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, PUBLIC HEARING Including the PY25 Annual Action Plan April 29, 2025

Page 6 ends

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) Under the National Affordable Housing Act, localities which are eligible to receive federal funding from housing and community development programs administered by HUD are required to prepare an AI concurrently with the Consolidated Plan for the period covered under the Consolidated Plan.

The AI is a planning document regarding fair housing and is crafted with public participation. The purpose of the AI is to gather data and community feedback, identify specific impediments or barriers to fair housing within the jurisdiction, and then devise viable solutions, or actions to take against identified impediments.

For the AI that informs Berkeley’s 2025 – 2030 Consolidated Plan, Berkeley partnered with the County of Alameda and the cities of Alameda, Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City along with the Housing Authorities for the Cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Livermore, Oakland and Alameda County to form a working group to develop a Regional AI. The working group hired TDA Consulting to support the completion of the Regional AI.

Failure to approve the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan and PY 2025 AAP, as informed by the Regional AI, for submission to HUD by mid-May could result in delays or loss of this funding.

Lastly, the Consolidated Plan and subsequent Annual Action Plan is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create affordable housing and housing support service for our most vulnerable community members.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley is an entitlement jurisdiction which receives HUD funds. HUD regulations governing CDBG, ESG and HOME funds require that the City of Berkeley submit a five-year Consolidated Plan including an AAP for each of the five-years, as well as an AI. The Consolidated Plan examines housing needs and establishes funding priorities in the areas of affordable housing and services for a wide range of low-income populations over the next five-year period. The Annual Action Plans are submitted on an annual basis and detail specific activities the City will take to address the goals outlined in the Consolidated Plan.

Federally-funded programs as described in the Consolidated Plan and AAP are also informed by the Regional AI Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).

Berkeley partnered with Alameda County and other jurisdictions to develop a Regional AI that is available on both the City and County websites.2 2 The Final Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice can be found at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/community-services/hud-planning-performance-reports

Page 6 of 215 ends

Page 232 ends

Submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, PUBLIC HEARING Including the PY25 Annual Action Plan April 29, 2025

Page 7 ends

Additionally, in FY 2024, Housing and Community Services issued a four-year Request for Proposal (RFP) for public services using both federal and non-federal funds. Federal funds allocated by Council on May 7, 2024 to community agencies in response to the RFP are reflected in both the Consolidated Plan and the AAP.

The PY 2025 AAP, covering the period July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026, describes the City’s strategy for developing and maintaining a viable urban community through the provision of decent housing and a suitable living environment, while expanding economic, health and educational opportunities principally for households with incomes at or below 80% of Area Median Income. The PY 2025 AAP is based on goals contained in the City’s Five Year (2025 – 2030) Consolidated Plan3 (Attachment 2).

HUD requires the involvement of the public in the creation of the Consolidated Plan and each of the five AAP under the Consolidated Plan period. Berkeley’s public participation process for the Consolidated Plan began on January 24, 2024 with a public hearing convened by the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC), and culminates in the April 29, 2025 public hearing/Council Meeting and closure of public comment period on April 29, 2025.

Public participation for the Regional AI started in September of 2024 and included local stakeholder focus groups, six community engagement public meetings, an online survey, and a public hearing at the February 2025 HAC meeting. Public input on the Regional AI was collected by Alameda County from January 17, 2025 to February 17, 2025 and a public hearing on February 5, 2025.

At its February 6, 2025 meeting, the HAC voted unanimously to recommend that City Council adopt the Draft 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, including the first year Annual Action Plan (as outlined below and in Attachment 2) and Regional AI (Attachment 3) (M/S/C: (Simon-Weisberg/Braslaw) to recommend that City Council approve the proposed Draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, including the first year Annual Action Plan, and Draft Regional Analysis of Impediments, with the feedback to include in the Draft Regional Analysis of Impediments the use of predictive algorithms to discriminate in tenant screening. Vote: Ayes: Bell, Braslaw, Potter, Scott, Shere, Simon-Weisberg, and Twu. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Haycox (excused).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Projects funded with CDBG, ESG and HOME are required to follow state and local regulations, including those related to green building and energy. CDBG funding for community facility projects place a priority on projects that promote energy efficiency and improve accessibility. Additionally, each program funded by HUD funds also undergoes an Environmental Review to understand and mitigate possible environmental impacts.
3 The Consolidated Plan can be found at: https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/community- services/hud-planning-performance-reports

Page 7 of 215 ends

Page 233 ends

Submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, PUBLIC HEARING Including the PY25 Annual Action Plan April 29, 2025

Page 8 ends

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan including the PY 2025 AAP, as informed by the Regional AI, is required to continue to receive CDBG, ESG and HOME funds.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocations
Staff and HAC recommends that Council approve the HUD allocations for PY 2025.

Last year, Council made recommendations for four-year (FY 2025-FY2028) funding for community agencies funded by CDBG funds, under the Housing and Community Services Community Agency RFP. PY 2025 will be the second year of the four-year period so barring any unforeseen reductions in the City’s CDBG allocation, funding to community agencies will continue at FY25 (PY 2024) levels.

Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Allocations
Staff and HAC continue to propose allocating the vast majority of the PY 2025 ESG funds to the Stair Navigation Center operated by Bay Area Community Services (BACS) to support the rapid rehousing placement of literally homeless people living in Berkeley.

HOME Allocations
Staff and HAC proposes to use the maximum amount of HOME funds for program administration, maintain Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) operating support at the PY 2025 funded amount, and place the remainder in the City’s Housing Trust Fund.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, PY 2025 AAP and Regional AI all include public and Housing Advisory Commission input and comments. Comments are considered throughout the processes and are reflected in the respective reports. No other alternative actions are currently being considered.

Failure to approve the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, PY 2025 AAP, and Regional AI for submission to HUD by the due date could result in delays or loss of this funding.

CONTACT PERSON
Kat Larrowe, Community Services Specialist III, HHCS, (510) 981-7555.

Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: PY 2025 (FY 2026) CDBG/ESG/HOME Allocation Recommendations 2: City of Berkeley 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan including the PY25 Annual Action Plan

Page 8 of 215 ends

Page 234 ends

Submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, PUBLIC HEARING Including the PY25 Annual Action Plan April 29, 2025

Page 9 ends

3: Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing4
Parts attached include:
 Table of Contents;
 Introduction; and
 Proposed Actions
4: Public Hearing Notice
5: Updated Public Notice
4 Due to the length and large size of the document, only the parts listed are included in this Council report.

The Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice can be found at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/community-services/hud-planning-performance-reports

Page 9 of 215 ends

Page 235 ends

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

SUBMISSION OF THE 2025-2030 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND THE PY 2025 ANNUAL

ACTION PLAN, INCLUDING ALLOCATIONS OF FEDERAL COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG),

AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP GRANT (HOME) FUNDS
WHEREAS, the submission of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, including the PY 2025 Annual Action Plan and as informed by the Regional AI, is a requirement the City must meet in order to receive its allocation of CDBG, ESG and HOME funds, available for the period July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024 the City Council made funding recommendations on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and HOME Programs for the FY25-FY28 Community Agency RFP as contained in Exhibit A attached to this resolution; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2025 the Housing Advisory Commission voted to recommend that Council adopt draft Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has established the following ERMA budget codes CDBG: 128 - various, ESG: 311 - various, HOME: 310 – various; and
WHEREAS, the City will continue to 1) utilize the full allowable (20%) portion of CDBG funds for program administration; 2) up to 17.83% for public services; and 3) allocate the remainder of the CDBG allocation and any program income into housing services and community/public facility improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City will continue to 1) utilize the full allowable (7.5%) portion of ESG funds for program administration; 2) allocate $6,676 to the Homeless Management Information System (HIMS); 3) allocate up to 60% to shelter activities; and 4) allocate the remainder of the ESG entitlement allocation to rapid re-housing; and WHEREAS, the City will continue to 1) utilize the full allowable (10%) portion of the HOME funds for program administration; 2) up to 5% for CHDO operating support and 3) allocate the remainder of the HOME entitlement allocation and any program income into the Housing Trust Fund.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to:

Page 10 of 215 ends

Page 236 ends

liability occurring to the City, adjust the community agency agreement that reflects reduced award amount, or identify other sources of funding to keep contract at original funded amount. A record copy of said contracts and any amendments are on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and

2. Allocate 20% of the PY 2025 (FY 2026) CDBG funds to the Planning and Administration, up to 17.83% for public services, and the remaining to be distributed to Housing Services and Community Facility Improvements as outlined in Exhibit A with the Public Facility Improvements being a flexible line item should the HUD allocation differ than the amount currently allocated; and

3. Allocate the allowable 10% of PY 2025 (FY 2026) HOME funds for program administration, up to the allowable 5% for CHDO operating support, and allocate the remainder to the Housing Trust Fund; and

4. Allocate the allowable 7.5% of the PY 2025 (FY 2026) ESG to Administration, $6,676 to the HMIS system and the remaining amount to Rapid Rehousing, and shelter activities (with shelter not to exceed 60% of PY25 ESG entitlement).

5. Carry over any ESG earlier unspent funds from PY 2024 (FY 2025) into PY 2025 (FY 2026) and allocate those funds to the Stair Navigation Center operator Bay Area Community Services (BACS), for ESG eligible activities (e.g., rapid re-housing). These funds will be included in the First Amendment to the FY 2026 Annual Appropriations Ordinance; and

6. Finalize the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, including the PY 2025 Annual Action Plan, and the Regional Analysis of Impediments, including responses to public comments received until April 29, 2025 adding required HUD application forms and certifications, and including other HUD required information, submit it to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and execute all documents necessary to receive the City’s entitlement grants under the CDBG, ESG, and HOME Programs.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City manager is authorized to execute or amend contracts with agencies receiving funding under the CDBG, ESG, or HOME Program in accordance with the proposals approved hereunder. A record copy of said contracts and any amendments are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to use the following invoicing/reporting system in contract administration, but maintains the discretion of requiring more frequent invoices and reports from new grantees or in contracts deemed to require closer scrutiny, and also maintains the discretion to terminate contracts based on factors outlined in the contract boilerplate, including, but not limited to, the contractor’s failure to fulfill obligations:

Page 11 of 215 ends

Page 237 ends

Fiscal Reports:
 All agencies, regardless of funding level, are required to submit quarterly statements of expense and quarterly requests for advance payment. The final statement of expense for each fiscal year must be accompanied by a copy of the agency’s General Ledger and a Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for each program.

Program Reports:
 Agencies funded with non-federal funding: End-of-year narrative summary of accomplishments for the following types of programs, due by July 31: 1) Drop-In Services only with no intensive case management attached, 2) Meal Programs, and 3) Recreation Services.
 All other agencies with non-federal funding: Two program reports, due by January 31 and July 31;
 Agencies with federal funding (any amount): Four program reports due by October 31, January 31, April 30, and July 31.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to refuse to execute a contract with any agency that has not provided required contract exhibits and documentation within 90 days of award of funding.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to recapture any unspent CDBG, ESG, HOME, or HOME-ARP funds awarded to an agency if the funds are not spent by June 30, 2026. Any unused PY 2024 HOME-ARP funds not expended in PY 2024 will also be carried forward to the PY 2025 allocation or subsequent procurement.

Exhibit A: PY 2025 (FY 2026) CDBG/ESG/HOME Allocation Recommendations

Page 12 of 215 ends

Page 238 ends

Exhibit A: PY 2025 (FY 2026) CDBG/ESG/HOME Allocation Recommendations

Page 13 of 215 ends

Page 239 ends

1 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

CITY OF BERKELEY

CONSOLIDATED PLAN

FOR HOUSING

AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PY 2025-2029
and Annual Action Plan for Program Year 2025
for the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
San Francisco Field Office of
Community Planning and Development
MAY 2025
Attachment 2

Page 14 of 215 ends

Page 240 ends

2 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ......................................................................... 4 The Process ................................................................................................................................................... 9 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) ............................................................................. 9 PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(I) and 91.315(I) ............................ 10 PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c) ................................................. 14 Needs Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 19 NA-05 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 19 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) .................................................................... 20 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ........................................ 28 NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ............................ 31 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) .................................. 34 NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) ..................................................... 36 NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) .......................................................................................................... 37 NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c).................................................................................... 41 NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d) ............................................................ 45 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) ....................................................... 48 Housing Market Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 50 MA-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 50 MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2) ............................................................................. 51 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) ............................................................... 55 MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a)...................................................... 58 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) .................................................................................... 63 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) .............................................................................. 65 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) ....................................................................... 73 MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e) ................................................................................ 76 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f) ...................................................... 78 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion ....................................................................................... 86 MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households -

91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) ....................................................................................................................... 90 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3) ........................................................................... 92 Strategic Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 94 Attachment 2

Page 15 of 215 ends

Page 241 ends

3 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
SP-05 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 94 SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) ............................................................................................ 95 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2)......................................................................................................... 96 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) ................................................................................ 99 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) ................................................................. 100 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) ............................................................................... 103 SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4) ................................................................................................... 107 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) ......................................................... 109 SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h) ................................................................................. 110 SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) ............................................................................................ 114 SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) ......................................................................................... 117 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) ............................................................................................... 119 SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 ................................................................................................................... 121 Expected Resources .................................................................................................................................. 122 AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2) ......................................................................................... 122 Annual Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 125 AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 125 Projects ..................................................................................................................................................... 127 AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) ................................................................................................................... 127 AP-38 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................ 128 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) ........................................................................................... 133 Affordable Housing ................................................................................................................................... 134 AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) ................................................................................................. 134 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) ......................................................................................................... 135 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) .......................................................... 136 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j) ................................................................................. 140 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) .......................................................................................................... 141 Program Specific Requirements ................................................................................................................ 145 AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4) .................................................................... 145 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................... 150

Attachment 2

Page 16 of 215 ends

Page 242 ends

4 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction
Eligible state and local governments receive annual block grants for community development and affordable housing from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These grants include the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). For each program, HUD regulations allow for a broad range of eligible activities. The state or local governments determine which of the eligible activities will best serve the needs of their community. In order to determine the most pressing needs and develop effective, place-based market-driven strategies to meet those needs, HUD requires grantees to develop a Consolidated Plan (Plan).

This Plan by the City of Berkeley lays out the City’s overall investment strategies for the City’s use of federal entitlement grant funds for affordable housing, homelessness, addressing poverty, and community development from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2030. For each year of the Plan, the City must also produce an Annual Action Plan (AAP). The First-Year Annual Action Plan for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 is attached to this Plan. Please note that throughout the Plan and Annual Action Plan, the terms “fiscal year” and “program year” are both used. The period from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 is the City’s fiscal year (FY) 2026 and HUD’s program year (PY) 2025.

The Plan was prepared in accordance with HUD’s Office of Community and Planning Development (CPD) eCon Planning Suite which was introduced in 2012. Since that time, HUD requires grantees submit their Consolidated Plan and First-Year Annual Action Plan using the Consolidated Plan template through the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS), their nationwide database. Most of the data tables in the Plan are populated with default data from the U.S. Census Bureau, specifically 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data.

Other sources of data are noted throughout the Plan.

The Plan is divided into six sections:
• Executive Summary
• The Process
• Needs Assessment
• Market Analysis
• Strategic Plan
• First-Year Action Plan

2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview

The City of Berkeley continues to set an ambitious array of goals for the use of its federal entitlement grant resources. The priority needs of the City are affordable housing, non-housing community development, and homelessness. The City has three goals to address those priority needs:

Attachment 2

Page 17 of 215 ends

Page 243 ends

5 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
• Increase affordable housing supply and quality;
• Improve public facilities and public services; and
• Provide homeless services including prevention, emergency shelter, outreach and rapid re- housing.

The City of Berkeley has long placed a high priority on affordable housing and community services. The City is committed to maintaining high-quality programs for those in need but faces challenges due to limited resources to meet those needs. The City of Berkeley has been able to backfill some of the ongoing reductions in federal funding for affordable housing and critical community services with local investments. Local investments, however, do not begin to meet the need for more affordable housing and resources to prevent and end homelessness. At the same time, the ESG, HOME, and CDBG programs come with considerable administrative requirements, all of which impact the City’s ability to address all the many needs identified.

3. Evaluation of past performance
The City tracks single family and multi-family housing rehabilitation and development efforts. Outcomes for all federally funded community agency programs are also tracked and prior outcomes are used to inform funding decisions. The City also uses countywide Homeless Count and program outcome data to inform its goals on homelessness.

4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process A public hearing community for needs was held on January 25, 2024, in front of the Housing Advisory Commission to hear from Berkeley residents on the most needed services and housing opportunities and share a brief report on prior year impact and the City’s priority service areas. The public hearing on community needs was noticed in the Berkeley Voice on January 19, 2024.

Additional public meetings were held with the Human Welfare Community Action Commission (HWCAC), Homeless Services Panel of Experts (HSPOE), Commission on Labor (COL), and Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) to review subject area priorities and funding opportunities for community agency grants. Each commission represents the Berkeley community and advises City Council on decisions related to their focus area. In these public meetings, the Commissions evaluated community agency applications for funding on their program design, organizational capacity, prior performance and/or experience in the community, and overall budget. Community members and representatives from the community-based organizations were notified of the meetings via email and through the commission webpages on the City website.
• Human Welfare Community Action Commission public meeting was held on March 6, 2024. The HWCAC focused on reviewing community agencies providing services to low-income communities. Their evaluation and guiding principles included alignment with Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and local funds (Measure E) priority areas and restrictions, agency capacity, program design and articulation, budget, and focus on serving low-income residents. • Homeless Service Panel of Experts Commission public meeting was held on March 13, 2024. The HSPOE focused on reviewing community agencies providing services to the unhoused, specifically, alcohol and drug treatment, basic needs, benefits advocacy, coordinated entry system, emergency shelter/navigation, encampment services, housing navigation services, Attachment 2

Page 18 of 215 ends

Page 244 ends

6 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
homeless prevention, rapid re-housing/flexible subsidies, representative payee services, street outreach, tenancy sustaining services, transitional housing, and workforce development services. Their evaluation and guiding principles included strategically aligning with the Home Together Plan and the All Home Regional Action Plan, maximize potential opportunity to leverage funding, and balance the basic needs with long-term housing solutions. • The Commission on Labor public meeting was held on January 17, 2024 and focused on employment programs and city labor ordinances.
• The Housing Advisory Commission public meeting was held on March 13, 2024 where the commission discussed and made recommendations for CDBG and ESG funding. The HAC focused on reviewing the needs and options in alignment with housing, facility, and workforce goals/priorities of the City, programs and community-based organizations with demonstrated commitment to serving low-income populations, and organization capacity to conduct the work, and CDBG priority areas and restrictions.

A public hearing was held on May 7, 2024 at City Council to review and approve funding recommendations for community agencies. Outreach for this public hearing included posting in the newspaper (Berkeley Voice), email notifications to community agencies, posting to the City of Berkeley Council Agenda and Events webpages, and posting flyers at public buildings such as the libraries.

A public meeting was held in Berkeley on September 10, 2024 to discuss fair housing. This public meeting was noticed in the Berkeley Voice on August 30, 2024. Specific outreach regarding the public meeting was accomplished via electronic mailings to interested parties, which include individuals, the Alameda County Homeless Continuum of Care, community agencies serving low-income people, business groups, housing developers, and postings at public buildings such as recreation centers, senior centers, libraries and other government buildings. The meeting notice and a fair housing survey was also posted on the City’s website, as well as advertised by the other jurisdictions in Alameda County to promote other county-wide in-person and virtual meetings.

Draft copies of the Plan were presented to the HAC on January 9, 2025 and February 6, 2025. A public comment period was opened on March 14, 2025 and concluded on April 29, 2025 after the public hearing. A public hearing on the Plan was held on April 29, 2025 before the Berkeley City Council. An announcement regarding the public hearing and public comment period were published in the Berkeley Voice on March 14, 2025 and updated on April 11, 2025. The notices were distributed widely to community agencies, residents, City Commissioners, and posted in public spaces, such as the library and senior centers. The announcement stated where to locate the publicly available Plan, the dates of the public comment period, and a summary of key elements of the Plan. The draft Plan was also posted on the City’s website.

Attachment 2

Page 19 of 215 ends

Page 245 ends

7 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

5. Summary of public comments
At the January 25, 2024 public hearing before the HAC, 13 members of the public attended, where 11 members of the public spoke. Members spoke on four main topics: homeless services, housing, workforce, and accountability/oversight.
• Homeless Services: Community members expressed agreement and appreciation for the City’s goals for homeless prevention and listening to community agencies. Recommendations included providing more funding for wraparound services, serving people where they are by providing services like port-a-potties and dumpsters, and ensuring that housing shelters support all homeless individuals.
• Housing: Members of the community recommended to increase funding for fair housing enforcement.
• Workforce Development: Comments included the need for workforce development and homeless services to be connected by providing opportunities within the community that have the lived experiences.
• Accountability: Members commented that accountability in funding and services is important.

More transparency about where money is utilized for staff and services to community is needed to ensure that funds are spent on community activities.

At the various commission meetings, several members of the community attended and provided public comment. The members of the public largely represented the community agencies who applied for funding. They spoke about how the funding would impact their community and programs. • HWCAC: Four members of the public attended and three spoke. • HSPOE: Three members of the public attended and two spoke. • HAC: Fifteen members of the public attended and twelve spoke. • Labor: One member of the public attended.

At the May 7, 2024 public hearing, 24 members of the public spoke about the need for more funding to support key community organizations in Berkeley. Community agencies are providing critical services to community members and additional funds would enable services to continue and provide adequate salaries to their staff. Without adequate staffing, it can disrupt services and impact quality of care/support provided to the community.

At the September 10, 2024 public meeting on fair housing, ten community members from across Alameda County were in attendance and five spoke regarding the lack of affordable housing, homelessness in the City, displacement, competition with student housing, and limited opportunities for low-income rental units, particularly for seniors.

Between December 12 and December 31, 2024, a community survey was open on the City of Berkeley website for residents to provide feedback and input on the priorities for HUD funds. The 590 responses helped to inform and confirm the priorities for this consolidated plan. The survey results are summarized and included as an attachment to this plan.

Page 20 of 215 ends

Page 246 ends

8 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
resources and the unknown impact on services and programming as the United States transitions administrations since federal transitions can often come with changes in federal policies and programs.

At the February 6, 2025 public meeting at the HAC, one member of the public was in attendance, along with seven members of the HAC. No members of the public provided comment. The HAC commissioners provided a comment on the draft Regional Analysis of Impediments, noting the use of predictive algorithms in screening rental applications as a concern to be addressed.

TBA: Council meeting (April 29, 2025) and public comment period (march 14-April 29) - comments will be summarized

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All comments were accepted. Additional resources could enhance City-administered programs as noted in the summary of public comments above. It would take additional federal or local funding, however, which are currently not available. Changes to federal funding and federal funding priorities may impact funding for identified programs and thus this plan.

7. Summary
N/A.

Attachment 2

Page 21 of 215 ends

Page 247 ends

9 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The Process

PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b)

1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source

The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.

Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator Berkeley Health, Housing, and Community Services Department HOME Administrator Berkeley Health, Housing, and Community Services Department ESG Administrator Berkeley Health, Housing, and Community Services Department Table 1 – Responsible Agencies

Narrative
The Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS) Department is the lead agency for overseeing the development of the plan. The Housing and Community Services (HCS) Division coordinates the City’s funding allocation process and monitoring for community-based organizations, administration of the Housing Trust Fund, and operation of other housing and community services programs such as the Shelter Plus Care Program and Senior and Disabled Home Rehabilitation Loan Program. The Department also includes the Environmental Health, Mental Health, Public Health, and Aging Services divisions, all of which provide direct services to the community.

Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Margot Ernst, Manager, Housing and Community Services Division City of Berkeley Health, Housing and Community Services Department 2180 Milvia Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: (510) 981-5427
Email: [email protected]
Kat Larrowe, Community Service Specialist III, Housing and Community Services Division City of Berkeley Health, Housing and Community Services Department 2180 Milvia Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: (510) 981-7555
Email: [email protected]
Attachment 2

Page 22 of 215 ends

Page 248 ends

10 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(I) and

91.315(I)

1. Introduction
The consolidated planning process requires jurisdictions to reach out to and consult with other public and private agencies when developing the plan.  The Plan includes a summary of the consultation process, including identification of the agencies that participated in the process.

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(I)).

The City of Berkeley coordinates the housing and community services activities within the HHCS department through regular senior staff meetings and coordination on specific topics. City staff also participates in the implementation of Everyone Home, the countywide plan to end homelessness.

Everyone Home spearheads Alameda County’s Continuum of Care. Staff will continue to participate in the initiative’s Leadership Board, which includes most public funders of housing and homeless services in the county, as well as leadership from key community-based organizations. Leadership Board membership helps to coordinate efforts across the county. Staff also participates in other committees composed of other funders (such as Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services and the Social Services Agency) as well as many community-based organizations.

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness

Berkeley works closely with the Alameda County Continuum of Care (COC) in numerous ways including as members of various COC committees that meet to review and provide recommendations for system improvements. It also works closely with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services, Social Service Agency, Office of Housing and Homelessness (OHH). In PY21, the City endorsed the Alameda County Home Together 2026 Community Plan, a five-year strategic initiative. Berkeley will participate in preparing the Home Together Update this year. The City continues to work closely with OHH to implement the North County Coordinated Entry System (CES), which includes Berkeley, Emeryville, and Albany. The redesigned screening process: housing problem-solving and crisis and housing assessments are now utilized across the County, including at the new transition age youth (TAY) Housing Resource Center (HRC). The addition of the crisis queue which asks if someone is interested in shelter has increased the number of successful matches to shelter resources in Berkeley. Additionally, Berkeley attends and participates in the COC’s Housing Stability and Homelessness Prevention and System Impact Committee meetings. The City funds Eviction Defense Center (EDC) to provide housing retention grants to households that are at imminent risk of homelessness. The City will work with EDC to identify ways to target funding to reduce the number of households entering the homeless services system.

Attachment 2

Page 23 of 215 ends

Page 249 ends

11 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS

Consultation with the Alameda-Countywide COC, the City of Oakland, and the Alameda County Housing and Community Services Department was initiated in 2012 to discuss the use of ESG funds. The discussion focused on how to implement the new ESG requirements in a way that would be consistent countywide and would continue the collaboration launched in 2009 with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing (HPRP) funds. The group held several meetings in PY12, resulting in the development of a policies and procedures manual that was used to implement the Priority Home Partnership Program. In PY22, the City updated its ESG Policies and Procedures Manual and provided training to Bay Area Community Services, the community agency that administers ESG Rapid Rehousing assistance and added street outreach and emergency shelter activities. The City continues to use the COC’s RBA system performance measures and targets to evaluate emergency shelter, outreach and rental assistance programs funded by ESG.

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities
1 Agency/Group/Organization City of Berkeley Housing Advisory Commission Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Market Analysis
Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
Draft copies of the plan were presented to the Housing
Advisory Commission (HAC) at their January and
February 2025 meetings for comments.
2 Agency/Group/Organization City of Berkeley Homeless Services Panel of Experts (HSPOE)
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
The HSPOE provides their expertise and
recommendations for funding for community agencies
including the portion of CDBG public services funding
that supports the homeless population.

Table 2 – Agencies/Groups who participated
Attachment 2

Page 24 of 215 ends

Page 250 ends

12 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting No Agency Types were knowingly excluded.

Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan?
Home Together 2026
Community Plan
Alameda County's
Continuum of Care
The Alameda County Home Together 2026 Community Plan, the countywide plan to end homelessness, was endorsed by the City in PY2021. Berkeley activities to end homelessness, including those supported by federal monies as articulated in this plan, align with the Home Together 2026 Community Plan.

Housing Element 2023-
2031
City of Berkeley The Housing Element addresses housing production and preservation in the City of Berkeley and includes issues related to affordable housing that overlap with this report goal to increase affordable housing supply and quality.

Health Report of 2018 Health, Housing, and
Community Services;
Public Health Division
The goal of the Health Status Report is to provide a picture of the health status of people living in Berkeley. The report helps define goals and objectives for improving Berkeley resident health outcomes. The Health Status Report highlights overlapping health and housing needs for low-income individuals that are addressed in the Consolidated Plan.

YEP Collaboration
between various local
agencies
Formerly Berkeley 2020 Vision, now known as YEP, is a citywide partnership that seeks to close Berkeley educational opportunity gap through a shared community commitment to this goal: that all young people in Berkeley grow up with opportunities to achieve high outcomes and realize their full potential. Public agency, education, nonprofit, and other partners lend content expertise, shape the direction of this initiative, and represent the students and families they serve. This is consistent with goals of increasing economic opportunities for Berkeley residents. The Consolidated Plan works toward these shared goals by supporting housing and public services for low-income residents.

Age-Friendly Berkeley
Action Plan
Health, Housing, and
Community Services;
Aging Division
This report focuses on the aging population in Berkeley and the fact that the vast majority of older adults want to age in their homes and local Berkeley community. The Age-Friendly Berkeley initiative helps prepare Berkeley for its rapidly aging population by gathering input from the community and pulling together public and private leaders, resources, ideas, and strategies to address the issues raised. Age- Friendly Berkeley is a collective effort whose goal is to ensure that all Berkeley residents are connected, healthy, and engaged in their environments. The Consolidated Plan speaks directly to affordable housing goals that support low-income persons, specifically including seniors and persons with disabilities.

City of Berkeley Strategic
Plan
City of Berkeley The strategic plan identifies the City governments long-term goals on behalf of the Berkeley community. The plan was approved in 2018, and Attachment 2

Page 25 of 215 ends

Page 251 ends

13 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
included numerous priorities, which are short-term projects or programs that support a specific goal. Goals include creating affordable housing and housing supportive services for low-income community members.

Alameda County Regional
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing
Alameda County This report summarizes the impediments to fair housing across Alameda County. The report was previously approved for 2020-2024 and is in process of being updated for the next five years.

California All Home
Regional Action Plan
(RAP), 2021
All Home The City’s strategic plans for addressing homelessness align with the priorities in the RAP.

Alameda County Point-in-
Time Report, 2024
Alameda County
EveryOne Home
The Point-in-Time (PIT) Count is an annual census of people experiencing homelessness on a single night. This report includes additional information about the experiences of people who are homeless in the Berkeley community which assist in developing our programmatic activities to end homelessness.

Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts

Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(l))
Alameda County Continuum of Care (COC), described above under the Continuum of Care question, is an important venue for coordination with other units of local government in Alameda County on the issue of homelessness. Most affordable housing developments in Berkeley receive other public funding, most typically Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, but also other County and State programs, such as No Place Like Home funding for affordable housing for mentally disabled residents. The Housing & Community Services Division works with both the City’s Mental Health Division and the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency to take advantage of No Place Like Home funding to support the creation of additional permanently affordable units for unhoused residents on the Home Stretch list.

Narrative (optional):

N/A.

Attachment 2

Page 26 of 215 ends

Page 252 ends

14 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c)

1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting This Plan was developed with citizen participation consistent with the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan.

A public hearing on community needs was held on January 25, 2024, in front of the Housing Advisory Commission to hear from Berkeley residents on the most needed services and housing opportunities and share a brief report on prior year impact and the City’s priority service areas. Eleven members of the public spoke on homeless services, housing, workforce, and accountability/oversight.

Additional public meetings were held with the Human Welfare Community Action Commission (HWCAC), Homeless Services Panel of Experts (HSPOE), Commission on Labor, and Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) to review subject area priorities and funding opportunities for community agencies.

Each commission represents the Berkeley community and advises City Council on decisions related to their focus area, and evaluated the community agencies on their program design, organizational capacity, prior performance and/or experience in the community, and overall budget. Community members and representatives from the community-based organizations were notified of the meetings via email and through the commission webpages on the City website.

At the May 7, 2024 public hearing 24 members of the public spoke about the need for more funding to support key community organizations in Berkeley. Community agencies are providing critical services to community members and additional funds would enable services to continue and provide adequate salaries to their staff. Without adequate staffing, it can disrupt services and impact quality of care/support provided to the community.

At the January 9, 2025 public meeting at the HAC, ten members of the public were in attendance, along with eight members of the HAC. Two members of the public spoke regarding their concerns for resources and the unknown impact on services and programming as the United States transitions administrations since federal transitions can often come with changes in federal policies and programs.

Attachment 2

Page 27 of 215 ends

Page 253 ends

15 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
TBA: Council meeting (April 29, 2025) and public comment period (march 14-April 29) - comments will be summarized

Attachment 2

Page 28 of 215 ends

Page 254 ends

16 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort
Order

Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of comments not
accepted and reasons
URL (If applicable)
1 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted,
broad
community
Thirteen members of the public
attended, where eleven
members of the public spoke, at
the January 25, 2024 public
hearing on community needs in
front of the Housing Advisory
Commission.

Members spoke on four main
topics, homeless services,
housing, workforce, and
accountability/oversight.

All comments were
accepted.
https://www.cityofberkeley.i
nfo/Housing_Advisory_Comm
ission/
2 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted,
broad
community
Four members of the public
attended where three spoke at
the March 6, 2024 hearing on
community funding needs in
front of the Human Welfare and
Community Action
Commission.

Members spoke about how
the funding would impact the
community and programs.

All comments were
accepted.
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-
government/boards-
commissions/human-welfare-
and-community-action-
commission
3 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted,
broad
community
Three members of the public
attended where two spoke at
the March 13, 2024 hearing on
community funding needs in
front of the Homeless Service
Panel of Experts.

Members spoke about how
the funding would impact the
community and programs.

All comments were
accepted.
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-
government/boards-
commissions/homeless-
services-panel-experts
4 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted,
broad
community
One member of the public
attended the January 17, 2024
hearing on community funding
needs in front of the
Commission on Labor.

Members spoke about how
the funding would impact the
community and programs.

All comments were
accepted.
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-
government/boards-
commissions/commission-
labor
5 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted,
broad
community
Twenty-four members of the
public spoke at the May 7, 2024
hearing on community funding
needs in front of the City
Council.

Members provided comment
on the critical services being
provided by community
agencies and continued need
for funding to operate.

All comments were
accepted.
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-
government/city-council/city-
council-agendas
Attachment 2

Page 29 of 215 ends

Page 255 ends

17 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
6 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted,
broad
community
Ten members of the public
attended, where five spoke on
fair housing challenges, at a City
meeting coordinated by the
County on September 10.

Members spoke about the
lack of affordable housing,
homelessness in the City,
displacement, competition
with student housing near
the University of California,
Berkeley, and limited
opportunities for low-income
rental units, particular for
seniors.

All comments were
accepted.

N/A
7 Public
Survey
Non-
targeted,
broad
community
590 community members
responded to the survey on
housing priorities.

Respondents highlighted
affordable housing as a
primary concern, homeless
programs and services
continue/are improved, fair
housing activities to be
enhanced, and additional
support for economic
development. Detailed
summary of responses
included in attachments.

All comments were
accepted
https://berkeleyca.gov/comm
unity-recreation/news/give-
input-funding-priorities-
housing-and-public-service-
programs
8 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted,
broad
community
At the January 9, 2025 public
meeting at the HAC, ten
members of the public were in
attendance, along with 8
members of the HAC. Two
members of the public spoke.

Members of the public spoke
regarding their concerns for
resources and the unknown
impact on services and
programming as the United
States transitions
administrations since federal
transitions can often come
with changes in federal
policies and programs.

All comments were
accepted.
https://www.cityofberkeley.i
nfo/Housing_Advisory_Comm
ission/
9 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted,
At the February 6, 2025 public
hearing at the HAC, 1 member of
the public was in attendance,
The HAC commissioners
provided a comment on the
draft Regional Analysis of
All comments were
accepted.
https://www.cityofberkeley.i
nfo/Housing_Advisory_Comm
ission/
Attachment 2

Page 30 of 215 ends

Page 256 ends

18 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
broad
community
along with 7 members of the
HAC. No members of the public
provided comment.

Impediments, noting the use
of predictive algorithms in
screening rental applications
as a concern to be
addressed.
10 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted,
broad
community
April – Council meeting – To be
added

Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach
Attachment 2

Page 31 of 215 ends

Page 257 ends

19 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Needs Assessment
NA-05 Overview
Needs Assessment Overview
The Needs Assessment of the Consolidated Plan, in conjunction with information gathered through consultations and the citizen participation process, provides a clear picture of the jurisdiction’s needs related to affordable housing, special needs housing, community development, and homelessness. The Needs Assessment includes the following sections:
• Housing Needs Assessment
• Disproportionately Greater Need
• Public Housing
• Homeless Needs Assessment
• Non‐Homeless Special Needs Assessment
• Non‐Housing Community Development Needs
The Needs Assessment identifies those needs with the highest priorities which form the basis for the Strategic Plan section and the programs and projects to be administered throughout the Plan period.

Most of the data tables in this section are populated with default data from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census Bureau for HUD based on 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) Census. Other sources are noted throughout the Plan.

Attachment 2

Page 32 of 215 ends

Page 258 ends

20 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c)
Summary of Housing Needs
Demographics Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2020 % Change Population 117,385 123,065 5%
Households 45,915 45,885 -0%
Median Income $66,237.00 $91,259.00 38%
Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics

Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2016-2020 ACS (Most Recent Year) As defined by HUD, housing problems include:
• Units lacking a complete kitchen or plumbing facilities; • Housing cost burden of more than 30 percent of the household income (for renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities and for owners, housing costs include mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and utilities);
• Severe housing cost burden of more than 50 percent of gross income; and • Overcrowding which is defined as more than one person per room, not including bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms.

The following income categories are used throughout the Plan:
• Extremely low: households with income less than 30 percent of area median income (AMI) • Very low: households with income between 30 and 50 percent of AMI • Low: households with income between 51 and 80 percent of AMI • Moderate: households with income between 81 and 120 percent of AMI • Above moderate: households with income above 120 percent of AMI Based on the data presented above from CHAS, there are 123,065 people residing in the City of Berkeley comprising 45,885 households, figures which are unchanged from the prior Consolidated Plan period.

Of these households, 20,735 households (or 45 percent) are considered “low income” per HUD definitions (under 80 percent of Area Median Income). This represents an increase of 10 percentage points since the last Consolidated Plan.

According to the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 1‐year Estimates, which counts 45,788 households, 43% of occupied housing units are owner‐occupied and 57% percent are renter‐occupied, the same distribution that was reported in the previous Consolidated Plan (data.census.gov table #B25011). The CHAS data below shows that 8,854 renter‐households and 2,255 owner‐households have some type of housing problem. That is equivalent to 24 percent of the households in the City of Berkeley. The largest portion of households in Berkeley with a housing problem (52% of renters with a housing problem and 55% of owners with a housing problem) are experiencing an affordability problem, paying more than 50% of their income for rent. Overcrowding and substandard units are far less common, according to Census data, particularly for homeowners.

Attachment 2

Page 33 of 215 ends

Page 259 ends

21 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Number of Households Table
0-30%
HAMFI
>30-50%
HAMFI
>50-80%
HAMFI
>80-100%
HAMFI
>100%
HAMFI
Total Households 10,035 4,990 5,710 3,365 21,780
Small Family Households 1,180 1,065 1,320 1,065 9,255
Large Family Households 155 65 215 90 720
Household contains at least one
person 62-74 years of age 2,325 1,075 1,705 865 5,620
Household contains at least one
person age 75 or older 1,225 435 475 455 1,960
Households with one or more
children 6 years old or younger 304 299 299 189 2,195
Table 6 - Total Households Table
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS

Attachment 2

Page 34 of 215 ends

Page 260 ends

22 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Housing Needs Summary Tables

1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Substandard Housing -
Lacking complete
plumbing or kitchen
facilities 380 30 20 10 440 20 25 20 0 65
Severely Overcrowded
- With >1.51 people per
room (and complete
kitchen and plumbing) 275 45 135 4 459 0 0 0 0 0
Overcrowded - With

1.01-1.5 people per
room (and none of the
above problems) 385 185 125 40 735 10 30 45 55 140
Housing cost burden
greater than 50% of
income (and none of
the above problems) 5,180 1,580 445 15 7,220 910 420 545 175 2,050 Housing cost burden
greater than 30% of
income (and none of
the above problems) 835 1,490 1,170 685 4,180 300 300 340 355 1,295 Zero/negative Income
(and none of the above
problems) 720 0 0 0 720 150 0 0 0 150
Table 7 – Housing Problems Table
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Attachment 2

Page 35 of 215 ends

Page 261 ends

23 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden)
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Having 1 or more of four housing problems 6,220 1,840 730 70 8,860 945 475 610 235 2,265 Having none of four housing problems 2,330 1,980 2,945 1,860 9,115 545 695 1,425 1,200 3,865 Household has negative income, but none
of the other housing problems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8 – Housing Problems 2
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

3. Cost Burden > 30%
Renter Owner
0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
Total 0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 850 715 390 1,955 160 225 200 585
Large Related 85 30 0 115 0 4 110 114
Elderly 1,580 409 200 2,189 844 370 490 1,704
Other 4,345 2,145 1,040 7,530 215 125 109 449
Total need by income 6,860 3,299 1,630 11,789 1,219 724 909 2,852 Table 9 – Cost Burden > 30%
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Attachment 2

Page 36 of 215 ends

Page 262 ends

24 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

4. Cost Burden > 50%
Renter Owner
0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
Total 0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 0 0 305 305 160 150 0 310
Large Related 0 0 30 30 0 0 95 95
Elderly 1,045 124 70 1,239 580 200 270 1,050
Other 0 4,055 1,245 5,300 180 0 0 180
Total need by income 1,045 4,179 1,650 6,874 920 350 365 1,635 Table 10 – Cost Burden > 50%
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

5. Crowding (More than one person per room)
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Single family households 235 135 190 15 575 4 0 4 45 53 Multiple, unrelated family
households 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 35 10 49
Other, non-family households 495 100 80 29 704 10 25 0 0 35 Total need by income 730 235 270 44 1,279 14 29 39 55 137 Households with Children
Present

Table 11 – Crowding Information – 1/2
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

Attachment 2

Page 37 of 215 ends

Page 263 ends

25 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance.

The 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate counts 7,850 men living alone and 10,975 women living alone, or nearly 19,000 single person households in Berkeley. Nearly 7,000 of these households are people aged 65 and older. Compared to the average household (in Berkeley it is 2.5 people), a single‐person household will likely pay a larger portion of their income on housing. This is not surprising given the high cost of housing in Berkeley and in the Bay Area generally. Many single person households in Berkeley are students, recent graduates, young professionals living alone, and senior homeowners. People with disabilities, people working in low-wage jobs, and lower-income seniors are included in the types of single person households in need of housing assistance.

Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

The City’s current Housing Element 2023-2031 reports that there are 10,529 Berkeley residents with a disability, or about 9% of the population, and of those residents with disabilities, 4,290 are aged 65 years or greater. If residents with disabilities experience housing problems at the same rate as the rest of the population (24%) then 2,527 residents would benefit from some form of housing assistance. (https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley_2023- 2031%20Housing%20Element_02-17-2023v2_0.pdf)
A history of domestic violence and partner abuse can contribute to homelessness. Victims of domestic violence have a greater risk of becoming homeless and experiencing poverty. According to research, this is likely tied to a high need for services, including housing and financial support, and the lack of commensurate housing and financial resources available. The lack of affordable housing in the City likely makes it difficult for victims of domestic violence to leave their violent homes, so it is plausible that they are more likely to move to an overcrowded unit or into a homeless shelter than those not experiencing domestic violence.

Over the last 5 years, the Berkeley Police Department has received an average of 105 domestic violence- related calls for service per year, ranging from 89 to 127 calls per year. It is not possible to determine from the statistics how many distinct households were involved but this figure gives some sense of scale of the need for related housing assistance. (https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime- statistics/domestic-violence-related-calls-assistance)
What are the most common housing problems?
The largest portion of households in Berkeley with a housing problem (52% of renters with a housing problem and 55% of owners with a housing problem) are experiencing an affordability problem, paying more than 50% of their income for rent. Similarly, households paying more than 30% of their income is more common than other housing problems. Overcrowding and substandard units are far less common, according to Census data, particularly for homeowners.

Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems? The household types most affected by housing affordability problems are “Other” renters, meaning not small or large related households, or seniors. This category includes single people living alone and non- Attachment 2

Page 38 of 215 ends

Page 264 ends

26 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
related groups living together, which in Berkeley likely includes student households as well as a variety of shared housing arrangements.

Describe the characteristics and needs of Low-income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance Berkeley has many resources in place to prevent homelessness among low-income individuals and families with children, including a portfolio of subsidized affordable housing, a local Rent Control ordinance, a Housing Authority managing the Housing Choice Voucher program, Shelter Plus Care certificates, regulated, inclusionary Below Market Rate apartments and condominiums, and a local minimum wage ordinance. Berkeley also has a large population of college-aged students who individually have low incomes but are receiving family assistance which ensures housing stability. As a result, income statistics alone are not sufficient to assess risk of homelessness.

Low-income individuals and families with children who are currently housed but at imminent risk of residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered include:
• Households who were homeless in the past and have no family/friend support or resources to rely on;
• People earning lower wages who are very vulnerable to changes in work schedule and availability;
• Households with multiple wage earners which are vulnerable to changes in household composition;
• Students who do not have family resources or sufficient financial assistance to cover their housing needs;
• Seniors who can no longer afford the increased costs of rent, services, and goods or maintaining a home that was paid for during their working years;
• People who rely on disability income and do not have subsidized housing; and • Others.

In Berkeley 40 people are receiving rapid rehousing assistance, some of which are nearing the end of their support. To continue supporting these participants, additional resources such as, intensive housing search assistance including but not limited to: assistance in applying for affordable housing lists; assistance with enrollment in Berkeley’s longer term shallow subsidy program or other subsidized or permanent housing opportunities for which the client is eligible, advocacy on behalf of guests; identification of roommates for shared housing opportunities; and exploring relocation to other communities and/or reunification with family in accordance with client choice are provided. Additional assistance with linkages to employment and job-placement resources; linkages to/assistance with applications to cash and non-cash benefits (including, when necessary for housing stability, medical, CalFresh, and in-home supportive service benefits) may also be provided.

Attachment 2

Page 39 of 215 ends

Page 265 ends

27 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates:

The City has not developed an estimate of this population.

Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness
Because the cost of living in Berkeley, and the cost of housing in particular, is high (as in the rest of the Bay Area), any lower-income household may face a risk of homelessness, particularly with changes in work, income, household, or housing status. The City has not identified other housing characteristics that are linked with instability or homelessness.

Discussion
A portion of the 8,790 households in Berkeley who are low income and one or more housing problems described in this section are at risk of becoming homeless. Due to the high cost of housing in the Bay Area, rent burdens and low incomes are the most common risk factor for homelessness.

Attachment 2

Page 40 of 215 ends

Page 266 ends

28 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction
By HUD’s standards, a disproportionately greater need exists when the members of racial or ethnic group at a given income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10 percentage points or more) than the income level of the jurisdiction as a whole. The four housing problems are: 1) the lack of complete kitchen facilities, 2) the lack of complete plumbing facilities, 3) more than one person per room, and 4) a cost burden greater than 30 percent.
0%-30% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 7,690 1,050 920
White 3,385 410 285
Black / African American 1,065 360 80
Asian 1,985 180 495
American Indian, Alaska Native 95 0 0
Pacific Islander 110 0 0
Hispanic 645 75 10
Table 12 - Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%

30%-50% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 4,080 835 0
White 2,230 390 0
Black / African American 655 190 0
Asian 695 115 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 370 90 0
Table 13 - Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%
Attachment 2

Page 41 of 215 ends

Page 267 ends

29 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

50%-80% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 2,835 1,715 0
White 1,630 980 0
Black / African American 310 225 0
Asian 420 220 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 4 0 0
Pacific Islander 10 10 0
Hispanic 265 175 0
Table 14 - Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%

80%-100% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 1,250 2,210 0
White 760 1,225 0
Black / African American 55 165 0
Asian 220 395 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 4 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 10 0
Hispanic 185 240 0
Table 151 - Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%

Discussion
By HUD’s standard, American Indian and Pacific Islanders in the zero to 30% of Area Median Income range have disproportionately greater needs (100%) compared to households citywide (80%) than other racial or ethnic groups. The rate is similar for White (83%) and Hispanic households (88%), and lower for Asian households (75%), and lower for Black/African American households (71%). It is likely that college aged students are more represented in the White, Hispanic, and Asian households than the Black/African American households. Numbers of White and Hispanic undergraduate students enrolled in Attachment 2

Page 42 of 215 ends

Page 268 ends

30 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
2024 outnumber Black/African American students three to one, and Asian students outnumber Black/African American students nine to one. (https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc-berkeley- quick-facts)

By HUD’s standard, no racial or ethnic group of residents with incomes from 30 to 50% of Area Median Income have disproportionate housing needs. Of all residents in this income category, 83% have one or more housing problems, ranging from 78% of Black/African American residents and 86% of Asian households. The number of American Indian, Alaska Native and Pacific Islander households in this income range is estimated at zero so no needs are estimated.

In the 50 to 80% of Area Median Income range, American Indians and Alaska Natives again have a disproportionately higher need, at 100%. There is a very small number of households in this group (four). Citywide, the rate is 62%, ranging from 58% for Black/ African American households to 66% for Asian households.

In the 80 to 100% of Area Median Income category, American Indian and Alaska Natives are again estimated to have disproportionately greater needs with 100% of households having one or more housing problems, based on a small number of households (4). Citywide, 36% of households in this income category are estimated to have one or more housing problem, ranging from Black/African American households at 25% to Hispanic households at 44%.

Attachment 2

Page 43 of 215 ends

Page 269 ends

31 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction
0%-30% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 6,905 1,835 920
White 3,030 760 285
Black / African American 865 560 80
Asian 1,900 265 495
American Indian, Alaska Native 55 40 0
Pacific Islander 110 0 0
Hispanic 600 120 10
Table 16 – Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than

1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%

30%-50% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 2,665 2,245 0
White 1,415 1,205 0
Black / African American 335 515 0
Asian 520 280 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 280 175 0
Table 172 – Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than

1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%

Attachment 2

Page 44 of 215 ends

Page 270 ends

32 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
50%-80% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 1,290 3,255 0
White 855 1,755 0
Black / African American 190 350 0
Asian 175 465 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 4 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 20 0
Hispanic 34 400 0
Table 18 – Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than

1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%

80%-100% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 365 3,095 0
White 190 1,790 0
Black / African American 15 205 0
Asian 65 550 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 4 0
Pacific Islander 0 10 0
Hispanic 90 325 0
Table 19 – Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than

1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%

Discussion
Of the households with incomes between zero and 30% of Area Median Income, the overall rate of severe housing problems was 71%. Both Hispanic (82%) and Pacific Islander (100%) households are experiencing disproportionate rates of severe housing problems.

In the 30% to 50% of Area Median Income range, just over half (54%) of households are experiencing severe housing problems. Asian households are disproportionately impacted, with 65% of households in Attachment 2

Page 45 of 215 ends

Page 271 ends

33 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
this income range reporting severe housing problems. Note that the number of Pacific Islander and American Indian, Alaska Native households in this income range is estimated at zero, so no severe housing problem data is available.

In the 50% to 80% of Area Median Income range, more than a quarter (28%) of households are experiencing severe housing problems. American Indian, Alaska Native households in this income range have a disproportionately greater need, with 100% experiencing one or more severe housing problems.

In the 80% to 100% of Area Median Income range, the citywide rate of severe housing problems is 11%.

Hispanic households are experiencing disproportionately greater needs, with 22% having a severe housing problem.

Attachment 2

Page 46 of 215 ends

Page 272 ends

34 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction:

The following table displays cost burden information for the jurisdiction and each racial and ethnic group, including no cost burden (less than or equal to 30 percent), cost burden (greater than 30 to 50 percent), severe cost burden (more than 50 percent), and no/negative income.

Housing Cost Burden
Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50% No / negative
income (not
computed)
Jurisdiction as a whole 26,030 7,760 10,690 1,035
White 17,915 4,870 5,415 320
Black / African
American 1,875 785 1,345 80
Asian 3,350 950 2,470 570
American Indian,
Alaska Native 14 45 50 4
Pacific Islander 50 10 110 0
Hispanic 1,785 720 870 20
Table 20 – Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

Discussion:

The following table converts the numbers above into percentages of people in each demographic category by income range in order to evaluate disproportionately greater needs Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50% No /
negative income
(not computed)
Jurisdiction as a whole 57% 17% 23% 2%
White 63% 17% 19% 1%
Black / African American 46% 19% 33% 2%
Asian 46% 13% 34% 8%
American Indian, Alaska Native 12% 40% 44% 4%
Pacific Islander 29% 6% 65% 0%
Hispanic 53% 21% 26% 1%
Table 21 – Housing Cost Burden
Attachment 2

Page 47 of 215 ends

Page 273 ends

35 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

No racial/ethnic group is overrepresented among people paying below 30% of their income for housing, using HUD’s standard. American Indian, Alaska Natives are over-represented in the households paying 30 to 50% category (40% compared to 17% of the city as a whole). Among people paying more than 50% of their income toward housing costs (23% of the City as a whole), Black/African American (33%), Asian (34%), American Indian, Alaska Natives (44%), and Pacific Islanders (65%) are overrepresented. No group is overrepresented among those households with no or negative income.

Attachment 2

Page 48 of 215 ends

Page 274 ends

36 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole? Based on the data above, households with incomes below 30% of Area Median income have the highest frequency of housing problems. This is not surprising given that paying too much for housing is one of the problems, and Berkeley has high housing costs. Both Hispanic and Pacific Islander households were overrepresented in this group. American Indian, Alaska Native, and Pacific Islanders are overrepresented in many categories.

If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs? Housing costs that exceed an affordable level are the most common challenge. Individual households are likely to have needs related to housing quality.

Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community?
American Indian tribes in the broader region include Chochenyo, Lisjan, Karkin, Yelamu Ramaytush, Yokuts, and Muwekma. Other American Indian groups in the region include the Graton Rancheria community (Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo), Kashaya, Patwin, Mishewal Wappo, Bay Miwok, and Tamien. In Berkeley, no specific areas and neighborhoods of American Indian and Alaska Natives have been identified.

According to an analysis published by Berkeleyside in 2022, Hispanic households in Berkeley are concentrated in two places: (1) south of downtown, probably reflecting many students, and (2) in West Berkeley. The same analysis shows that Black/African American Berkeley residents are located almost exclusively in South and West Berkeley. (https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/07/17/berkeley- population-demographics-housing-census-2020-maps).

Attachment 2

Page 49 of 215 ends

Page 275 ends

37 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b)
Introduction
Totals in Use
Program Type
Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
# of
units
vouchers
in use 0 90 52 1,704 132 1,572 0 0 0
Table 22 - Public Housing by Program Type
*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)
Characteristics of Residents
Program Type
Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Average
Annual
Income 0 9,540 21,074 14,257 13,646 14,308 0 0
Average
length of stay 0 6 10 8 2 8 0 0
Average
Household
size 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 0
# Homeless at
admission 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0
# of Elderly
Program
Participants
(>62) 0 17 6 541 90 451 0 0
# of Disabled
Families 0 51 14 567 25 542 0 0
Attachment 2

Page 50 of 215 ends

Page 276 ends

38 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Program Type
Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
# of Families
requesting
accessibility
features 0 90 52 1,704 132 1,572 0 0
# of HIV/AIDS
program
participants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# of DV
victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 23 – Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)

Race of Residents
Program Type
Race Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
White 0 35 6 426 49 377 0 0 0
Black/African
American 0 50 45 1,179 67 1,112 0 0 0
Asian 0 2 1 71 15 56 0 0 0
American
Indian/Alaska
Native 0 2 0 14 1 13 0 0 0
Pacific
Islander 0 1 0 14 0 14 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 243 – Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)

Attachment 2

Page 51 of 215 ends

Page 277 ends

39 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Ethnicity of Residents
Program Type
Ethnicity Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
Hispanic 0 6 2 92 8 84 0 0 0
Not
Hispanic 0 84 50 1,612 124 1,488 0 0 0
*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 25 – Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)
Attachment 2

Page 52 of 215 ends

Page 278 ends

40 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units:

There are about 980 active households in our Section 8 program with disability. These are families who have either a head of household or family member with a disability. Moreover, 25.5% (510 households) of the 2,000 applicants on the current waiting list require ADA units. In addition, some of the families require standard ADA features, such as an extra bedroom for a live-in-aid and/or medical equipment.

Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders Physical re-location assistance for the disabled and elderly clients is needed including helping them find suitable units. Most families moving into Section 8 units need financial assistance for security deposits as well as acquiring household furniture to settle into their new unit. Since most participants do not own their own vehicle, more housing is needed in areas where there is public transit and shopping centers to purchase basic necessities (like groceries and household goods) is not in close proximity.

How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large The needs of voucher holders are relatively similar to those of other low-income renters in Berkeley. As the housing market data in this Plan indicates, the high cost of housing in Berkeley is the most common housing problem experienced locally. It is not surprising that households who struggle to afford rent also need financial assistance for security deposits and home furnishings, and also that they may need to sacrifice location convenience for affordable rent.

Discussion
Housing Choice vouchers are an important tool for creating affordable housing opportunities in Berkeley. More vouchers as well as more financial and housing search assistance for voucher holders are current community needs.

Attachment 2

Page 53 of 215 ends

Page 279 ends

41 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c)
Introduction:

In Spring 2024, Zoe Klingmann prepared a comprehensive report on homelessness entitled “Gap Analysis of Berkeley’s Homelessness System of Care” for the City Manager’s Office. Most of the information in this section comes from the report. Klingmann found that:
“About a thousand Berkeley residents experience homelessness on a given night. Most of those Berkeleyans—about 75 percent—are unsheltered, meaning that they sleep in a tent, vehicle, or on the street rather than in a shelter or interim housing.

Homelessness is a regional problem with roots beyond Berkeley’s borders, driven by a shortage of affordable housing. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 17% of households in the Bay Area had extremely low incomes, making an average of $17,800 per year. More than half of these households were at high risk of losing their housing. Rising housing costs and pandemic-related instability have put further pressures on this population. As of 2022, more than 38,000 people in the nine-county Bay Area were homeless on a given night, a nine percent increase since 2019.

That said, Berkeley’s level of homelessness is disproportionate among its neighbors. Berkeley residents make up about seven percent of Alameda County’s population, but were 11 percent of unsheltered people on a given night in 2022.

Unsheltered people are vulnerable to a wide range of harms. They have high rates of chronic health conditions and reduced opportunities to obtain health care. The challenges of living on the street can cause or exacerbate physical and mental health conditions and substance abuse disorders. They are also highly vulnerable to crime: more than a third of homeless people surveyed in California said that they had been physically victimized while homeless. Between 2018 and 2020, at least 809 people in Alameda County died while experiencing homelessness.

Unsheltered homelessness also has an impact on the community where it occurs. Some people experiencing homelessness use public services at high rates—for instance, 38% of homeless people in California reported that they had made an emergency room visit that did not result in hospitalization in the last six months. A study in Santa Clara County found that the public cost of medical care and justice system involvement for homeless people was $520 million, with just five percent of the homeless population accounting for 47% of these costs. Additionally, surveys of Bay Area residents regularly find that unsheltered homelessness impacts their perceptions and feelings of safety in their community.” If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness," describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth)
From, Klingmann’s report, over 2,000 people in Berkeley obtained services while homeless during 2023.

Using HMIS data, estimated that about 2,300 people experienced literal homelessness in Berkeley during calendar year 2023. This number represents the unduplicated count of people who obtained services located in Berkeley, excluding those enrolled in permanent housing for the entire year and Attachment 2

Page 54 of 215 ends

Page 280 ends

42 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
those who did not report that they are homeless. This indicates that about two percent of the City’s population experiences some form of literal homelessness over the course of the year.

The detailed data from the County’s most recent, 2024 homeless count is not yet available, but preliminary data shows a 20% decrease in the total number of people who are unhoused to 844 people.

The total number obscures a large increase (57%) in the number of people in shelters (to 399) combined with a large decrease (45%) in the number of people who are unsheltered (445).

The count found that the majority of unhoused people Countywide (8,751 people) are individuals (not in a family group). Historically, the vast majority of people homeless in Berkeley have been single adults.

The Countywide total includes 44% who meet the definition of chronic homelessness (or 3,382 people Countywide). The 2024 Countywide Point in Time Count also found 699 people in families who were homeless, of which 593 (84%) were sheltered. (https://everyonehome.org/main/continuum-of- care/point-in-time-count-2024/)
Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans.

The most recent Berkeley-specific data about the unhoused population is Everyone Home’s Alameda Countywide Point in Time Count 2022. That count found a total of 96 households containing at least one adult and one child at a single point in time. Of these 13 were sheltered and 83 unsheltered households.

Of these, six were Veteran households, all unsheltered. (https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/asr1451/viz/TableauAlamedaCounty- HDXandSurveyData/CityHDX)
“Berkeley residents have to wait to access permanent housing programs. Berkeley residents experiencing homelessness access permanent housing through the Coordinated Entry queue.

Coordinated Entry matches individuals to openings in permanent housing programs based on their level of need and program fit, essentially triaging access to a limited resource. Since mid-2022, people in the north Alameda County area spent an average of 280 days, or more than nine months, on the housing queue before receiving a referral to permanent housing.

Berkeley has a growing inventory of permanent supportive housing (PSH). Berkeley had 592 beds of permanent supportive housing (PSH) in early 2023. These units are intended for formerly homeless people with high needs: they require disability for entry and provide ongoing wrap-around services in addition to a subsidized unit. About ten percent of the PSH units in Berkeley are dedicated to families with children.” (Klingmann, page 11)
Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group.

According to the Klingmann study, Black/African American and American Indian residents disproportionately experience homelessness. In 2023, Black/African American residents were the majority of the people who obtained homelessness services, but only make up eight percent of all residents. In addition, American Indian residents are also more likely to have lower income and high rent which could lead to homelessness.

In 2022, the Everyone Home Point in Time Count found the following:

Attachment 2

Page 55 of 215 ends

Page 281 ends

43 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Number of Unhoused
Individuals
% of Unhoused
Population
White 463 44%
Black or African American 444 42%
American Indian or Alaska Native 49 5%
Multiracial 36 3%
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 34 3%
Asian 30 3%
1,056 100%
Source: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/asr1451/viz/TableauAlamedaCounty- HDXandSurveyData/CityHDX
Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness.

The detailed data from the County’s most recent, 2024 homeless count is not yet available, but preliminary data shows a 20% decrease in the total number of people who are unhoused to 844 people.

The total number obscures a large increase (57%) in the number of people in shelters (to 399) combined with a large decrease (45%) in the number of people who are unsheltered (445). (https://everyonehome.org/main/continuum-of-care/point-in-time-count-2024/) More detailed data is available from the 2022 Point in Time Count. It found that most unsheltered, unhoused people in Berkeley were living in tents (53%), followed by cars and vans (25%), the street/outdoors (14%), and RVs (9%). It also found that most sheltered, unhoused people were living in shelters (93%), followed by transitional housing (6%) and Safe Haven (2%). (https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Berkeley-PIT-2022-Infographic-Report.pdf) Since 2021, Berkeley has more than tripled the number of shelter beds in non-congregate settings, where residents sleep in a private space rather than a dorm-style shelter. These new facilities have higher utilization rates and have successfully sheltered people who have been outside for years. The city now has nearly 100 additional beds of permanent supportive housing, which serves vulnerable people who need support to stay housed. (Klingmann, page 3)
Discussion:

The study that Zoe Klingmann conducted for the City Manager’s office in Spring 2024 reached the following conclusions regarding gaps in the City’s continuum of care for the unhoused:
“Berkeley will need more funding to keep up momentum. Berkeley has made strides in expanding services in recent years, but the resources the City has available now are not enough to reduce unsheltered homelessness. System modeling suggests that a 75% reduction in street homelessness will require an additional $300 million over five years, largely for new affordable housing. More urgently, Berkeley faces a fiscal cliff in the coming years due to the volatility of local funding sources, state budget woes, and the end of pandemic-era programs.

Inflows to and outflows from homelessness add up to increasing need for services. The number of people utilizing homelessness services in Berkeley increased 11% between 2022 and 2023. This increase Attachment 2

Page 56 of 215 ends

Page 282 ends

44 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
comes down to a math problem: more people are entering or returning to homelessness than are exiting to housing.

Berkeley has made progress in increasing its supply of permanent supportive housing (PSH) and non- congregate interim housing. Since 2021, Berkeley has more than tripled the number of shelter beds in non-congregate settings, where residents sleep in a private space rather than a dorm-style shelter.

These new facilities have higher utilization rates and have successfully sheltered people who have been outside for years. The city now has nearly one hundred additional beds of permanent supportive housing, which serves vulnerable people who need support to stay housed.

People are still stuck in a bottleneck. Despite increases in supply, people eligible for permanent supportive housing still wait a long time for housing. More than 95 percent of people waiting on the housing queue have some form of disability.

Targeted prevention is key to reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness. Berkeley’s current housing retention programs have been successful at preventing evictions, but are not targeted to the people most likely to become homeless, many of whom do not have a formal lease. System modeling suggests that Berkeley will need to more than double the number of households served by targeted prevention in order to achieve a 75 reduction in unsheltered homelessness.” The report also made the following recommendations:
“In order to effectively reduce unsheltered homelessness, Berkeley should look for opportunities to increase funding for homelessness services and affordable housing. The City should prioritize the following specific investments: accelerating the transition to non-congregate shelter, funding permanent supportive housing, and investing in targeted homelessness prevention.

In addition, the City should consider doing additional research into rapid rehousing and the needs of people with lower levels of acuity.”
Attachment 2

Page 57 of 215 ends

Page 283 ends

45 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d) Introduction:

The special needs population consists of people who are not homeless but requires supportive housing and services for various reasons. This population includes (but is not limited to) people with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities; the elderly and frail elderly; people with alcohol or other drug addiction; people with HIV/AIDS and their families; victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and transitional age youth.

Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community:

Persons with Mental, Physical, and/or Development Disabilities People with disabilities often have unique housing requirements due to the need for ADA related accommodations, frequently fixed low incomes, and higher health care costs and cost ratio to income associated with a disability. According to the 2023 ACS population estimate, about 11% of the total Berkeley population had one or more disabilities, the same as Alameda County as a whole, and up from nine percent in 2018 (Table S1810). This is equivalent to 12,569 people. The ACS identifies disability as having difficulty with one or more of four basic areas of functioning—hearing, vision, cognition, and ambulation—and/or difficulty performing everyday tasks such as, bathing, dressing and/or running errands.

Elderly and Frail Elderly
The 2023 ACS data reports that 17 percent of Berkeley’s population is over 65 (up from 14% in 2020) (Table S0101), and that 14,836 households, or 30% of all households, have one or more people aged 65 and up (Table DP02). One of the main housing issues facing seniors is housing cost. Seniors often have fixed incomes so they have difficulty with increased rental and utility costs or housing maintenance costs. In 2023, 667 men and 954 women ages 65 or older had an income below the federal poverty level (Table B17001).

Berkeley adopted a plan related to aging seniors and updated it in 2022. The City of Berkeley Age- Friendly Action Plan was finalized in 2018 through a collaborative public-private partnership that includes representatives from City of Berkeley Aging Services Division, Ashby Village, Center for Independent Living, and Lifelong Medical partner agencies. The Age-Friendly Berkeley plan identified housing as a specific area of importance with three of the top 10 concerns for Berkeley adults 60 years of age and older being 1) affordable housing, 2) being able to maintain their home, and 3) being able to stay in their home. The 2022 update identified the following priority actions:

Develop a continuum of affordable housing options for older adults to age in their community regardless of their health or financial status.

Entry Opportunities:
• Include targets for the older adult population in the City Housing Element. • Address the need for affordable, ADA suitable housing at all levels of need; expand eligibility criteria for subsidized services to raise entry levels to moderate income individuals. • Expand entry opportunities to supportive housing for vulnerable populations.

Attachment 2

Page 58 of 215 ends

Page 284 ends

46 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Information:
• Provide an online resource and educational workshops at Senior Centers about renters’ rights and strategies to qualify for entry to both market and below market rate housing. • Offer workshops and education on financial planning and elder fraud abuse. • Assess and map housing options for the public via written materials and the internet. • Provide broader communication of assistance with local taxes for low income residents.

Infrastructure and Policy:
• Develop a program for housing cost relief for moderate income seniors who do not qualify for income restricted housing.
• Incorporate mixed zoning in all neighborhoods, increasing walkability and proximity to services and commercial areas.
• Pursue affordable settings for out-of-home assisted living (e.g., CCRC and alternatives). • Enable increased development of accessory dwelling units (ADU) by streamlining the construction approval process.

Persons with Alcohol or Other Drug Addictions
Comprehensive local data on the number of people with alcohol and other drug addiction is not available. In the results of the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that 48.7 million people aged 12 or older (or 17.3%) had a substance use disorder (SUD) in the past year, including 29.5 million who had an alcohol use disorder (AUD), 27.2 million who had a drug use disorder (DUD), and 8.0 million people who had both an AUD and a DUD. If this statistic is accurate for Berkeley, approximately 13,797 people ages 12 and older (based on 2023 ACS population data) in Berkeley have a substance use disorder.

Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Over the last 5 years, the Berkeley Police Department has received an average of 105 domestic violence- related calls for service per year, ranging from 89 to 127 calls per year. It is not possible to determine from the statistics how many distinct households were involved but this figure gives some sense of scale of the need for related housing assistance. (https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime- statistics/domestic-violence-related-calls-assistance)
The 2022 Point in Time Homeless Count shows that 78 of the 1,057 unhoused people in Berkeley were adult survivors of domestic violence, equal to seven percent. (https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/asr1451/viz/TableauAlamedaCounty- HDXandSurveyData/CityHDX)
What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs determined?
The primary need for Non-Homeless Special Needs populations is for housing that is subsidized deeply enough to be affordable at extremely low-income levels. Many seniors and people with disabilities have some form of income from the Social Services Administration, which, as described in the Housing Attachment 2

Page 59 of 215 ends

Page 285 ends

47 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Market Analysis, is simply not sufficient to pay for market-rate or much of the affordable housing in Berkeley. Despite Social Security Income increasing 2.5% in January 2025 (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSI.html), the cost-of-living adjustments are not enough to match Bay Area housing prices region. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet) the consumer price index for the San Francisco- Oakland-Hayward area increased by 15% from 2019 to 2023.

Even those who do not require supportive housing (meaning affordable housing with connected supportive services) need affordable housing. Other needs include:
• Home rehabilitation for health and safety needs and ADA improvements; • Supportive services that include enough flexibility in type, intensity, and duration to support people to stay stably housed;
• Services that help people who are eligible to gain entry to programs such as SSI and Medi-Cal, to increase their housing and service options; and
• Education and employment programs which help people increase their income.

These needs are evidenced by applications for funding from local non-profit agencies providing services to the special needs populations listed above.

Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area:

The Alameda County Public Health Department’s most recent report on the prevalence of HIV and AIDS in the region was published in March 2023 and covers the period 2019- 2021. It states that there were 6,212 people living with HIV/AIDS in Alameda County in 2021. In 2020, 68% had viral suppression, meaning the amount of virus in their blood was at a low level, helping them stay healthy. Of people newly diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in the County, the majority were male (85%) and men who have sex with men (73%). The highest rate of transmission was in people aged 30 to 39. Of newly diagnosed people, 34% were Black or African American, 33% were Hispanic and 19% were white. The Census tracts with the greatest prevalence of people living with HIV/AIDS in the County were not in Berkeley, although some people are.

If the PJ will establish a preference for a HOME TBRA activity for persons with a specific category of disabilities (e.g., persons with HIV/AIDS or chronic mental illness), describe their unmet need for housing and services needed to narrow the gap in benefits and services received by such persons. (See 24 CFR 92.209(c)(2) (ii)) Not applicable
Discussion:

Alameda County Housing and Community Development administers the allocation of Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds on behalf of the City of Oakland for the metropolitan area which includes Berkeley. Over the years, Berkeley has provided Housing Trust Fund funding to projects which include HOPWA units targeted to people living with HIV/AIDS, including the University Neighborhood Apartments, Oxford Plaza, UA Homes, and Grayson Street Apartments projects.

Attachment 2

Page 60 of 215 ends

Page 286 ends

48 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities:

The City of Berkeley’s General Plan adopted several policies and actions which addressed the City’s need for public facilities. Some of these policies and actions include the following:
• Ensure neighborhoods are well served by community services and facilities such as parks, schools, child-care facilities, and religious institutions. • Establish a network of community centers including school sites, neighborhood resource centers, and City facilities that offer community services such as childcare, health care, and recreational programs.
• Create new open space and recreational resources throughout Berkeley and preserve, maintain, and repair the City’s existing open space and recreational resources and facilities. • Provide properly staffed and equipped fire stations and engine companies.

How were these needs determined?
The City’s General Plan was developed through many community meetings, public workshops, and the efforts of City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff. These public facilities are critical infrastructure for the delivery of public services, and emergency shelter, and are therefore a high priority.

Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements:

The City’s need for public improvements is described in the City’s 2023 – 2027 Capital Improvement Program, Building a Better Berkeley: Smart Investment in Action, available online at https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY-23-27-Capital-Improvement-Program_0.pdf .

Capital improvements include streets, transportation, storm drains, sidewalks, sanitary sewer, parks and marina, information technology, City facilities, equipment, fleet and other infrastructure. According to this plan, “Most of Berkeley’s streets, sidewalks, sewers, parks, playgrounds and public buildings were built over 75 years ago and need repair. However, local revenues have not kept pace with the investments needed to maintain or update aging infrastructure or promote sustainability and housing affordability. This under investment has led to more than $1.65 billion in deferred maintenance costs alone.”
How were these needs determined?
These needs were determined by the City Manager and staff and discussed and adopted by City Council during the budget process.

Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services:

The City has historically funded a wide variety of public services for Berkeley’s population. Supporting public services will continue to be a high priority for the City. These services could include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Homeless services
• Senior services
• Disabled services
Attachment 2

Page 61 of 215 ends

Page 287 ends

49 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
• Legal/advocacy services
• Youth services
• Transportation services
• Substance abuse services
• Services for battered/abused spouses
• Employment training
• Childcare services
• Health services
• Mental health services
• Fair housing related services

How were these needs determined?
The City has historically funded a wide array of public services based on identified community need and input. Most public services are funded with local sources, including General Fund, rather than federal funds. For public services funded with local sources, the needs are determined by the same process outlined above for public improvements. For public services funded with federal funding, the needs are determined by public hearings, commission review, consultation with local non-profit agencies providing the services, and surveys.

Attachment 2

Page 62 of 215 ends

Page 288 ends

50 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Housing Market Analysis
MA-05 Overview
Housing Market Analysis Overview:

The purpose of the Market Analysis is to provide a clear picture of the environment in which the City will administer its CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs over the course of this Consolidated Plan. In conjunction with the Needs Assessment, this chapter will provide the basis for the Strategic Plan and the programs and projects to be administered. Most of the data tables in this section are populated with default data developed by the Census Bureau for HUD based on 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS).

Other sources are noted throughout the Plan. The Market Analysis includes the following sections:
• Number of Housing Units
• Cost of Housing
• Condition of Housing
• Public and Assisted Housing
• Homeless Facilities and Services
• Special Needs Facilities and Services
• Barriers to Affordable Housing
• Non-Housing Community Development Assets
• Needs and Market Analysis Discussion
Attachment 2

Page 63 of 215 ends

Page 289 ends

51 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2)
Introduction
Most of Berkeley’s buildings were constructed between 1875 and 1940. Densities are greatest in the areas close to college campus and Downtown, where there are multi-unit apartment buildings and large single-family homes converted to rooming houses or apartments. Density can also be found along the main arterials of the city in both older and new apartment buildings. Much of the city is characterized by small lots with one to four units.

According to the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) data below, there are 50,045 housing units in Berkeley. Single family homes, in both detached and attached structures, comprise 45% of the City’s housing units. Multi-unit structures of two to four units make up 21% of total housing units, while structures with five to 19 units comprise 18%, and structures of 20 or more make up 16%.

Between 2015 and 2022, Berkeley approved 4,631 new units of housing. The 828 homes completed in 2022 more than doubled the 295 units finished in 2021.
(https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/07/25/berkeley-housing-boom-construction) In addition, while not subject to City approvals, the University of California in 2024 opened a 772-bed dormitory for transfer students and started construction on another 1,100 bed housing complex for students. (https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/08/02/helen-diller-anchor-house-opening-uc-berkeley) Increased student housing offerings are likely to ease competition for other housing in Berkeley, although it remains to be seen whether the impact is noticeable.

Consistent with state law, the City has passed multiple changes to streamline the permitting of Accessory Dwelling Units. In 2023, the City entitled and permitted 95 ADUs, and 91 were completed. (Housing Element and General Plan Annual Progress Reports report to Council, March 27, 2024).

All residential properties by number of units
Property Type Number %
1-unit detached structure 20,430 41%
1-unit, attached structure 2,005 4%
2-4 units 10,285 21%
5-19 units 8,915 18%
20 or more units 8,255 16%
Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc. 155 0%
Total 50,045 100%
Table 26 – Residential Properties by Unit Number
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Unit Size by Tenure
Owners Renters
Number % Number %
No bedroom 110 1% 3,720 14%
Attachment 2

Page 64 of 215 ends

Page 290 ends

52 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Owners Renters
Number % Number %
1 bedroom 1,200 6% 9,405 36%
2 bedrooms 5,330 27% 9,110 35%
3 or more bedrooms 13,035 66% 3,975 15%
Total 19,675 100% 26,210 100%
Table 27 – Unit Size by Tenure
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs.

Under the City of Berkeley’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF), the City of Berkeley has assisted the development of 56 properties consisting of 1,690 total rental units, including 1,513 affordable units and 68 homeownership units. Of the 1,690 rental housing units, 83% of the units serve extremely low- and low-income families and individuals; 28% are designated specifically for extremely low and low-income seniors; and 16% serve a targeted special needs population, including formerly homeless, people with physical and/or development disabilities, people with AIDS and Transition-Aged Youth.

Since the inception of the HTF in 1990, the City has invested a variety of funds, including the City’s allocation of federal HOME and CDBG funds, former redevelopment funds, City general funds, local bond measure revenue and other local sources of funding. The City’s investment has enabled local nonprofit project sponsors to leverage other financing, including state and federal low-income housing tax credits, many types of state funds, and in a few projects, federal New Markets Tax Credits. The majority of the City-assisted housing projects is 100% affordable and meets the deepest affordability levels per the City’s Housing Trust Fund guidelines. Under the City’s guidelines, project sponsors are required to set aside at least 60% of all the units for extremely low and very low-income households, including a 20% set-aside for families and individuals who are extremely low-income. Berkeley has made significant strides in expanding local funds to address the needs of displaced residents and the region’s increasingly unaffordable housing prices.

Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts.

A total of three projects (92 units) are at-risk for potential conversion to market rate units between 2025 and 2030. All three of these properties are owned and operated by nonprofit organizations and the City has no indication that the owners intend to convert the units to market rate; therefore, the risk of conversion to market-rate units is low.

All three of the at-risk projects are reliant on project-based subsidies from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that are currently renewable on an annual basis and do not have other known restrictions recorded on the property which would prevent conversion to market rate. These vouchers allow the project owner to collect HUD’s Fair Market Rent, restrict occupancy to lower income residents, and assure that the resident will only be responsible for that portion of rent equal to 30% of their income. Because these vouchers are contingent on annual appropriations from the Attachment 2

Page 65 of 215 ends

Page 291 ends

53 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
federal government, the vouchers must be renewed annually; therefore, the units are constantly “at risk” from possible changes in federal policy and funding priorities.

Additionally, all three properties are beyond their original affordability expiration date and the owners could decide not to renew their subsidy in any given year. However, over time, data and experience have shown that many owners continue to renew their contracts beyond the original expiration date, providing evidence that the link between affordability expiration date and conversion is not inevitable.

This is particularly true for projects owned by mission-based housing nonprofit organizations.

Name and Address Number of Units Owner
Bonita Grove
1910-1912 Hearst St.
2 Bonita House Inc.

Lawrence Moore Manor
1909 Cedar St.
46 Satellite Affordable Housing
Associates
Stuart Pratt Manor
2020 Durant Ave
44 Satellite Affordable Housing
Associates
Total 92
Table 28 – Affordable Housing Locations
Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? Despite the City’s commitment to investing in affordable housing, and the many projects and programs that the City has supported, there is not enough affordable housing to meet the needs of the population in Berkeley, throughout the Bay Area and in coastal California. In the November 2018 Measure O ballot language, the City set a goal of achieving ten percent reserved affordable housing by 2030. The combined funds of Measures U1, O, and the existing Housing Trust Fund seek to meet this new goal by leveraging county, state, and federal funds. The Bay Area, including Berkeley, has some of the highest housing costs in the country.

Real estate website Zillow.com, using data from November 22, 2024, estimates the median rental price for all types of housing in Berkeley to be $2,600 per month, 28% higher than a national media of $2,025, with 676 rentals currently available. Berkeley’s median is similar to neighboring Emeryville ($2,500) and Albany ($2,900). (https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/berkeley-ca/). Zillow also estimated the median sales price for a home in Berkeley at $1,387,085, virtually the same (-0.4%) as the year before, and down from a peak of $1,566,946 in May 2022. These prices do not reflect a market that includes homes within reach for most households working minimum wage jobs or extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households. Part of the challenge contributing to the high cost and housing demand is that the regional housing supply has not grown to meet the regional job economy, despite pandemic related economic slowdown.

Attachment 2

Page 66 of 215 ends

Page 292 ends

54 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
In addition to the ongoing needs for housing for extremely low, very low, and low-income households, there is evidence that housing is becoming unaffordable for even households above low-income levels.

As one example of the local affordability issues, it is very difficult to find housing units for rent at HUD’s Fair Market Rents (FMR) in Berkeley, impacting the City’s Shelter Plus Care program and the Berkeley Housing Authority’s (BHA) Housing Choice Voucher and Special Purpose Voucher programs. BHA reports a 61 percent success rate in leasing up in FY2024. This means that only 61 percent of vouchers issued in the past 12 months were able to find a unit in Berkeley. The City has also heard from the BHA and social services providers that there are not enough ADA units which are affordable, even for Housing Choice Voucher holders.

Describe the need for specific types of housing:

The American Community Survey data summarized in this plan shows that households at all income levels are rent burdened in Berkeley. The portion of rent burdened households increases as household income decreases. Therefore, housing affordable to households at a variety of income ranges is needed.

Based on anecdotal data, it appears that finding ADA units is also challenging, and that more ADA units are needed.

Discussion
Affordable housing units of all types are needed to meet local housing needs.

Attachment 2

Page 67 of 215 ends

Page 293 ends

55 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) Introduction
Cost of Housing
Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2020 % Change
Median Home Value 741,900 1,059,500 43%
Median Contract Rent 1,303 1,689 30%
Table 29 – Cost of Housing
Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2016-2020 ACS (Most Recent Year)

Rent Paid Number %
Less than $500 1,860 7.1%
$500-999 3,545 13.5%
$1,000-1,499 5,705 21.8%
$1,500-1,999 5,930 22.6%
$2,000 or more 9,160 35.0%
Total 26,200 100.0%
Table 30 - Rent Paid
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Housing Affordability
Number of Units affordable to
Households earning
Renter Owner
30% HAMFI 2,030 No Data
50% HAMFI 5,325 240
80% HAMFI 11,710 445
100% HAMFI No Data 678
Total 19,065 1,363
Table 31 – Housing Affordability
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

Monthly Rent
Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no
bedroom)
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Fair Market Rent 1,658 1,969 2,405 3,144 3,706
High HOME Rent 1,390 1,491 1,791 2,060 2,279
Low HOME Rent 1,085 1,162 1,395 1,611 1,797
Table 32 – Monthly Rent
Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents

Attachment 2

Page 68 of 215 ends

Page 294 ends

56 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels? There is not sufficient housing for households at all income levels, evidenced by Berkeley being situated within the metro area with the nation’s highest rents and home prices combined with a historically low vacancy rate.

How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents?
Although the pandemic-related economic slowdown and rising interest rates have cooled off housing costs that were previously rising rapidly, the Bay Area in general and Berkeley in particular remain among the least affordable areas in the country. Demand for housing in Berkeley is driven by the continued growth of the University of California – Berkeley and the continued increase in employment opportunities in the region combined with a constrained housing supply. Housing development historically lagged job growth in the region, and remains constrained due to the availability of land, rising interest rates, and local concerns about overdevelopment. Because of these factors, it is likely that affordability will remain a concern in Berkeley.

How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing? The median contract rent reported in the 2016 - 2020 American Community Survey data above (the most recent) was $1,689. However, this figure does not reflect the true cost for households seeking housing today. More than 19,000 housing units in Berkeley are rent controlled under the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Ordinance. These requirements apply to most multifamily housing built before June 1980, and single-family homes with a tenant who moved in before 1996. Rent increases are limited once tenants move in and can be re-set to market rate when units turn over. ACS’ inclusion of all units from newly occupied, unrestricted apartments to low-term occupied rent-controlled units means that this figure understates the cost of renting an apartment in Berkeley today. It also does not distinguish between unit sizes, when rents actually range widely.

The following table presents current (as of November 2024) rents in comparison with the current FMR and Low HOME Rent.

Unit Type
Average Rent –
Apartments.com
11/2024
Fair Market Rent
(as a percentage of
average)
Low HOME Rent
(as a percentage of
average)
Studio 2,031 1,658 (82%) 1,085 (53%)
1-bedroom 2,284 1,969 (86%) 1,162 (51%)
2-bedroom 3,171 2,405 (76%) 1,395 (44%)
3-bedroom 4,499 3,144 (70%) 1,611 (36%)
Table 33 – Rent Comparisons
Attachment 2

Page 69 of 215 ends

Page 295 ends

57 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Data Source: Average rent data: https://www.apartments.com/rent-market-trends/berkeley-ca/

Both are substantially lower than the average rent, which is very important to the stability of lower income households who have made it into an apartment with restricted rent. Additionally, the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board provided information about the rents paid for new tenancies reported in their online database, which are similarly much higher than the FMR and HOME rents.

Average Rents, only for new tenancies reported to the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board Number of bedrooms Average rent, 2022 Average rent, 2023 Studio 1,991 2,020
1 – Bedroom 2,361 2,428
2 – Bedroom 3,889 3,293
3 - Bedroom 4,403 4,306
All Units 2,943 2,761
Table 34 – Average Rent
Sources: Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board internal memos dated 9/19/2024, “Average Rents for New Tenancies: January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023” and 7/20/2023, “Average Rents for New Tenancies: January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022”
The City’s strategy has been to preserve and increase the number of apartments with project-based Housing Choice Vouchers and HOME-restricted rents. The discrepancy between the Fair Market Rents and average rents unfortunately also means that it is challenging to find an apartment that will accept the payment available through a Housing Choice voucher or Shelter Plus Care certificate, leading to barriers to fully utilizing those programs. The City’s strategy has been to fund the services organizations providing Shelter Plus Care services to provide participants with assistance finding apartments, and to add requirements to its inclusionary housing program to promote voucher and certificate acceptance.

Discussion
High costs of developing housing in Berkeley and the entire Bay Area contribute to high rents. Given the limited amount of HOME funding the City receives, these high development costs require affordable developers to pursue multiple, highly competitive sources of funding which can take years to assemble.

New State of California laws addressing housing production and local housing investment have improved affordable housing funding opportunities.

Attachment 2

Page 70 of 215 ends

Page 296 ends

58 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) Introduction
Berkeley’s urban landscape reveals a great deal about how the City was developed. Building styles, which are typically associated with a particular time period, vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and even from street to street. In some places, different stages of development are revealed by an occasional remnant Victorian, or by the area’s general mixture of later styles. The early transportation hubs can still be detected by the evidence of commercial centers and building clusters from different decades.

Broadly speaking, the areas close to college campuses and Downtown had their initial construction in the 19th Century, though many of them were later substantially rebuilt. West Berkeley, and the village of Lorin in South Berkeley, also had their start in the 19th Century. The initial pattern was a response to the original transportation system of boats, streetcars, and trains. The areas in between remained largely open for some time and then filled in, especially in the first three decades of the 1900s. The expanded suburban development in the hills followed the opening of new streetcar lines, the 1906 earthquake, and ultimately the common use of the automobile.

Densities are greatest in the areas close to college campuses and Downtown, where there are multi-unit apartment buildings and large single-family homes converted to rooming houses or apartments. Density can also be found along the main arterials of the city in both older and new apartment buildings. The majority of the city is characterized by small lots with one to four units.

According to the Department of Finance, there were 51,523 housing units in Berkeley in 2020. This represents a four percent increase from 2010 and a ten percent increase since 2000. Berkeley’s housing growth rate is lower than that of Alameda County. In the past twenty years, there has been a 13% increase in housing units in the County. (Berkeley’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10- 17_Berkeley_RevisedDraftHEU_COMBINED_Lo_0.pdf)
Describe the jurisdiction's definition of "standard condition" and "substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation":

The City of Berkeley uses HUD’s Housing Quality Standards (HQS) to define “standard condition” for units in the rental assistance programs. HQS consists of the following thirteen performance requirements: sanitary facilities; food preparation and refuse disposal; space and security; thermal environmental; structure and materials; interior air quality; water supply; lead-based paint; site and neighborhood; sanitary condition; and smoke detectors. For example, the dwelling unit must have suitable space and equipment to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner in order to satisfy the performance requirement for food preparation and refuse disposal.

The City of Berkeley determines if a property is in substandard condition, but suitable for rehabilitation based on funding availability and requirements to bring the property to a standard condition, as verified by a third-party capital needs assessment.

Attachment 2

Page 71 of 215 ends

Page 297 ends

59 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
This table displays the number of housing units, by tenure, based on the number of “conditions” the units has. Selected conditions are similar to housing problems in the Needs Assessment and are 1) lacks complete plumbing facilities, 2) lacks complete kitchen facilities, 3) more than one person per room, and 4) cost burden greater than 30% The table also calculates the percentage of total units that the category represents.

Condition of Units
Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
With one selected Condition 5,420 28% 12,675 48%
With two selected Conditions 45 0% 935 4%
With three selected Conditions 15 0% 215 1%
With four selected Conditions 0 0% 25 0%
No selected Conditions 14,195 72% 12,355 47%
Total 19,675 100% 26,205 100%
Table 35 - Condition of Units
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Year Unit Built
Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
2000 or later 435 2% 2,640 10%
1980-1999 1,055 5% 3,455 13%
1950-1979 3,165 16% 9,870 38%
Before 1950 15,025 76% 10,235 39%
Total 19,680 99% 26,200 100%
Table 36 – Year Unit Built
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number %
Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 18,190 92% 20,105 77% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 474 2% 120 0% Table 37 – Risk of Lead-Based Paint
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS (Total Units) 2016-2020 CHAS (Units with Children present) Vacant Units
Suitable for
Rehabilitation
Not Suitable for
Rehabilitation
Total
Vacant Units
Abandoned Vacant Units
REO Properties
Abandoned REO Properties
Table 38 - Vacant Units
The original Table 36 - Vacant Units Table above generated by HUD using CHAS data does not include any information on vacancy rates.

Attachment 2

Page 72 of 215 ends

Page 298 ends

60 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

From the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element: A certain number of vacancies in a community is necessary to moderate housing costs, provide some level of choice for households seeking housing, and provide incentive to keep units in decent condition. Vacancy rates for rental properties are typically higher than owner occupied properties because rental units tend to turnover more frequently. A vacancy rate is considered to be healthy if it permits adequate choices and mobility among a variety of housing units. A healthy rate is considered to be five to six percent for rental units and two to three percent for owner occupied units.

According to the American Community Survey, vacancy rates have decreased over the last several years (see Table 3.20) and are well below optimal levels. The 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates a vacancy rate of a third of one percent for owner occupied units and two and four tenths of a percent for rental units. Vacancy rates in Alameda County are higher than in Berkeley; however, they are also below healthy levels. Table 3.21 provides insight into the types of vacancies that exist within the City. The largest vacancy type in Berkeley, Alameda County, and the Bay area is “other vacant” (55%, 44%, and 36%, respectively). The Census Bureau defines “other vacant” as units that do not fit into any other year-round vacant category. It is possible that short-term vacation rentals account for a significant subset of this category. The proportion of units for sale and units for rent are lower in Berkeley than in Alameda County and the Bay area.

Figure 1: Vacancy Rates
Source: 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10- 17_Berkeley_RevisedDraftHEU_COMBINED_Lo_0.pdf

Attachment 2

Page 73 of 215 ends

Page 299 ends

61 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation
From the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element:

The age of a community’s housing stock can provide insight into the level of maintenance and rehabilitation needs. Generally, structures over 30 years old are likely to have significant rehabilitation needs which may include a new roof, foundation repairs, and new plumbing. Berkeley has a significant proportion of older units, with nearly half of all units constructed before 1939. Overall, 95% of Berkeley’s housing stock will be over 30 years old by the end of this housing element planning cycle and 86% will be over 50 years old.

According to the 2014-2019 American Community Survey, the median year structure built for the City’s housing stock is 1942. However, the City’s owner-occupied housing stock is significantly older with a median age older than 1939, compared to a median age of 1958 for renter occupied units. Regardless of tenure, rehabilitation and maintenance is an ongoing need to preserve the quality of the City’s housing stock.

Lack of sufficient plumbing and kitchen facilities is another indicator of substandard housing conditions.

Although units without sufficient plumbing or kitchens are rare in Berkeley, renter households are more likely to reside in a unit with one of these issues. The 2015-2019 American Community Survey estimates that about two thirds of a percent of owner-occupied units and about two and one tenths of a percent of renter occupied units lack sufficient kitchen facilities. Lack of sufficient plumbing is rarer, with a third of one percent of owner-occupied units and one and two tenths of a percent of rental units lacking sufficient plumbing (Table 3.22).

Local building and code enforcement divisions can also provide insight into the condition of housing units in the community, based on complaints filed, inspections, code violations, and other observations.

Based on 2021 activity, there were a total of 303 code enforcement cases reported, of which 238 were resolved. The average number of days to resolve a case was 53 days. Approximately 15-18% of complaint-based code enforcement cases are identified as blight cases (approximately 35 cases in 2022), which suggests that there are potentially more units in need of rehabilitation or replacement. A more accurate number of housing units in need of rehabilitation is approximately between 1,000 to 2,500 units, or less than five percent of the City’s total housing stock. (2023 – 2031 Housing Element, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10- 17_Berkeley_RevisedDraftHEU_COMBINED_Lo_0.pdf)

Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low- or Moderate-Income Families with LBP Hazards
There is no current estimate for the number of housing units occupied by low- or moderate-income families with Lead Based Paint Hazards. Because Berkeley has so much older housing stock, lead based paint is likely present in many residences. The City of Berkeley Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program collaborates with the Berkeley Health, Housing & Community Services Department’s Registered Environmental Health Specialist on responding to resident inquiries on housing lead concerns.

Attachment 2

Page 74 of 215 ends

Page 300 ends

62 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Berkeley’s program provides education, information, and resources through community outreach events and presentations to parenting/family groups, community organizations, and health education and resource fairs. From July 2022-June 2024, Berkeley’s CLPPP staff provided outreach, education and resource/referrals to 1,801 people.

Discussion
Housing affordability continues to be the City’s most significant housing challenge. The City’s older housing stock is generally well maintained, with relatively low rates of housing problems and substandard housing. Low vacancy rates show strong continued demand for rental and ownership housing in Berkeley. The last decade has seen more housing development in Berkeley than in prior periods, and development continues despite some cooling with increased interest rates. Planning and pre-development activities are underway for substantial new developments at the North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations. Additionally, the University of California at Berkeley has increased its production of student housing opportunities on University property, not reflected in Berkeley’s production numbers.

Attachment 2

Page 75 of 215 ends

Page 301 ends

63 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b)
Introduction
The eCon Plan Suite generated table below shows 61 units of public housing under the Berkeley Housing Authority. This housing portfolio was sold to Related California for continued use as affordable housing in approximately 2015. BHA no longer manages these units.

Totals Number of Units
Program Type
Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant -
based

Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
# of units
vouchers available 0 87 61 1,844 195 1,649 0 0 0
# of accessible
units
*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 39 – Total Number of Units by Program Type
Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)
Describe the supply of public housing developments:

The Berkeley Housing Authority no longer owns or operates public housing. Its former portfolio of 75 family units was acquired and rehabilitated by Related California and is now known as Berkeley 75. The units are located on three and two thirds acres across 15 sites throughout the City of Berkeley. These three- and four-bedroom, one- and two-story attached townhomes are situated in low-density residential neighborhoods near schools, parks, shopping and transit. Fourteen of the townhomes were built in 1981 with state Rental Housing Construction Program funds and 61 were completed in 1986 as Low-Income Public Housing units. The development is now owned and operated by Related California under a 99-year ground lease with Berkeley Housing Authority and the City of Berkeley. (https://www.relatedcalifornia.com/our-company/properties/berkeley-75) Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan:

Not applicable
Public Housing Condition
Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score

Table 40 - Public Housing Condition

Attachment 2

Page 76 of 215 ends

Page 302 ends

64 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction:

Not applicable
Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low- and moderate-income families residing in public housing:

Not applicable
Discussion:

Not applicable
Attachment 2

Page 77 of 215 ends

Page 303 ends

65 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c)
Introduction
The City funds a wide range of homeless programs including 395 year-round shelter beds, 64 transitional housing beds and 100 seasonal shelter beds. BOSS Harrison House shelter has ten beds reserved for Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Agency (BHCS). The remaining beds are available to literally homeless individuals and families who have been assessed by Bay Area Community Services, North County Housing Resource Center for adults without minor children ore Women’s Daytime Drop-in Center, the Housing Resource Center for literally homeless families.

The City funds 27 transitional housing beds in two programs, one for families and one for transition age youth. The City also funds tenant support services in permanent housing in both project based and scattered site housing that use rental subsidies.

Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households
Emergency Shelter
Beds
Transitional
Housing
Beds
Permanent Supportive
Housing Beds
Year
Round
Beds
(Current
& New)
Voucher /
Seasonal
/
Overflow
Beds
Current &
New
Current
& New*
Under
Development
Households with Adult(s) and
Child(ren) 40 0 15 *
Households with Only Adults 255 100 27 345 51
Chronically Homeless
Households 0 0 0 571 51
Veterans 0 0 22 * 11
Unaccompanied Youth 0 0 0
Table 41 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households *The Shelter Plus Care Program has approximately 270 tenant-based vouchers. These vouchers are assigned by Alameda County Coordinated Entry System based on household vulnerability and need, not type of household.

Data source: City of Berkeley

Attachment 2

Page 78 of 215 ends

Page 304 ends

66 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

Provider Name Address Program
Name
Population Family
Beds
Individual
Beds
Year
Round
Seasonal
Only
Insight Housing Berkeley Men's
Housing
Program
Single Males 32 32 0
Insight Housing Berkeley Women's
Housing
Program
Single Females 32 32 0
Insight Housing Berkeley The
Campus*
Single
households
23 23 0
Insight Housing Berkeley Berkeley
Respite
Shelter*
Single
households
8 8 0
Building Opportunities
for Self Sufficiency
Berkeley Harrison
House
Single Males
and Females
and Families
40 (14
family
units)
50 90 0
Bay Area Community
Services
Berkeley Pathways
STAIR
Center
Single
households
42 42 0
Dorothy Day House Berkeley Emergency
Storm
Shelter
Single
households
25 0 25
Dorothy Day House Berkeley Inclement
Weather
Shelter
Single
households
40 0 40
Dorothy Day House Berkeley Beyond
Horizon*
Single
households
25 25 0
Dorothy Day House Berkeley Howard
Johnson*
Single
households
26 26 0
Dorothy Day House Berkeley Veteran's
Building
Shelter
Single
households
52 52 0
Attachment 2

Page 79 of 215 ends

Page 305 ends

67 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
City of Berkeley Berkeley Winter
Voucher
Program
All households 15
Women's Daytime
Drop-in Center
Berkeley Winter
Voucher
Program
Families 20
*Non-congregate shelter Figure 2 - Current Inventory: Emergency Shelters Source: City of Berkeley, Housing and Community Services Division

Provider Name Address Program
Name
Population Family
Beds
Individ
ual
Beds
Year
Round
Insight Housing Berkeley Veteran's
Program
Single Males 12 12
Bonita House Berkeley Bonita House Single households 15 15 Larkin Street Youth Services Berkeley Turning Point Single households (18-25)
12 12
Resources for Community
Development
Berkeley Ashby House Single Veterans 10 10
Women's Daytime Drop-in
Center
Berkeley Bridget House Families 15 beds (5
units)
15 Figure 3 - Current Inventory: Transitional Housing
Source: City of Berkeley, Housing and Community Services Division Provider Name Address Project Name Population Units
Beds
/Rooms
Bonita House Berkeley City of Berkeley
Shelter Plus Care
Single
households
7 Bonita House Oakland City of Berkeley
Shelter Plus Care
Single
households
6 8
Building Opportunity for Self-
Sufficiency
Berkeley Step Up Housing Single
households
39 39
Attachment 2

Page 80 of 215 ends

Page 306 ends

68 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
City of Berkeley Tenant Based Rental
Assistance
Square One Single
households and
families
6 6
City of Berkeley Tenant Based Rental
Assistance(TBRA)
City of Berkeley
Shelter Plus Care
Single
households and
families
235 233
City of Berkeley Tenant Based Rental
Assistance(TBRA)
City of Berkeley
Shelter Plus Care
(Alameda County
TRA)
Single
households and
families
34 34
City of Berkeley Berkeley McKinley House Single
households
7 7
City of Berkeley - Berkeley
Housing Authority
Tenant Based Rental
Assistance
Non-elderly Disabled
(NED)
Single
households and
families
121 121
Insight Housing (formerly
Berkeley Food and Housing
Project)
Berkeley Russell Street
Residence
Single
households
17 Insight Housing (formerly
Berkeley Food and Housing
Project)
Berkeley Russell Street
Residence Annex
Single
households
4 Insight Housing (formerly
Berkeley Food and Housing
Project)
Berkeley Hope Center Single
households
53 53
Insight Housing (formerly
Berkeley Food and Housing
Project)
Berkeley Veteran's Project Single
households
11 Memar Properties and Bay
Area Community Services
Berkeley Golden Bear Homes Single
households
43 43
Memar Properties and
Housing Consortium of the
East Bay
Berkeley University Homes Single
households
43 43
Northern California Land Trust Berkeley Haste House Single households
7 Resources for Community
Development (RCD)
Berkeley Erna P. Harris Court Single
households
35 35
Attachment 2

Page 81 of 215 ends

Page 307 ends

69 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Resources for Community
Development (RCD)
Berkeley Oxford Plaza Single
households
4 4
Resources for Community
Development (RCD)
Berkeley U.A. Homes Single
households
0 74
Resources for Community
Development (RCD)
Berkeley Maudelle Shirek
Community
Single
households and
families
12 12
Satellite Affordable Housing
Associates
Berkeley Peter Babcock House Single
households
5 Satellite Affordable Housing
Associates
Berkeley Harmon Gardens Single
households
15 15
Satellite Affordable Housing
Associates
Berkeley Jordan Court Single
households
12 12
Total 665 794
Notes: Affordable rental housing is listed by the number of units. Developments providing congregate (shared kitchens, baths) housing are listed by the number of beds/rooms. There are other permanent housing developments in Berkeley that may be affordable to people who are homeless and offer some level of social services to residents which are not listed here. This table lists only developments/projects specifically targeted toward people who are homeless at entry.

Figure 4 - Current Inventory: Permanent Supportive Housing Source: City of Berkeley, Housing and Community Services Division Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the extent those services are used to complement services targeted to homeless persons All homeless agencies rely in part on mainstream services to meet the needs of their clients. Berkeley has its own Mental Health Division that accepts referrals from homeless providers and also outreaches to homeless people living on the streets. Berkeley is also home to Lifelong Medical Care and provides funding for Lifelong to serve low-income residents, including those who are homeless. In addition, the City funds Lifelong to provide services to formerly homeless people living in permanent housing in Berkeley. The City also funds both benefits advocacy services. It also funds employment training and placement services that can be utilized by people who are homeless. More information about the mainstream services utilized by homeless services providers is provided in Section SP-60.

Attachment 2

Page 82 of 215 ends

Page 308 ends

70 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations.

The following information about Berkeley’s system of care for unhoused people comes from the Spring 2024 Klingmann report, Part II: Berkeley’s Current System of Care, pages 10 to 17:
“Berkeley’s homelessness system of care was dramatically reshaped by the COVID-19 pandemic, in ways that are reflected in the data in this section. The pandemic response brought unprecedented new resources and new priorities, including increased need for non-congregate shelter and reduced capacity in congregate shelters. As of 2023, the system was adjusting to the new normal in the post-emergency period. Federal funds were rapidly drawing down and the City and County were providing additional services to transition people out of temporary FEMA shelters.

Emergency shelter and transitional housing
Berkeley had nearly 350 shelter beds at the start of 2023, 108 of which were seasonal and open only during the winter months. Over the course of 2023, over 900 individual people used a shelter bed in Berkeley. The city also had about fifty transitional housing beds dedicated for specific populations, including transition-aged youth, people with substance abuse disorders, and veterans.

Non-congregate shelter beds have become more common, though most are designated for specific purposes. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, new shelter beds in Berkeley are increasingly likely to be in non-congregate settings, meaning that residents have a private room or space rather than sleeping in a dorm-style shelter. When paired with case management and housing navigation on site, this model is sometimes referred to as “interim housing.”
More than a third of Berkeley’s shelter beds were non-congregate as of the 2023 HIC count, more than triple the number of non-congregate beds available in 2021. Several additional non-congregate shelters opened in Berkeley later in 2023, such as the Dorothy Day House University Community Shelter. This growth has made up for the closure of the FEMA COVID-19 shelters in 2022.

Non-congregate shelters in Berkeley are operate according to funding streams or program goals for particular purposes. For instance, several are intended for people from specific encampments, while others serve populations such as families or SSI recipients. These non-congregate shelters necessarily have lower capacity than congregate shelters, with an average of 22 beds per facility. Nevertheless, during 2023 non-congregate shelters served 317 individual people out of the 900 who obtained shelter.

Permanent housing
Berkeley has a growing inventory of permanent supportive housing (PSH). Berkeley had 592 beds of permanent supportive housing (PSH) in early 2023. These units are intended for formerly homeless people with high needs: they require disability for entry and provide ongoing wrap-around services in addition to a subsidized unit. About ten percent of the PSH units in Berkeley are dedicated to families with children.

Attachment 2

Page 83 of 215 ends

Page 309 ends

71 Consolidated Plan - DRAFT BERKELEY
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The permanent supportive housing available in 2023 represents an increase of nearly one hundred beds from the 2022 HIC. The city added both the HOPE Center in downtown Berkeley and the Golden Bear Hotel during 2022. There are additional PSH units in the pipeline set to open in the coming years.

Coordinated Entry is intended to triage resources county-wide, so new PSH beds in Berkeley are not guaranteed to go to people experiencing homelessness in the city. The County’s current policies allow both PSH programs and individuals waiting on the queue to indicate a geographic preference.

Nevertheless, some of the people who move into Berkeley PSH units are from outside the city’s borders and some Berkeley residents move into housing elsewhere in the county. Of the approximately 200 people who entered permanent supportive housing in Berkeley from 2021 to 2023, most had some previous connection to Berkeley, but about ten to fifteen percent had last obtained services from elsewhere in Alameda County.

People in PSH tend to stay there: the median person enrolled in PSH in 2023 had spent about five and a half years in their unit. The vast majority, 92%, had been enrolled for more than a year. More than half (298) of Berkeley’s PSH units are administered as tenant-based vouchers, meaning that residents rent a unit from a private landlord.

Rapid rehousing (RRH) serves people for shorter stints. At the start of 2023, Berkeley had 61 rapid rehousing slots, some of which were specifically designated for veterans. RRH provides short-term rental assistance and supports to people exiting homelessness into private rental units. The assistance tapers off after a few months to a year. Because of this difference in service model and focus, each rapid rehousing slot can serve more people over the course of a year. Sixty rapid rehousing slots in 2023 served over 300 people, and clients enrolled in RRH during 2023 spent a median of 241 days in the program in total.

Berkeley had more than double the rapid rehousing slots available at the 2022 Housing Inventory Count compared to 2023, largely due to a pot of dedicated City and County funding to transition people out of the temporary COVID-era FEMA shelters. The City also continues to fund a few slots of rapid rehousing for residents in a respite shelter for medically vulnerable people.

A small proportion of federal vouchers are designated for people experiencing homelessness. The Berkeley Housing Authority administers the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. As of November 2023, the BHA had authority for 2,110 vouchers, which are distributed to households in Berkeley who make less than fifty percent area median income. The need for these vouchers far outstrips demand:
when the BHA opened its waitlist for the first time in over ten years in 2022, over 21,000 households applied.

About eight percent of these vouchers are specifically targeted to people experiencing homelessness.

These include Veterans Authority Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers, which are designated for homeless veterans, and “mainstream” vouchers, which are designated for non-elderly disabled people referred through the Coordinated Entry system. BHA project-based vouchers also fund the operations of two permanent supportive housing SRO buildings, Erna P. Harris Courts and UA Homes. Lastly, HUD issued 51 Emergency Housing Vouchers to Berkeley in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These vouchers were distributed through Coordinated Entry, but they were a one-time expansion and will not continue after current voucher-holders give them up. BHA does not currently prioritize people experiencing homelessness for regular Housing Choice Vouchers, though this is allowed by federal law.

Attachment 2

Page 84 of 215 ends

Berkeley City CouncilApril 29, 2025

Berkeley City Council
April 29, 2025