Recommendations. Thanks go to each Subcommittee member for bringing dedication, intellect, and a collaborative spirit to this project.

Downtown Streets & Open Space Improvement Plan Subcommittee Matthew Taecker, Secretary, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: 510.981.7487 Email: mtaecker@ci.berkeley.ca.us Web: www.cityofberkeley.info/sosip Staff Report on SOSIP Recommendations Subcommittee Meeting #8, September 30, 2010. Requested Actions The Subcommittee should make its final recommendations to City Council. As the basis for these recommendations, discuss and further refine: the SOSIP Public Review Draft (previously distributed); draft revisions to that document (Attachment 1); and a new Financial Strategies chapter (Attachment 2). The Subcommittee s final recommendations should be made with the understanding that staff may correct obvious errors, improve syntax, and make minor clarifications, so long as it does not alter the Subcommittee s substantive intent. Revisions to Public Review Draft of August 31, 2010 At its meeting on September 13, the SOSIP Subcommittee commented on the SOSIP Public Review Draft and indicated where it would like revisions. (The SOSIP Public Review Draft can be downloaded at www.cityofberkeley.info/sosip or requested using contact information above.) Staff has summarized these revisions in Attachment 1, which also contains a few additional refinements recommended by staff. Subcommittee members and members of the public may propose alternative language or want other revisions. To avoid confusion, these possible revisions should be provided in writing and sent to staff no later than Wednesday, September 29. Alternatively, 15 copies of draft revisions can be brought to the meeting. Financial Strategies Chapter Staff has also drafted a Financial Strategies chapter for review, revision, and incorporation into the Subcommittee s final recommendations. Subcommittee members may want to give special attention to the chapter s discussion on Principle Considerations, which has not appeared previously. Next Steps Staff will incorporate Subcommittee amendments, re-format the SOSIP document, and compile appendices. These documents will be brought to interested Commissions for comment. The Subcommittee s recommendations and Commission comments will then be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Council is expected to make revisions and refinements with adoption of the SOSIP in early 2011. Thanks go to each Subcommittee member for bringing dedication, intellect, and a collaborative spirit to this project. Attachments 1. Revisions to the SOSIP Public Review Draft, staff memo of 9/22/10. 2. Draft Financial Strategies Chapter, staff draft of 9/22/10. 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 2

Downtown Streets & Open Space Improvement Plan Subcommittee Matthew Taecker,, Secretary, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: 510.981.7487 Email: mtaecker@ci.berkeley.ca.us Web: www.cityofberkeley.info/sosip MEMORANDUM To: SOSIP Subcommittee From: Matt Taecker, Principle Planner Date: September 23, 20100 Re: Revisions to the SOSIP Public Review Draft Possible revisions to the SOSIP Public Review Draft are listed below for consideration by the SOSIP Subcommittee. Possible revisions are based on Subcommittee member comments, except where noted. Line numbers refer to the paper and PDF versions of the Public Review Draft dated August 31, 2010 (and available on-line at www.cityofberkeley.info/sosip). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Line 5. Add short description on collaborative process: The SOSIP was developed principally by epresentatives from the following Commissions: Parks Recreation & Waterfront, Planning, Public Works, and Transportation -- as well as representatives from UC Berkeley. Community members providedd input at meetings and during a well-attended public workshop. Line 7. Say shared visions rather than simply vision. Lines 22-43 (and Goals chapter). Use active verbs and make declarative statements for each goal. For instance, the Placemaking goal would read Make an attractive place for memorable experiences. Line 32. Rather than Downtown should be safe, use Make Downtown more welcoming. Lines 35-37. Substitute first sentence with Downtown should be convenient to get to, regardless of how you get there. Give emphasis, however, to the experience of pedestrians and bicyclists. Lines 35-36. Revise to read Support access to Downtown by all modes. Improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Support and expand transit use. Recognize that convenient Line 44. Add heading Opportunities for Major Public Improvements.

Line 52. After several improvements can be made, insert/move Lines 100-106, and add Design concepts presented in the SOSIP address site-specific issues. Line 99. After this line add: Near-Term Priorities. The SOSIP establishes Near-Term Priorities for Major Projects. These priorities include: Highest Priorities Center Street Plaza Phase 1; Two-way traffic on westside Shattuck Square with diagonal parking on eastside. Tier II High Priorities Allston-Kittredge Park Block; Hearst Street / Ohlone Greenway Phase 1. Tier III Other Priorities Milvia Bike Lanes & Traffic Calming Shattuck Avenue Bike Lanes Lines 100-106. See Line 52. Line 107. Add heading: Opportunities for General Enhancements. Line 131. Change to read: Pedestrian-scaled lighting would be added throughout Downtown to make Downtown more inviting and to improve pedestrian safety. Line 139. Add sentence to better describe green infrastructure: Attractive features are often associated with green infrastructure, such as distinctive landscaping, special pavers, and small places where rainwater can be intentionally gathered when it rains. Line 140. Add heading Financing Strategy. BACKGROUND Line 181. Correct to say spring from rather than simply spring. Lines 225. Add Downtown contains in front of two of Berkeley s principle thoroughfares. GOALS See also comments for Lines 22-43. 2

Lines 284-285. Revise to read Promote safer well-lit environments for daytime and evening activities. Line 307. Add By helping to reduce car use and conserve water, SOSIP improvements will play an important role in helping to meet targets contained in Berkeley s Climate Action Plan. MAJOR PROJECTS Whole chapter. Add language that emphasizes importance of and opportunities for pedestrian-scaled lighting, especially near major destinations, transit, and parking facilities. Lines 314-315. Delete incomplete sentence. Line 320. Add: Major public enhancements are possible where unnecessary traffic lanes can be eliminated. Inefficient parking arrangements present similar opportunities. Line 322-324. Revise sentence to read repurpose excessive space currently devoted to the automobile so as to enhance Lines 332-336. Revise sentence to read Improvements to the character of Downtown is a critical component of economic revitalization, as Downtown s sense of place is one of the primary ways it can differentiate itself among competing destinations. Line 357. Add new sentence Nighttime safety for pedestrians can also be improved by expanding pedestrian-scaled lighting along sidewalks, especially they extending from major evening destinations, major parking facilities, BART, and bus stops. Line 385-386. Revise schematics that address these objectives. These illustrative plans will need to be Lines 391-400. Replace this paragraph with policy on Near-Term Priorities (see Lines 1223-1304), except to keep sentence that states These priorities do not preclude the City from moving forward on other SOSIP projects. Page 20. Figure on bottom needs to be clear or an alternative image should be used. Line 612. Add new bullet to clarify reason for alternatives and to explain cross sections on page 22. Insert: Establish a green visual connection between Civic Center Park and Center Street Plaza (and the UC Campus and Strawberry Creek beyond), while simultaneously maintaining safety for bicyclists and enhancing 3

safety for pedestrians. Evaluate alternatives for accomplishing these principle objectives. Specifically, consider the relative safety and performance of: 1) keeping Center as presently configured with bicycle lanes and parking on both sides; 2) creating a landscaped greenway by eliminating parking on the north side of the street (but keeping bicycle lanes); or 3) creating a landscaped greenway and shared street where motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians can mix while maintaining or improving safety even with the loss of bicycle lanes. The location of the BART taxi stand should also be part of this analysis. Line 619. Include landscaping proposal as part of this bullet by inserting: Use landscaping and pedestrian-scaled lighting to establish the Greenway. Plant more street trees, and consider creating a bio-swale. Line 721. Strike northbound and westbound as unnecessarily limiting. Line 721. Add: The transit plaza in combination with other bus facilities along Shattuck between Addison & Allston could establish a more functional transit center within Downtown. While Shattuck and the east side of Shattuck Square may be well suited to serve multiple bus lines, bus layovers should be avoided. The City should work with AC Transit to identify suitable layover locations in or near Downtown. This area should be designed as an inviting, pedestrian-friendly place with negative impacts from buses mitigated to the extent possible. Line 757. Replace sentence beginning with Note that to widen sidewalks, center medians must also be removed With If traffic lanes are eliminated in both directions (so as to widen sidewalks on both sides of the street, center medians will need to be removed to maintain 20-feet clear for emergency vehicles. Alternatively, maintain the south side of University Avenue as it now exists, and widen only the north side sidewalk possibly with diagonal parking. Add plan view of this new alternative to Plan. (New diagrams appear at end of memorandum). Line 862. Give examples of possible synergies as appear under design objectives, such as outdoor dining, a sculpture garden, and performance space. Line 864. Add: A park block in this location is superior to widening sidewalks because its overall width would be sizable and could accommodate a major gathering space or other features. Furthermore, pedestrians would only have to cross two lanes of traffic to get to the park and will only need to cross two lanes of traffic at a time to cross Shattuck. Because of its location in the middle of Shattuck, the park block will also create a visual focal point and create a strong sense of arrival. 4

Line 1033. Add Promote complete streets with enhanced pedestrian lighting that enhance pedestrian and bicycle routes to transit. Line 1094. Change affected to effected. Lines 1223-1304. Move Near-Term Priority discussion forward to replace lines 391-400. Insert the following in line 1224: The City should focus its financial and staff resources on the following Near-Term Priorities, while also capitalizing on grant and developer-based opportunities as they are presented. (Each priority project is more fully described later in this chapter.) Highest Priorities Center Street Plaza Phase 1; Two-way traffic on westside Shattuck Square with diagonal parking on eastside. Tier II High Priorities Allston-Kittredge Park Block; Hearst Street / Ohlone Greenway Phase 1. Tier III Other Priorities Milvia Bike Lanes & Traffic Calming; Shattuck Avenue Bike Lanes. Re-order the projects that follow to be in this order. Make clarifications that might be needed because this section has been moved forward. At end of this list of projects add the following text and the Parklet images near the end of this memorandum: Temporary Improvements. Use public rights-ofway for pedestrian-oriented activities by closing streets and/or travel lanes for short periods when traffic is light. Use temporary closures to evaluate how permanent lane eliminations or street closures might perform. Specifically, host a street fair, project a movie on a building, or other events on Center Street between Oxford and the Bank of America parking lot the future location of the Center Street Plaza. In addition, work with Downtown merchants to identify suitable locations for parklets where a few on-street parking spaces are cordoned off and become a space for lawnchair seating, temporary art, or other special amenities. Also add: Street Trees. The City should also make the planting of street trees a near-term priority, with a goal of planting 500 new trees within ten years in areas of Downtown where major projects are not anticipated. Page 47. Because further analysis is needed (and at the request of AC Transit), the cross-section and plan view of a bus lane and platform has been modified to make the configuration of transit improvements more ambiguous. (New and modified diagrams appear at end of memorandum.) 5

BICYCLE NETWORK & FACILITIES Line 1938. At request of Berkeley s bicycle coordinator, add new paragraph: Shattuck Square & University Avenue. Consider how bicycle facilities might be incorporated into eastside Shattuck Square and end of University Avenue improvements, so as to further enhance Berkeley s bicycle network. Line 1692. Replace table-top ramping with vertical deflection features. Page 73. Correct Recommended Bike Network to show that segment of Allston between Shattuck & Oxford is a proposed new bike route. Add a diagram showing how the Oxford-Allston intersection could be made safer for bicyclists. (New diagrams appear at end of Memorandum.) STREET TREES & LANDSCAPING Page 77. Move Watershed Management & Green Infrastructure chapter so that it follows the Bicycle Network & Facilities chapter and precedes the Streets Trees & Landscaping chapter. Line 2018. Add a new Principle Consideration that says: Connecting with UC Berkeley s Campus. Trees and landscaping may provide opportunities to bring a sense of UC Berkeley s extraordinary campus into the Downtown -- a campus that is known for its glades, plazas, and natural areas. Line 2045. Modify to say community character and environmental objectives. Line 2054. At end of sentence add except where indigenous or other drought resistant alternative would be equivalent. Explore whether indigenous or other drought-resistant alternatives may be available. Line 2067. Modify end of sentence to say such as tree litter and maintenance costs. Line 2080. Add: While the location of new trees will be determined as part of major projects, new street trees are possible throughout Downtown. LineS 2147-2148. Modify to say: when setting priorities and planning tree planting events. Line 2279. Give examples of responsible parties, specifically property owners, landscape contractors and community groups. Line 2326. Add community group to examples for responsible parties. Pages 87-89. Add short statement of intent for proposed species. 6

FURNISHINGS & OTHER AMENITIES Line 2524. Add: Improvements and programs should maintain cleanliness, avoid clutter, and encourage recycling. Lines 2532 & 2537. Add Public in front of trash receptacles. Line 2548. Add new bullet: Work with merchants and property owners to limit negative impacts from collecting trash from businesses, such as minimizing time that trash cans may be placed near curbs. Review and, if needed, strengthen Zoning to encourage interior trash-can enclosures for every business in Downtown. PUBLIC ART Line 2589-2591. Replace sentence with: Temporary installations are encouraged as they make Downtown more dynamic with an ever evolving canvas. Line 2752-2753. Use persons with visual impairments instead of those visually impaired. Make similar changes to references to persons with disabilities as needed throughout the document. Page 105. Add photos to illustrate the public art case studies. SIGNAGE & WAYFINDING Page 107. Begin Principle Considerations for Signage & Wayfinding with Navigating Downtown paragraph. Line 2986. Add new bullet: Meet with Downtown stakeholders to identify ways to improve signage in the near term, such as by identifying the location of confusing or missing signage. Make such improvements, and continue to evaluate signage needs. Line 3001. Add sentence: Make signage to find Downtown parking easy to see and understand. Line 3005. Delete this sentence. The City has applied for a grant to implement dynamic signage. 7

Line 3027. Add new bullet: Encourage creation of a prominent visitors information center in or near BART Plaza, and possible the end of University Avenue because of its direct access from Interstate 80. LIGHTING Line 3099. Add sentence: Pedestrian-scaled lighting is especially important along paths to major evening destinations, such as BART, parking garages, and entertainment venues. Line 3139. Add sentence: Give priority to installing new pedestrian-scaled lighting along paths to major evening destinations, such as BART, parking garages, and entertainment venues. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT & GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Pages 121-134. Move Watershed Management & Green Infrastructure chapter to be between Bicycle Network & Facilities and Street Trees & Landscaping. Line 3720-3722. Modify to say that channels and runnels reduce the need for and the size of -- drains and subsurface pipes. 8

Figure _. University Avenue Low-cost Alternative (for SOSIP discussion) Figure _. Proposed Shattuck Square Improvements

Figure _. Westside of Shattuck Square. Currently there are three southbound travel lanes. These can be converted to two-way traffic, two travel lanes in each direction. Figure _. Eastside of Shattuck Square. By routing through traffic on the Westside of Shattuck Square, 52 feet of asphalt devoted to automobile ( 1 st section above) could be transformed into a plaza or slow street, in nearterm and a new Downtown Transit Center (long-term).

Parklets for People Figure_.. A sculptural parklet added on 24 th Mission St, SF Figure _. Parklets or Pop up cafes can be created where a few on-street parking spaces are cordoned off and becomes a space for lawn chair seating, temporary art or special amenities. Figure _. Cheese Board collective and Amanda s café in Downtown Berkeley on Parking day, when they converted on- street parking into a temporary extension for people to sit and eat in.

Figure _. Design concept shows one option for bike lanes & traffic calming between the two lower Park Blocks at Shattuck Avenue & Channing Way. Figure _. Design concept to make bicycle connection easier & safer between Allston Way & UC campus.

FINANCIAL STRATEGIES (draft of September 23, 2010) PRINCIPLE CONSIDERATIONS SOSIP and Downtown s Revitalization. Enhancements to the public realm can serve as a major cornerstone for Downtown revitalization, as they have in numerous other communities. The street and open space improvements envisioned will transform Downtown and can give Berkeley a special edge as it competes as a destination within a regional marketplace. Because public improvements can be expected to enhance the whole experience of visiting Downtown, they will elevate Downtown as a preferred destination for shopping, dining, or going to a show. Public improvements will also make Downtown a more desirable place to live or locate a business, and will attract private investment in building renovations and new construction. Private development will help bring more people Downtown. As incremental public and private investments build on each other, they should set in motion an upward spiral leading to Downtown s resurgence and expanding Berkeley s tax base. Street and open space improvements will also make Downtown more accessible and reduce the frustration that many people feel when they come Downtown. They will encourage walking, bicycling and transit use. In combination with parking & transportation programs, street and open space improvements also have the potential to reduce parking demand and make parking more available for those who chose to drive. Financial Game Plan. Significant investment will need to be made to realize the benefits noted and others. While controlling costs was factored into SOSIP design concepts, most street and open space improvements will be expensive not just to build but also to maintain. Financial resources for implementing SOSIP are limited, especially City funds for which there are numerous demands. If the SOSIP goals are to be achieved, a broad set of financial strategies will be needed to set priorities, obtain grants, harness private and institutional development, and leverage limited public funds. Setting Priorities. The SOSIP presents a long-term vision for Downtown, with a total estimated cost of $35 million (2010 dollars). As there are no sources that can fund improvements at this scale, the City will have to make improvements incrementally over time. It is therefore necessary to establish priorities for SOSIP projects. To best leverage limited resources, the SOSIP sets funding priorities that approach $9 million in capital costs and, if completed as a whole, about $300,000 in additional maintenance costs. SOSIP funding priorities are described in the Financial Strategies Chapter Draft (9/23/10) Page 1

Major Projects chapter (Policy ), and are based on a Project Cost & Financing Report by Economic & Planning Systems (Appendix B). To set context for the Financing Strategy chapter, the approximate capital costs for priority projects are summarized below. Tier I (highest priorities) Center Street Plaza (Phase 1) Shattuck Square & University Avenue Street Tree Program $3.4 million $1.9 million $0.5 million Tier II Allston-Kittredge Park Block Hearst Street Greenway (Phase 1) $1.0 million $0.8 million Tier III Milvia Bike Lanes & Traffic Calming Shattuck Avenue Bike Lanes $0.6 million $0.5 million The location of future private development will also dictate where improvements are made. As a comprehensive vision, the SOSIP is expected to help the City capitalize on these types of opportunities when they occur. Potential Funding Sources Possible new funding sources are described below. While all sources merit further consideration, some funding mechanisms would be much more difficult to establish than others. Especially challenging are those funding sources that would require approval by a super-majority of all Berkeley voters. There are also numerous competing demands on the City s limited capacity to raise money for a variety of capital and service needs. It is assumed in this report that the existing very challenging budget climate for local jurisdictions in California will continue for the foreseeable future, and that funding for SOSIP improvements must come from new sources. Funding sources that could be fully dedicated to SOSIP improvements include grants and development-related fees. This could include in-kind contributions, or fees on development by institutional and nonprofit landowners, such as UC Berkeley. While it is impossible to predict the rate at which these funds would become available, historic rates of development and prior success with grant applications suggest that these funds might accumulate at an average annual Financial Strategies Chapter Draft (9/23/10) Page 2

rate of one-half to one million dollars per year. These types of funding are nearly always limited to capital improvements (i.e. costs associated with project development and construction), and not for ongoing maintenance and operation. Potential modifications in on-street parking fees (meters) could also provide a source of additional funds for SOSIP improvements and maintenance. This might include extending hours of operation and/or modifying the cost of parking in very high-demand areas of Downtown. Since parking revenues are on-going, they are well suited to addressing long-term expenses for operations and maintenance for the new improvements proposed in the SOSIP. In the near term, such funds could be used to construct some proposed SOSIP improvements. The extent to which new parking revenues could be committed requires a policy discussion that would consider the SOSIP projects in the context of other funding needs associated with Downtown parking/transportation programs and other citywide priorities. Another potential source of funding for SOSIP improvements is the City s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), a tax placed on hotel rooms (and other rooms rented to transient occupants) in the City. Improvements in the Downtown environment would encourage the development of new hotels, and those hotels could then help provide funding for additional improvements, however, by law, taxes such as the TOT must go to the City s General Fund, so committing this funding would have to be made in the context of other General Fund priorities. Citywide taxes and assessments could provide considerable financial resources for SOSIP improvements and maintenance, but these would require extraordinary support from Berkeley s City Council and registered voters. As a consequence, these funding sources may deserve consideration but should not be relied on. Grants. Grant funding are obtained through competitive applications to nonprofits, foundations and government agencies. SOSIP projects may compete well since SOSIP projects address objectives found in many grants, such as: enhancing pedestrian & bicycle routes to transit; promoting stormwater quality and watershed health; encouraging affordable housing near transit; and revitalizing urban centers. Funding from other sources or matching funds -- is typically needed to receive grants. As noted above, the City has had some success over the years in applying for such funds, recently receiving $2.2 million for BART Plaza improvements. The City also helped fund improvements on Addison and Center Streets in recent years. Development Impact, In Lieu Fees, and Adjacent Improvements. Developers can be assessed impact fees to address increased demand for recreational space and other facilities, which result from development. These fees can only go toward capital improvements and must be scaled so as not to exceed the fair share cost of impacts as established by a State-required nexus analysis. Financial Strategies Chapter Draft (9/23/10) Page 3

Developer fees might also come, if developers opted to pay an in lieu fee instead of providing on-site open space as required by Berkeley s Zoning Ordinance. The City would use these in lieu fees to make open space improvements in public rights-of-way and other public land within Downtown. In addition, developers can be required to make improvements to public right-ofways that abut development sites consistent with adopted plans. These improvements include construction of new sidewalks, installing street trees and other improvements that directly benefit the development project. UC Berkeley would be treated in a manner consistent with other institutional and nonprofit developers. As such, UC Berkeley might make improvements to abutting streets consistent with adopted plans and as required of private developers -- or might participate in area-wide development impact fees. New On-Street Parking Revenues. Increasing the price and extending the hours of on-street parking meters for high demand portions of Downtown could also provide a source of additional funds for SOSIP improvements and maintenance. Since parking revenues are on-going, they are well suited to addressing longterm expenses for operations and maintenance for the new improvements proposed in the SOSIP. In the near term, such funds could be used to construct some proposed SOSIP improvements. In addition to providing a source of revenue, various studies have shown that increasing the cost of on-street parking can help ensure the availability of onstreet parking in high-demand areas as drivers choose to park in garages or use alternative transportation, thereby leaving room on the street for short-term users. The concern that price increases may discourage some commercial and cultural patrons from coming Downtown can be mitigated by strengthening Downtown as a destination by spending a significant part of new parking revenues to SOSIP improvements and maintenance. The extent to which new parking revenues could be committed to SOSIP requires a policy discussion that would consider the SOSIP projects in the context of funding needed for Downtown parking/transportation programs and other citywide priorities. Transient Occupancy Tax. Another potential source of funding for SOSIP improvements is the City s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), a tax placed on hotel rooms (and other rooms rented to transients ) in the City. A new hotel might be built in the Downtown within the timeframe of this Plan, and could generate significant TOT taxes. Since Downtown improvements would enhance the City s ability to attract a new hotel and since a new hotel project would increase TOT revenues, it may make sense to commit some portion of new TOT revenues to SOSIP maintenance demands. However, since by law taxes such as the TOT must go to the City s General Fund, committing this funding would have to be made in the context of other General Fund priorities. Financial Strategies Chapter Draft (9/23/10) Page 4

Citywide Parks Tax. A Parks Tax Fund covers a portion of the Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Department operations and the maintenance, and is paid for through property-based assessments. The Parks Department has indicated that -- even with revenue increase that will come with new development -- future revenues will likely be devoted to operations and maintenance expenses associated with existing parks and that that there is unlikely to be sufficient funding to maintain the new facilities recommended in this plan. Additional tax revenues could be obtained if approved by two-thirds of Berkeley s voters and could be devoted to construction and maintenance of new facilities (in Downtown and elsewhere), and improvements to existing facilities. As with consideration of any citywide tax measure, the Council will have to weigh the capital needs of parks and open space with the other infrastructure and service needs of the City Community Facilities District. Under California s Mello-Roos Act, Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) can be formed by local agencies to impose special taxes on property owners, but must first be approved by a super-majority of all Berkeley voters if applied citywide, and by a super majority of property owners if applied only to Downtown. To fund improvements, the City could try to establish a new Community Facilities District (CFD) for Downtown alone, or for the whole city. citywide CFD the special tax could support Downtown improvements and possibly associated maintenance. Although CFD s have been commonly used in the creation of large new subdivisions where involving only a single developer / property owner, they are used very occasionally in situations where there are many existing property owners, such as in Downtown Berkeley. Business Improvement District. Downtown s business and cultural community make important contributions through the day-to-day provision of goods, services and events, but also by the maintenance activities funded by the Business Improvement District (BID). BID-funded activities include litter removal, sidewalk washing, and landscaping. BID efforts complement and might supplement SOSIP operations and maintenance activities, but it is very unlikely that a BID could raise significant capital for implementing the SOSIP. The BID is administered by the Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA), which began exploring the possibility of a property-based BID (PBID) in 2009, with the possibility of expanding the BID s boundary and increasing the annual revenues collected. A PBID must be adopted by a majority of participating property owners. PBID priorities vary but typically include enhanced security, cleaning & maintenance, and shared marketing. While PBID revenues are sometimes used to make modest improvements, they are principally a vehicle for meeting ongoing maintenance and management needs. Financial Strategies Chapter Draft (9/23/10) Page 5

POLICIES AND ACTIONS Policy, SOSIP Funding. Establish funding sources for SOSIP capital improvements and on-going SOSIP maintenance & operations costs. Aggressively pursue external grant funding from foundations and regional, state, federal governments, and foundations sources. Recognize that other funds may be needed to provide local matching funds, and include the need for matching funds as part of an overall SOSIP financing strategy. Adopt a new Development Impact Fee for recreation and open space, and dedicated it to SOSIP improvements. Base this fee on a rational nexus that aligns fees with the impacts of new development, as required by California law. Establish an option for developers to pay a fee in-lieu of meeting on-site open space requirements. Proceeds from in-lieu fees to be spent on SOSIP improvements. Amend Zoning standards to require developers to make improvements to abutting streets as a condition for approval. Required improvements should conform to SOSIP provisions and design concepts, unless superseded by design development associated with Major Projects or by other development standards. The City should set high standards for standard contributions. Pursue Institutional and Non-Profit Cost Sharing. Contributions from institutional and non-profit uses, such as UC Berkeley, the Berkeley Public Library, or the Berkeley Unified School District, Berkeley Community College, or local theaters and performance venues, should be pursued in a manner consistent with requirements on all projects developed by nonprofit institutions. Consider dedication of a significant portion of new on-street parking meter revenues in Downtown to long-term maintenance and nearterm capital improvements to implement the SOSIP. Because parking revenues are on-going, recognize the importance of new parking revenues in addressing maintenance costs. In the near-term, before SOSIP improvements come on line and require maintenance, consider using parking revenues for capital improvements or as matching funds for grants. Consider a developer fee for transportation impacts. If established, consider dedicating a portion of revenues to SOSIP improvements that would calm traffic, strengthen Berkeley s bicycle network, and enhance pedestrian routes to transit. If an increase in Berkeley s Parks Tax is considered for placement before the voters, also consider including some SOSIP improvements in any list of projects that may be implemented with these new revenues. Financial Strategies Chapter Draft (9/23/10) Page 6

Continue to evaluate the feasibility of other funding mechanisms. State legislation occasionally modifies requirements on funding mechanisms that make them easier to apply, and an unpromising environment for any particular mechanism can change. The City should be opportunistic in considering funding mechanisms for SOSIP implementation. Policy, Near-Term Priorities. Concentrate efforts and funding in pursuit of the near-term priorities described in the chapter on Major Projects (Policy ). Pursue financial strategies that target SOSIP s near-term priorities, while adjusting the timing of SOSIP projects to take full advantage of funding opportunities from future grants and development. Policy. Coordination. Coordinate SOSIP funding and activities with other related initiatives to best leverage limited resources. Support the Downtown Berkeley Association as it administers Business Improvement District (BID) funds to address needs such as removing litter, washing sidewalks, maintaining landscaping, etc Consider BID and SOSIP initiatives in concert to find ways to maximize benefits. Financial Strategies Chapter Draft (9/23/10) Page 7

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK. Financial Strategies Chapter Draft (9/23/10) Page 8