Berkeley City Council
February 8, 2022

371
Gomez-Marin O, Fleming LE, Caban A, Leblanc WG, Lee DJ, Pitman T. Longest held job in U.S. occupational groups: The National Health Interview Survey. J Occup Environ Med. 2005; 47:79–

90. [PubMed: 15643162]
Grimes G, Hirsch D, Borgeson D. Risk of death among Honolulu fire fighters. Hawaii Med J. 1991; 50:82–85. [PubMed: 2061032]
Grundahl, K. National engineered lightweight construction fire research project. 1992. http:// www.carbeck.org/pdfs/NFPRF_Report_WTCA_version.pdf
Guidotti TL. Mortality of urban firefighters in Alberta, 1927–1987. Am J Ind Med. 1993; 23:921–940. [PubMed: 8328477]
Haddock CK, Jahnke SA, Poston WS, Jitnarin N, Kaipust CM, Tuley B, Hyder ML. Alcohol use among firefighters in the Central United States. Occup Med (Lond). 2012; 62:661–664. [PubMed:
23064207]
Haddock CK, Jitnarin N, Poston WS, Tuley B, Jahnke SA. Tobacco use among firefighters in the central United States. Am J Ind Med. 2011; 54:697–706. [PubMed: 21656838] Heald, K. Firefighters and the workers’ compensation cancer presumption. 2005. http:// www.sffdlocal798.org/Vol33no8/Cancer.html
Howe GR, Burch JD. Fire fighters and risk of cancer: An assessment and overview of the epidemiologic evidence. Am J Epidemiol. 1990; 132:1039–1050. [PubMed: 2260535] International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Painting, firefighting, and shiftwork. 2010; 98 http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/ Monographs/vol98/mono98.pdf.

International Agency for Research on Cancer. Agents classified by the IARC monographs. 2015; 1– 109 http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf.

International Association of Fire Fighters. Presumptive law coverage for cancer. 2015. http:// www.iaff.org/hs/phi/disease/cancer.asp
Jones CP. Invited commentary: “race,” racism, and the practice of epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2001; 154:299–304. discussion 305– 296. [PubMed: 11495851] Kavanagh ME, O’Sullivan KE, O’Hanlon C, O’Sullivan JN, Lysaght J, Reynolds JV. The esophagitis to adenocarcinoma sequence; The role of inflammation. Cancer Lett. 2014; 345:182–189. [PubMed: 23994342]
Korst, M. The high toll of cancer on the fire service: A proactive approach to preventing cancer. 2012. http://ceas.uc.edu/content/dam/aero/docs/fire/Papers/FF%20Cancer.pdf Lagergren J, Lagergren P. Recent developments in esophageal adenocarcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63:232–248. [PubMed: 23818335]
LeMasters GK, Genaidy AM, Succop P, Deddens J, Sobeih T, Barriera-Viruet H, Dunning K, Lockey J. Cancer risk among firefighters: A review and meta-analysis of 32 studies. J Occup Environ Med. 2006; 48:1189–1202. [PubMed: 17099456]
Luckhaupt SE, Cohen MA, Calvert GM. Concordance between current job and usual job in occupational and industry groupings: Assessment of the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. J Occup Environ Med. 2013; 55:1074–1090. [PubMed: 23969506] Ma F, Fleming LE, Lee DJ, Trapido E, Gerace TA. Cancer incidence in Florida professional firefighters, 1981 to 1999. J Occup Environ Med. 2006; 48:883–888. [PubMed: 16966954] Ma F, Lee DJ, Fleming LE, Dosemeci M. Race-specific cancer mortality in US firefighters: 1984– 1993. J Occup Environ Med. 1998; 40:1134–1138. [PubMed: 9871891] Mehlman MA. Causal relationship from exposure to chemicals in oil refining and chemical industries and malignant melanoma. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006; 1076:822–828. [PubMed: 17119259] Melius J. Occupational health for firefighters. Occup Med. 2001; 16:101–108. [PubMed: 11107227] Morton W, Marjanovic D. Leukemia incidence by occupation in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. Am J Ind Med. 1984; 6:185–205. [PubMed: 6475965]
National Fire Protection Association. US fire department profile 2013. 2014. http://www.nfpa.org/~/ media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Fire%20service%20statistics/osfdprofile.pdf North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Standards for cancer registries volume III:

Standars for completeness, quality, analysis, management, security and confidentiality of data.

Tsai et al. Page 12
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

372
2008. http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?
fileticket=hvFzJKUcRM8%3d&tabid=134&mid=474
North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Certification: Who is Certified?. 2015. http://www.naaccr.org/Certification/WhoisCertified.aspx Pukkala E, Martinsen JI, Weiderpass E, Kjaerheim K, Lynge E, Tryggvadottir L, Sparen P, Demers PA. Cancer incidence among firefighters: 45 years of follow-up in five Nordic countries. Occup Environ Med. 2014; 71:398–404. [PubMed: 24510539]
Ricucci N, Saldivar K. The status of employment discrimination suits in police and fire departments across the United States. Review of Public Personnel Admini. 2014; 34:263–288.

Sama SR, Martin TR, Davis LK, Kriebel D. Cancer incidence among Massachusetts firefighters, 1982–1986. AmJ Ind Med. 1990; 18:47–54. [PubMed: 2378369] Stefanidou M, Athanaselis S, Spiliopoulou C. Health impacts of fire smoke inhalation. Inhal Toxicol. 2008; 20:761–766. [PubMed: 18569098]
U.S. Department of Commerce. Standard occupational classification manual. White Plains, MD:

National Technical Information Service and Bernan Associates; 2000.

United States Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2011 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2014. http:// apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/
Vena JE, Fiedler RC. Mortality of a municipal-worker cohort: IV. Fire fighters. Am J Ind Med. 1987; 11:671–684. [PubMed: 3605104]
Webber MP, Gustave J, Lee R, Niles JK, Kelly K, Cohen HW, Prezant DJ. Trends in respiratory symptoms of firefighters exposed to the world trade center disaster: 2001–2005. Environ Health Perspect. 2009; 117:975–980. [PubMed: 19590693]
William Dallas Jones Cancer Presumption Act. 2010. Labor code §32121.

Tsai et al. Page 13
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

373
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 14

TABLE I
Number of Individuals Eligible for Study Inclusion, and Number Excluded From Study by Reason n Total n
Total number of cancer records in CCR 3,148,628
Excluded: in-situ, benign, borderline cancers 346,379
Excluded: multiple records a 251,501
Excluded: non-first primary 168,696
Excluded gender: Females, other, unknown gender 1,159,007 Subtotalb 1,223,045
Industry and occupation (I&O) exclusions
Unemployed, or unknown I&O 308,753
Never worked 29,400
Homemaker 366
Retired 193,276
Military 10,475
Subtotal after I&O exclusions 680,775
Age exclusions
Age <18, or >97 years 2,644
Total eligible for study 678,132
aIndividuals with more than one cancer diagnosis may have more than one cancer record. The first primary malignant cancer diagnosis recorded in CCR was retained in this study.
bSubtotal after benign/in-situ tumors, non-first primary cancer, multiple record, and gender exclusions.

Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

374
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 15

TABLE II
Odds Ratios for Various Cancers Among Firefighters—All Races Combined, California, 1988–2007 Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N %a ORb 95%CI
Head and neck
Lip 20010 19 0.96 1.44 0.89–2.33
Tongue 20020 35 0.65 1.18 0.82–1.70
Salivary gland 20030 14 0.70 1.30 0.75–2.25
Gum and other mouth 20050 14 0.56 1.07 0.62–1.85
Pharyngeal 20060–20100 43 0.50 1.06 0.75–1.50
Digestive
Esophagus 21010 68 0.82 1.59 1.20–2.09
Esophagus-adenocarcinoma
46 1.04 1.85 1.34–2.55
Esophagus-squamous carcinoma 12 0.43 0.96 0.53–1.73
Stomach 21020 52 0.37 0.81 0.59–1.11
Colorectal 21041–21252 347 0.55 1.10 0.93–1.31
Liver 21071 39 0.35 1.07 0.75–1.53
Pancreas 21100 79 0.53 1.10 0.83–1.46
Respiratory
Larynx 22020 25 0.32 0.59 0.39–0.89
Lung and bronchus 22030 533 0.58 1.08 0.92–1.28
Lung-adenocarcinoma c
173 0.58 1.10 0.89–1.35
Lung-squamous cell c 95 0.48 0.89 0.69–1.14
Lung-small cell c 82 0.69 1.24 0.95–1.61
Lung-large cell c 25 0.48 0.84 0.55–1.28
Lung-non-specific non-small cell cancer c 42 0.87 2.01 1.38–2.93 Connective tissue/skin
Soft tissue, including heart 24000 26 0.54 1.16 0.76–1.77 Melanoma 25010 265 1.06 1.75 1.44–2.13
Mesothelioma d
21 0.75 1.40 0.89–2.21
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

375
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 16
Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N % a ORb 95%CI
Urinary/reproductive
Prostate 28010 1397 0.72 1.45 1.25–1.69
Testis 28020 85 0.67 1.10 0.73–1.66
Urinary bladder 29010 106 0.56 0.99 0.78–1.26
Kidney 29020 115 0.62 1.27 1.01–1.59
Cranial/endocrine
Brain 31010 87 0.75 1.54 1.19–2.00
Thyroid 32010 41 0.64 1.27 0.88–1.84
Blood
Hodgkin lymphoma 33011–33012 29 0.52 1.15 0.72–1.83
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 33041–33042 183 0.60 1.22 1.00–1.50 Multiple myeloma 34000 55 0.64 1.35 1.00–1.82
Leukemia 35011–35043 122 0.64 1.32 1.05–1.66
CLL 35012 43 0.74 1.34 0.96–1.87
AML 35021, 35031 42 0.69 1.44 1.02–2.02
CML 35022 21 0.73 1.51 0.95–2.40
SEER code = recode based on ICD-O-3 (http://seer.cancer.gov/siterecode/). A total of 187 firefighters had rare cancers (i.e., cancers with fewer than 10 firefighter cases) and these rare cancers are not included in this table. The race was not stated for 2,719 individuals. Bolded values indicate a statistically significantly elevated (or decreased) OR at P <0.05.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ALL, acute lymphocytic leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Other LL, other lymphocytic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia.
aControls consist of cancers of the pharynx, stomach, liver, and pancreas; 0.44% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters. This 0.44% applies to the comparison group for all case cancer examined except for pharyngeal, stomach, liver, and pancreatic cancers (which were also control cancers), where 0.42%, 0.46%, 0.46%, and 0.40% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters respectively (i.e., these represent the proportion of firefighters when the case cancer was removed from the control group). bAdjusted for age of diagnosis, race, and year of diagnosis. cHistological subtype of lung cancer. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O3 codes) for Adenocarcinoma = 8050, 8051, 8140, 8141, 8143, 8147, 8200, 8201, 8250–8255, 8260, 8310, 8320, 8323, 8430, 8480, 8481, 8490, 8550, 8551, 8560, 8562, 8570–8576; Squamous Cell = 8052, 8070–8076, 8078; Small Cell = 8002, 8041–8045; Large Cell = 8012–8014; Non-Small Cell Cancer, unspecified = 8046.
dHistological subtype of mesothelioma: ICD-O3 code = 9050–9055.

Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

376
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 17

TABLE III
Odds Ratios for Various Cancers Among Firefighters* of Other Race/Ethnicity—California, 1988–2007 Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N %a ORb 95%CI
Head and neck
Lip 20010 1 0.67 6.56 0.87–49.58
Tongue 20020 4 0.41 3.57 1.23–10.35
Salivary gland 20030 2 0.45 3.60 0.83–15.59
Gum and other mouth 20050 1 0.16 1.50 0.20–11.15
Pharyngeal 20062–20100 4 0.15 1.35 0.45–4.05
Digestive
Esophagus 21010 5 0.26 2.14 0.81–5.65
Esophagus-adenocarcinoma
2 0.37 2.79 0.66–11.87
Esophagus-squamous carcinoma 2 0.18 1.44 0.34–6.14
Stomach 21020 10 0.17 1.61 0.71–3.65
Colorectal 21041–21052 30 0.18 1.41 0.82–2.41
Liver 21071 5 0.08 0.51 0.19–1.39
Pancreas 21100 5 0.12 0.90 0.33–2.45
Respiratory
Larynx 22020 0
Lung and bronchus 22030 26 0.13 1.01 0.57–1.78
Lung-adenocarcinoma c 8 0.11 0.89 0.40–2.00
Lung-squamous cell c 5 0.12 0.78 0.29–2.11
Lung-small cell c 1 0.05 0.36 0.05–2.71
Lung-large cell c 0
Lung-non-specific non-small cell cancer c,d 5 0.37 2.42 0.86–6.80 Connective tissue/skin
Soft tissue, including heart 24000 2 0.13 1.39 0.32–5.98 Melanoma 25010 7 0.61 4.51 1.85–10.97
Mesothelioma e
2 0.38 2.86 0.67–12.28
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

377
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 18
Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N % a ORb 95%CI
Urinary/reproductive
Prostate 28010 125 0.27 2.42 1.53–3.84
Testis 28020 15 0.43 3.73 1.26–11.02
Urinary bladder 29010 8 0.29 2.37 1.05–5.33
Kidney 29020 18 0.33 2.59 1.40–4.80
Cranial/endocrine
Brain 31010 10 0.38 3.58 1.65–7.74
Thyroid 32010 5 0.25 1.92 0.66–5.60
Blood
Hodgkin lymphoma 33011–33012 4 0.25 2.50 0.76–8.28
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 33041–33042 24 0.30 2.17 1.20–3.92 Multiple myeloma 34000 13 0.47 3.77 1.91–7.44
Leukemia 35011–35043 20 0.41 3.64 1.96–6.74
CLL 35012 7 0.86 7.04 2.99–16.56
AML 35021, 35031 2 0.11 1.12 0.26–4.76
CML 35022 6 0.61 4.91 1.84–13.12
SEER code =recode based on ICD-O-3 (http://seer.cancer.gov/siterecode/). Bolded values indicate a statistically significantly elevated (or decreased) OR at P <0.05.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence Interval; ALL, acute lymphocytic leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Other LL, other lymphocytic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia.
*Other race/ethnicity consists of individuals who were Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Indian/Alaskan Native, and Other/unknown race. aControls consist of cancers of the pharynx, stomach, liver, and pancreas; 0.13% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters. This 0.13% applies to the comparison group for all case cancer examined except for pharyngeal, stomach, and liver cancers (which were also control cancers), where 0.12%, 0.11%, and 0.15% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters respectively (i.e., these represent the proportion of firefighters when the case cancer was removed from the control group). bAdjusted for age of diagnosis and year of diagnosis.
cHistological subtype of lung cancer. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O3 codes) for Adenocarcinoma = 8050, 8051, 8140, 8141, 8143, 8147, 8200, 8201, 8250–8255, 8260, 8310, 8320, 8323, 8430, 8480, 8481, 8490, 8550, 8551, 8560, 8562, 8570–8576; Squamous Cell = 8052, 8070–8076, 8078; Small Cell = 8002, 8041–8045; Large Cell = 8012–8014; Non-Small Cell Cancer, unspecified = 8046.
dFirth bias-correction applied.
eHistological subtype of mesothelioma: ICD-O3 code = 9050–9055.

Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

378
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 19

TABLE IV
Odds Ratios for Various Cancers Among White Firefighters—California, 1988–2007 Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N %a ORb 95%CI
Head and neck
Lip 20010 17 0.95 1.36 0.82–2.25
Tongue 20020 31 0.70 1.10 0.75–1.61
Salivary gland 20030 12 0.77 1.19 0.66–2.15
Gum and other mouth 20050 13 0.70 1.06 0.60–1.87
Pharyngeal 20062–20100 38 0.66 1.03 0.71–1.48
Digestive
Esophagus 21010 63 0.99 1.59 1.19–2.12
Esophagus-adenocarcinoma
44 1.14 1.84 1.32–2.56
Esophagus-squamous carcinoma 10 0.61 0.94 0.49–1.78
Stomach 21020 42 0.51 0.73 0.52–1.03
Colorectal 21041–21052 317 0.69 1.08 0.90–1.30
Liver 21071 34 0.70 1.21 0.83–1.76
Pancreas 21100 74 0.67 1.14 0.85–1.54
Respiratory
Larynx 22020 25 0.41 0.64 0.42–0.97
Lung and bronchus 22030 506 0.71 1.10 0.92–1.30
Lung-adenocarcinoma c
164 0.73 1.11 0.90–1.38
Lung-squamous cell c 90 0.58 0.90 0.70–1.17
Lung-small cell c 81 0.84 1.30 1.00–1.70
Non-large cell c 25 0.62 0.89 0.58–1.36
Non-specific, non-small cell cancer c 37 1.07 2.02 1.34–3.04 Connective tissue/skin
Soft tissue, including heart 24000 24 0.73 1.16 0.75–1.82 Melanoma 25010 254 1.09 1.71 1.40–2.09
Mesothelioma d
19 0.85 1.34 0.83–2.16
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

379
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 20
Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N % a ORb 95%CI
Urinary/reproductive
Prostate 28010 1256 0.87 1.40 1.19–1.64
Testis 28020 70 0.78 0.91 0.58–1.44
Urinary bladder 29010 98 0.61 0.94 0.73–1.21
Kidney 29020 96 0.74 1.16 0.91–1.49
Cranial/endocrine
Brain 31010 76 0.85 1.41 1.07–1.87
Thyroid 32010 36 0.82 1.21 0.81–1.80
Blood
Hodgkin lymphoma 33011–33012 25 0.64 1.07 0.63–1.80
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 33041–33042 159 0.71 1.16 0.94–1.45 Multiple myeloma 34000 42 0.73 1.17 0.84–1.64
Leukemia 35011–35043 101 0.73 1.17 0.91–1.49
CLL 35012 36 0.73 1.17 0.82–1.67
AML 35021, 35031 40 0.93 1.46 1.03–2.08
CML 35022 14 0.74 1.14 0.66–1.99
EER code =recode based on ICD-O-3 (http://seer.cancer.gov/siterecode/). Bolded values indicate a statistically significantly elevated (or decreased) OR at P <0.05.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ALL, acute lymphocytic leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Other LL, other lymphocytic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia.
aControls consists of cancers of the pharynx, stomach, liver, and pancreas; 0.63% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters. This 0.63% applies to the comparison group for all case cancer examined except for pharyngeal, stomach, liver and pancreatic cancers (which were also control cancers), where 0.62%, 0.67%, 0.62%, and 0.61% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters respectively (i.e., these represent the proportion of firefighters when the case cancer was removed from the control group). bAdjusted for age of diagnosis and year of diagnosis.
cHistological subtype of lung cancer. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O3 codes) for Adenocarcinoma = 8050, 8051, 8140, 8141, 8143, 8147, 8200, 8201, 8250–8255, 8260, 8310, 8320, 8323, 8430, 8480, 8481, 8490, 8550, 8551, 8560, 8562, 8570–8576; Squamous Cell = 8052, 8070–8076, 8078; Small Cell = 8002, 8041–8045; Large Cell = 8012–8014; Non-Small Cell Cancer, unspecified = 8046.
dHistological subtype of pleural mesotheliomad (ICD-O3 code = 9050–9055).

Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

380
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Abraham Roman, Fire Chief
Subject: Contract – Wildland Res Mgmt. for Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Wildland Res Mgmt. (Contractor) to provide Community Wildfire Protection Plan and associated analytics for the Berkeley Fire Department (Department) for an initial base contract period of one year, from February 9, 2022 to February 8, 2023 in an amount not to exceed $200,000 with an option to extend for an additional four years in two-year increments and a total not to exceed $400,000.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The base term of this contract is one year and runs from February 9, 2022 to February 8, 2023 in an amount not to exceed $200,000. There is an option to extend for an additional four years for a total term of five years. Funding for the employee wellness program is budgeted in the from the Measure FF, 164-72-742-835-0000-000-422- 612990.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
There are extreme threats to the entire Berkeley community from a wildfire that starts in or adjacent one of the City’s hazardous fire zones. The fire threat is complex and dynamic as the environment changes with global warming. While effective prevention measures may seem obvious, contracting with experts to review the threat of wildfire, risk analysis, need for action, and community support is the proper way to proceed prior to spending a large amount of tax payer funding.

The community voted to support a comprehensive approach to this risk by passing Measure FF in November of 2020. This contract will provide the Department and the community with a roadmap to becoming as fire safe and resilient as possible through engagement of relevant stakeholders, initial and on-going risk and hazard analysis and a comprehensive CWPP.

The Department expects to have an actionable CWPP within nine (9) months.

381
Contract – Wildland Res Mgmt. for Community Wildfire Protection Plan CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2022

BACKGROUND
The community voted to support a comprehensive approach to this risk by passing Measure FF in November of 2020. This contract will provide the Department and the Community with the roadmap to becoming as fire safe and resilient as possible through engagement of relevant stakeholders, expert analysis and a comprehensive CWPP.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Preventing or limiting the size of a wildfire within our community has enormous positive impacts to the environment.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Department applied for and was granted a waiver of solicitation by the City Manager. After analysis, the Department suggested contracting with Wildland Res Mgt who has a long history of identifying Wildland Fire Hazard and risk in our local region, and across the state.

Wildland Res Mgt is a consulting firm that emphasizes wildland fire management in the urban-wildland interface. Several projects entailed preparation of fire management plans for large landowners in areas of sensitive species and concerned communities.

Other projects have involved the use of state-of-the-art fire behavior prediction systems or developed training programs.

Carol Rice, and Wildland Res Mgt have developed a notable "track record" and is respected for the quality of work produced; a section of projects follows. In addition, Cheryl Miller, RLA will be assisting this effort. Ms. Miller is currently the staff providing essential services to the Hills Emergency Forum, and is the Executive Director of the Diablo Fire Safe Council. In these capacities, she has worked with all jurisdictions neighboring the City of Berkeley to secure funding, develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans and develop Firewise Communities.

Below you will find a partial list of their projects including many that involve the City of Berkeley and its neighbors. Wildland Res Mgt is a local expert with significant existing regional knowledge and contacts would add significant value to the Berkeley project.  Fire Mitigation Program Support, University of California, Berkeley  Technical Support for Preparation of Environmental Documents, City of Oakland, Hills Emergency Forum, and Claremont Canyon Conservancy  Wildland Fire Management Plan and Update to the Fire Hazard Reduction Plan, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
 Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan and Programmatic EIR/EIS East Bay Regional Park District, through LSA, Inc.  Fire Behavior Modeling of Wildland Interface Fuels, Moraga Orinda Fire Department
 Fire Hazard Reduction Study, Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory  Environmental Compliance Strategy and BestManagement Practices Development for Fire Management Projects in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Diablo FireSafe Council, through EDAW, Inc. (now AECOM)

382
Contract – Wildland Res Mgmt. for Community Wildfire Protection Plan CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2022

 Parcel-based Risk Assessment, Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District
 Fire Behavior Modeling, Gaming, City of Oakland, through Amphion, Inc.  Vegetation Management Plan of the East Bay Hills, Consortium of the Cities of Berkeley, Oakland, Piedmont, and East Bay Regional Park District, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, and University of California, through Amphion, Inc.  Litigation Support For Fire Management Considerations After the Oakland Fire.

Larson & Burnham.
 Homeowner Education Program and Hazard Reduction Guidelines Development; Berkeley City Fire Department
 Evaluation of Fire Behavior in the Berkeley/Oakland Hills; East Bay Regional Park District

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSONS
Abraham Roman, Fire Chief, (510) 981-3473
Chris Pinto, Retired Annuitant, (510) 981-3473
Attachments:

1. Resolution

383
Contract – Wildland Res Mgmt. for Community Wildfire Protection Plan CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2022

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

CONTRACT: WILDLAND RES MGMT. FOR A COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION

PLAN AND ASSOCIATED ANALYTICS
WHEREAS, there are extreme threats to the entire Berkeley community from a wildfire that starts in or adjacent to one of the City’s hazardous fire zones, and WHEREAS, the fire threat is complex and dynamic as the environment changes with global warming, and
WHEREAS, while effective prevention measures may seem obvious, contracting with experts to review the threat of wildfire, values at risk, need for action, and community support is the proper way to proceed prior to spending a large amount of tax payer funding, and
WHEREAS, the community voted to support a comprehensive approach to this risk by passing Measure FF in November of 2020, and
WHEREAS, this contract will provide the Department and the community with a roadmap to becoming as fire safe and resilient as possible through engagement of relevant stakeholders, initial and on-going risk and hazard analysis and a comprehensive CWPP.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Wildland Res Mgmt. (Contractor) to provide Community Wildfire Protection Plan and associated analytics for the Berkeley Fire Department (Department) for an initial base contract period of one year, from February 9, 2022 to February 8, 2023 in an amount not to exceed $200,000 with an option to extend for an additional four years in two-year increments and a total not to exceed $400,000.

384
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Donald E. Ellison, Interim Director of Human Resources Subject: Adopt a Resolution Approving Exception to the 180-Day Waiting Period to Hire a CalPERS Retired Annuitant in Accordance with Government Code Sections 7522.56 And 21224

RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving an exception to the 180- day waiting period for hiring a retired annuitant as an extra-help employee.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The cost of this increase will be paid from salary savings derived from open positions that exist within the Human Resource Department.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) made substantial changes to public employee pension laws in California. One of those changes requires retired annuitants to be separated from employment for at least 180 days before returning to work for an employer in the same retirement system from which they receive a pension. An exception may be made if the governing body adopts a resolution to waive the waiting period for separation. The waiver allows an employer to hire a retired annuitant to perform work of limited duration, such as the elimination of backlogs, limited term special projects, and work that is in excess of what regular staff can reasonably perform.

The Human Resource Department is formally requesting Mr. Kirk Whitfield to return as a retired annuitant to support our department and the City of Berkeley with the following matters:

Mr. Whitfield with assist the Human Resource Department with access to various drives and folders needed to accomplish the many requests from external and internal customers. Having our own Information Technology person on site will help us tremendously as we onboard new employees in Human Resources, and provide quick access to the Human Resources Information System. A sample of tasks that will be fulfilled by this retiree, assists with the development and creation of Berkeley Matters,

385
Adopt a Resolution Approving Exception to the 180-Day Waiting Period to Hire a CalPERS Retired Annuitant CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022

equipment orders for laptops, computers, phones, copiers and set ups for all new employees. Lastly, Mr. Whitfield will update Ektron Intranet and City of Berkeley Human Resources website with classification specifications, memorandum of understandings and salary schedules

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This recommendation supports the City Council’s mission to provide Quality Municipal Services and a City government that is financially sound with a superior workforce

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Donald E. Ellison, Interim Human Resources Director, 510-981-6807.

Attachments:
1: Resolution

386
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

APPROVING EXCEPTION TO THE 180-DAY WAITING PERIOD TO HIRE A

CALPERS RETIRED ANNUITANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 AND 21224
WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code Section 7522.56 the City of Berkeley must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date; and
WHEREAS, Kirk Whitfield has retired from the City of Berkeley, Human Resources Department, from the position of Information Systems Support Technician, effective October 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, Section 7522.56 requires that post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is October 1, 2021, without this certification; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley hereby appoints Kirk Whitfield as an extra-help retired annuitant to perform similar duties to an Information Systems Support Technician, for the City of Berkeley of Human Resources under Government Code Section 21224, effective February 14, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties; and
WHEREAS, the maximum base salary for this position is $7168.00 per month and the hourly equivalent is $41.3522, and the minimum base salary for this position is $86,018.; and
WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Kirk Whitfield will be $41.3522; and WHEREAS, Kirk Whitfield has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate.

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

The City of Berkeley hereby certifies the nature of the appointment of Kirk Whitfield

387

as an extra-help retired annuitant to perform similar duties to an Information Systems Support Technician, for the City of Berkeley of Human Resources under Government Code Section 21224, effective February 14, 2022, earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is October 1, 2021 and that this appointment is necessary to maintain compliance with the necessary functions of the Human Resource Department as it relates to the needs of Information Technology.

388
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police
Subject: Contract No. 31900207 Amendment: Recruiting Advertising and Marketing Strategy for the Berkeley Police Department

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 31900207 with Epic Recruiting, to provide additional recruiting and advertising services for police and professional staff vacancies, in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $310,000, and extending the term through April 30, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The amendment will add $120,000 to cover the continuation of the police recruiting campaign through FY 2023. Funds for this contract will be allocated in General Fund Budget Code: 011-71-704-816-0000-000-421-612990.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On February 19, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 68,758 authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Epic Recruiting to provide a digital marketing campaign in support of recruiting police and professional staff for the Berkeley Police Department. The contract has provided the Police Department with a professional recruiting website; cinema quality recruitment video production; branding design and photography; search engine optimization, development and launch of recruiting social media accounts; strategic ad placement campaigns using sites such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram; assistance with posting and engaging on social media; website data analytics; a job fair booth banner, 500 recruiting pamphlets and monthly performance reports since the launch of the digital marketing campaign in September 2019.

The Berkeley Police Department must continue to be diligent and creative with its recruiting efforts in order to fill current and anticipated police and professional staff vacancies. In 2021, over 64,000 users clicked on our advertisement displayed in search engines and on all major social media platforms. Of the 64,000 users that visited the Berkeley Police Department recruitment website, approximately 4,000 users stayed and browsed the webpage. 1,602 went to the Berkeley recruitment website and clicked on Apply Now and provided personal contact information to Berkeley Police recruiters.

389
Contract No. 31900207 Amendment: Epic Recruiting for
Recruiting Advertising and Marketing Strategy for the CONSENT CALENDAR Berkeley Police Department February 8, 2022

Numerous prospects have mentioned Epic’s digital marketing campaign as a significant factor in considering employment at BPD.

BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2018 the City of Berkeley issued Request for Proposal No. 19-11276 for a Recruiting Advertising and Marketing Strategy for the Berkeley Police Department.

After receiving four bidders, staff selected Epic Recruiting as the proposal that best met the criteria contained in the RFP.

Epic Recruiting is a digital marketing firm, and recently focuses their work towards providing online police organization recruiting services. Unlike other recruiting agencies, Epic targets the next generation of law enforcement and supports our efforts to improve and modernize existing hiring strategies. Epic uses online technologies and strategies such as online search, recruitment videos, and social networking. Professional recruitment videos for both sworn and professional employees produced by Epic can be placed on electronic billboards and on social media for a good return on investment.

This contract is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to attract and retain a talented and diverse City government workforce.

The Scope of Services for the existing contract will be fulfilled in April 2022 at the conclusion of the current contract with EPIC. Additional services are required in order to continue to support recruiting efforts through an online media presence.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The law enforcement job market is extremely competitive, with agencies across the region, state, and country aggressively recruiting the best qualified candidates from a limited pool of applicants. The Berkeley Police Department has become far more competitive and agile in its recruitment efforts, in no small part due to improved recruiting efforts by using the specialty services of Epic Recruiting. Innovative Police Officer and Public Safety Dispatcher recruiting strategies are the cornerstone for reaching and soliciting potential candidates. By continuing our digital marketing and social media advertising campaigns, the department will have a greater chance to share unique aspects of our department and our community, and highlight professional and desirable opportunities for those considering joining the department. We will remain highly competitive in our recruitment and hiring efforts, with the ultimate goal of attracting highly qualified individuals whose interests and ambitions resonate with the messages we convey. Extending the contract to April 30, 2023 will allow us to continue to recruit qualified candidates in this competitive environment.

390
Contract No. 31900207 Amendment: Epic Recruiting for
Recruiting Advertising and Marketing Strategy for the CONSENT CALENDAR Berkeley Police Department February 8, 2022

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
To not extend the contract, which would leave Police Department staff without strategic advertising placement, and require staff to navigate and manage social media channels and our recruiting website without the specialized support of a professional marketing firm. There would be no digital marketing or strategic ad placement, thereby returning recruiting strategies to the less effective means used in the past.

CONTACT PERSON
Peter Lee, Sergeant, Police, 510-981-5734
Attachments:
1: Resolution

391
Contract No. 31900207 Amendment: Epic Recruiting for
Recruiting Advertising and Marketing Strategy for the CONSENT CALENDAR Berkeley Police Department February 8, 2022

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

CONTRACT NO 31900207 AMENDMENT: EPIC RECRUITING FOR RECRUITING

ADVERTISING AND MARKETING STRATEGY FOR THE BERKELEY POLICE

DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Epic Recruiting has provided professional, cinema quality recruiting videos, developed social media and recruiting products, and provides specialized online police recruiting services for the Berkeley Police Department; and WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department has had an increase in the number of potential applicant contacts through Epic Recruiting’s branding and marketing strategies; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, four prospective vendors submitted proposals in response to the RFP to provide Recruiting Advertising and Marketing Strategies; and WHEREAS, Epic Recruiting was ranked highest by the selection panel as the vendor that best met the criteria listed in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, June 17, 2019, the City entered into a contract with Epic Recruiting to provide the Berkeley Police Department with web design, video production, photography, branding, and social media/digital marketing with the goal of increasing the number of qualified recruit and lateral applicants; and WHEREAS, the Scope of Services for the contract will be fully met on April 30, 2022, and is approaching the authorized not to exceed amount of $190,000, and additional advertising and recruiting services are required to fill Police Department vacancies; and WHEREAS, funds for the additional Scope of Work in the amount of $120,000 will be provided from the following General Fund Budget Code: 011-71-704-816-0000-000-421- 612990.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an amendment, and any follow up amendments to Contract No. 31900207 with Epic Recruiting in an amount of $120,000 for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $310,000 for continued recruiting, advertising and marketing strategies and extending the term through April 30, 2023.

392
Peace and Justice Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Peace and Justice Commission
Submitted by: George Lippman, Chair, Peace and Justice Commission Subject: Resolution supporting immigration reform for the U.S.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution:

1. Urging President Biden to honor his promise for a humane immigration policy.

2. Calling for a departure from the previous administration’s cruelty toward migrant, for protections from deportation, and for a path to permanent residency for protected groups including beneficiaries of DACA, TPS, and DED.

3. Requesting closure of three California ICE detention facilities cited for many rights violations.

Copies of this resolution should be sent to President Biden and Berkeley’s congressional delegation.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Refugees fleeing dire situations in their home countries are receiving inhumane treatment upon arriving at the borders of the United States. President Biden has retained Donald Trump’s Title 42 policy, which misuses public health authority to violate refugee law, block asylum at U.S. ports of entry, and expel people seeking refuge from danger.

At its regular meeting of November 1, 2021, the Peace and Justice Commission adopted the attached resolution:

M/S/C: (Bohn/Meola)
Ayes: Bohn, Gussman, Jacquilin, Lee, Leon-Maldonado, Lippman, Maran, Meola, Morizawa, Rodriguez.

393
Resolution supporting immigration reform for the U.S. CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2022
Noes: None.

Abstain: None.

BACKGROUND
When entering office, President Biden promised a humane immigration policy and a departure from the previous administration’s cruelty toward migrants, specifically pledging to pursue policies that safeguard our security, provide a fair and just system that helps to grow and enhance our economy, and secure our cherished values.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects related to the recommendation in this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
When entering office, President Biden promised a humane immigration policy and a departure from the previous administration’s cruelty toward migrants, but has not made adequate changes.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager takes no position on the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.

CONTACT PERSON
Okeya Vance-Dozier, Peace and Justice Commission Secretary, City Manager’s Office, (510) 529-5376
Attachment
1: Resolution

394
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

SUPPORT IMMIGRATION REFORM FOR THE U.S.

WHEREAS, the Peace and Justice Commission advises the City Council on all matters relating to the City of Berkeley's role in issues of peace and social justice (Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 3.68.070); and
WHEREAS, when entering office, President Biden promised a humane immigration policy and a departure from the previous administration’s cruelty toward migrants, pledging specifically to pursue the following policies that safeguard our security, provide a fair and just system that helps to grow and enhance our economy, and secure our cherished values:
• Take urgent action to undo Trump’s damage and reclaim America’s values • Modernize America’s immigration system
• Welcome immigrants in our communities
• Reassert America’s commitment to asylum-seekers and refugees • Tackle the root causes of irregular migration
• Implement effective border screening;1 and
WHEREAS, many months into the Biden Administration, migrants continue to face mass deportation and detention camps operated under Trump have been reopened;2 and WHEREAS, Congressmembers Zoe Lofgren and Lou Correa led an additional 22 Members of the California Delegation, including U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, in sending a letter to the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas urging the immediate closure of two privately owned and operated ICE detention facilities, Adelanto ICE Processing Center and Otay Mesa Detention Facility, and an end to the Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) between ICE and Yuba County Jail, the last ICE contract with a public facility in California, all cited by courts and ICE itself for multiple constitutional violations;3 and
1 “The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values as a Nation of Immigrants,” 2020, https://joebiden.com/immigration/
2 “Biden and the Border: Immigration and Border Policy Under Biden,” Institute for Policy Studies, October 19, 2021, https://ips-dc.org/events/biden-and-the-border-immigration-and-border-policy-under- biden/
and
“’We’re done:’ Immigration advocates stage walkout on Biden administration,“ Politico, October 16 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/16/immigration-advocates-walk-out-biden-516122, 3 California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, October 21, 2021, https://ccijustice.org/breaking-24- members-of-congress-led-by-lofgren-and-correa-urge-closure-of-3-ice-detention-centers-in-ca/

395
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2019, the Council of the City of Berkeley adopted a resolution in support of protections from deportation and a path to permanent residency for beneficiaries of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED);4 and WHEREAS, according to Human Rights First, “President Biden’s administration continues to embrace and defend, rather than end, the Trump administration’s ‘Title 42’ policy, which misuses public health authority to violate refugee law, block asylum at U.S. ports of entry, and expel people seeking refuge from danger. The suffering of families, adults, and children subjected to this policy continues to mount, with at least 7,647 kidnappings and other attacks on people blocked or expelled under Title 42 [or other U.S. immigration programs] since President Biden took office.” In September 2021 alone, “the Biden administration used this policy to illegally expel nearly 8,000 Haitians to life- threatening insecurity in Haiti. The U.S. Department of State’s top legal expert, former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh, resigned from the Department in October 2021 after concluding that the Biden administration’s continued use of Title 42 to expel people seeking protection is illegal and inhumane;”5 and
WHEREAS, United States government documents detail over 160 internal reports of misconduct and abuse of asylum seekers at the hands of U.S. officials, Human Rights Watch said in a report released October 21. The documents report abuse by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, Border Patrol agents, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, primarily between 2016 and 2021.6 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley requests the City Clerk to send a copy of this resolution to President Biden to urge him to honor his promise for a humane immigration policy and a departure from the previous administration’s cruelty toward migrants, support of protections from deportation, and a path to permanent residency for beneficiaries of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Temporary Protected Status, and Deferred Enforcement Departure, and for the closure 4 “Resolution: Protect from deportation beneficiaries of DACA, TPS, and DED,” Berkeley City Council, October 15, 2019, https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element- cse&cx=017385055954264103894:kn5xiwd8ubm&q=https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2 019/10_Oct/Documents/2019-10-
15_Item_16_Resolution_Protect_from_Deportation.aspx&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj684yr9d7zAhVZpnIEHVT 6COUQFnoECAQQAg&usg=AOvVaw2qNYQATN_6gYxkGEt-Gw_k
5 “’Illegal and Inhumane:’ Biden Administration Continues Embrace of Trump Title 42 Policy as Attacks on People Seeking Refuge Mount,” Human Rights First, October 2021, https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/IllegalandInhumane.pdf “ 6 “US Records Show Physical, Sexual Abuse at Border: Newly Obtained Documents Reveal Urgent Need for Justice, Reform,” https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/21/us-records-show-physical-sexual-abuse- border

396
of ICE detention facilities Adelanto ICE Processing Center and Otay Mesa Detention Facility, and the Yuba County Jail, and that copies of this resolution also be sent to Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Alex Padilla, and Representative Barbara Lee.

397
398
Peace and Justice Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Peace and Justice Commission
Submitted by: George Lippman, Chair, Peace and Justice Commission Subject: Resolution in Support of Justice for Haitian Refugees

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution calling for an end to all U.S. government deportation efforts against Haitian refugees.

Send a letter with the enclosed resolution to President Biden, Senators Feinstein and Padilla, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

BACKGROUND
On September 19, 2021 images emerged “which appear to show border agents on horseback driving migrants [from Haiti] back to a river;”1 according to the BBC, and “Border Patrol agents on horseback [hounded] Haitian migrants near the US-Mexico border, more than 14,0002 of whom were camped under the Del Rio bridge….” according to Vox.com.

According to Vox.com, “Haitians have sought asylum at US borders for decades, but every presidential administration since the 1970s has treated Haitians differently than other migrant groups, rejecting asylum claims, holding them longer in detention, and making it harder for them to settle down in safety.”3

At its regular meeting of October 4, 2021, the Peace and Justice Commission unanimously proposed the attached resolution for the City Council to condemn the policy and tactics of deporting Haitian immigrants underwary on American soil. 1 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58637116: “The pictures taken by AFP photographer Paul Ratje show Haitians going back and forth across the border to get food for their families, and finding themselves blocked by the horses.” https://www.vox.com/22689472/haitian-migrants-asylum-history- violence: “The uniformed men swung their long horse reins — which many interpreted as whips — to keep the migrants from crossing into Texas. In one photo, an agent grabbed the T-shirt of a migrant, while another shouted in a video, “Get out now! Back to Mexico!’” 2 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/23/us/haitian-migrants-texas-camp.html 3 https://www.vox.com/22689472/haitian-migrants-asylum-history-violence

399
Resolution in Support of Justice for Haitian Refugees CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2022
M/S/C: (Tregub/Rodriguez)
Ayes: Gussman, Jacqulin, Lee, Lippman, Maran, Meola, Morizawa, Perry, Rodriguez, Tregub
Noes: None.

Abstain: None.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Minimal staff time associated with the sending of a letter.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Haitian refugee crisis is rooted in recent as well as historical events. The current wave of migrants is fleeing a nation that just this summer experienced both a magnitude

7.2 earthquake and storm that killed approximately 2200 people and the assassination of Haiti’s former president, which exacerbated violence and instability, all while the nation has yet to recover from a 2010 earthquake that affected three million people and irreparably destroyed infrastructure.4

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Both the Peace and Justice Commission and City Council have a long history of standing up for the rights of refugees, and the City of Berkeley has been proud to be designated a sanctuary city since the 1970s. Regardless of which presidential administration is in power, this recommendation is consistent with numerous resolutions and letters sent by the City of Berkeley on similar subject over the course of several decades.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager takes no position on the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.
4 https://www.vox.com/22689472/haitian-migrants-asylum-history-violence

400
Resolution in Support of Justice for Haitian Refugees CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2022

CONTACT PERSON
George Lippman, Chair, Peace and Justice Commission.

Okeya Vance-Dozier, Peace and Justice Commission Secretary, City Manager’s Office, (510) 529-5376.

Attachments:

1. Resolution

401
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

SUPPORT OF JUSTICE FOR HAITIAN REFUGEES

WHEREAS on September 19, 2021 images emerged “which appear to show border agents on horseback driving migrants [from Haiti] back to a river;”[1] according to the BBC, and “Border Patrol agents on horseback [hounded] Haitian migrants near the US-Mexico border, more than 14,000[2] of whom were camped under the Del Rio bridge…” according to Vox.com; and

WHEREAS according to Vox.com, “Haitians have sought asylum at US borders for decades, but every presidential administration since the 1970s has treated Haitians differently than other migrant groups, rejecting asylum claims, holding them longer in detention, and making it harder for them to settle down in safety;”[3] and

WHEREAS the wave of Haitian migrants is fleeing a nation that just this summer experienced both a magnitude 7.2 earthquake and storm that killed approximately 2200 people and the assassination of its Haiti’s former president which exacerbated violence and instability, all while the nation has yet to recover from a 2010 earthquake that affected 3 million people and irreparably destroyed infrastructure.[4]

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley condemns the policy and tactics of deporting Haitian immigrants that are underway on American soil, is pained at the parallels between the images that came to light on September 19, 2021 and the tumultuous and traumatic past of American slavery, and questions the stark contrast between the treatment of migrants from Haiti and those seeking asylum from many other countries.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley shall send to President Biden, Senators Feinstein and Padilla, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee a copy of this resolution along with a call to cease all deportation efforts against our fellow humans and respect their right to seek asylum in this country.

402
Peace and Justice
Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Peace and Justice Commission
Submitted by: George Lippman, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission Subject: Normalize Diplomatic and Economic Relations with Cuba

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution supporting normalization of diplomatic and economic relations between the U.S. and Cuba, initiated by Cuba solidarity organizations in the U.S.

Send a letter with the enclosed resolution to President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Senators Feinstein and Padilla, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Minimal impact to staff time.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Trump administration imposed 243 new sanctions upon Cuba. Despite campaign promises, President Biden has failed to reverse the sanctions that former President Trump imposed on Cuba. Travel by American citizens to Cuba remains restricted, and Cuba remains on the state sponsors of terrorism list where Trump placed it.

The embargo continues to inflict extreme hardship on the Cuban people by creating shortages of food and medicine, severely restricting financial and trade opportunities and has even prevented Cuba from obtaining medical equipment and supplies to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

A majority of House Democrats wrote President Biden on December 16, 2021, led by four members including Rep. Barbara Lee, asking him to suspend U.S. regulations that prevent food, medicine, remittances, and other humanitarian assistance from reaching the Cuban people.

At its regular meeting of December 13, 2021, the Peace and Justice Commission unanimously proposed the attached resolution for the City Council to call for normalization of diplomatic and economic relations between the U.S. and Cuba.

M/S/C: (Bohn/Morizawa)

403
Normalize Diplomatic and Economic Relations with Cuba CONSENT CALENDAR February 8,2022

Ayes: Bohn, Gussman, Lippman, Maran, Morizawa, Rodriguez Noes: None.

Abstain: None.

BACKGROUND
Beginning in October 1960, the United States government imposed an economic, commercial and financial embargo on Cuba that not only prevents most engagement and trade with the United States, but also punishes other countries that continue to engage with Cuba.

This embargo continues to inflict extreme hardship on the Cuban people by creating shortages of food and medicine, severely restricting financial and trade opportunities and has even prevented Cuba from obtaining medical equipment and supplies to address the COVID-10 pandemic.

In December 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raúl Castro announced that they would begin normalizing relations between the two countries and would establish diplomatic relations, an agreement that was enthusiastically embraced by the Cuban people.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No identifiable impact.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Peace and Justice Commission is charged in its mandate to “advise the City Council and Berkeley Unified School District on all matters relating to peace and social justice…support for human rights and self-determination around the world…help develop proposals for the City Council and the School Board for actions in furtherance of the goals of peace and justice, and help publicize such actions in the community…initiate and develop cultural and educational foreign exchange.” It is time for the people of the U.S. and Cuba to replace embargo, sanction, and blockade with positive international exchange.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager takes no position on the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.

404
Normalize Diplomatic and Economic Relations with Cuba CONSENT CALENDAR February 8,2022

CONTACT PERSON
Okeya Vance-Dozier, Peace and Justice Commission Secretary, City Manager’s Office, (510) 529-5376
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Cuba Fact Sheet

405
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

NORMALIZE DIPLOMATIC AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS WITH CUBA
WHEREAS, the Peace and Justice Commission advises the City Council on all matters relating to the City of Berkeley's role in issues of peace and social justice (Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 3.68.070); and
WHEREAS, beginning in October 1960, the United States government imposed an economic, commercial and financial embargo on Cuba that not only prevents most engagement and trade with the United States, but also punishes other countries that continue to engage with Cuba; and
WHEREAS, this embargo continues to inflict extreme hardship on the Cuban people by creating shortages of food and medicine, severely restricting financial and trade opportunities and has even prevented Cuba from obtaining medical equipment and supplies to address the COVID-19 pandemic;1 and
WHEREAS, both the Cuban government and the United Nations have estimated that the embargo has cost the Cuban economy $130 billion over six decades;2 and WHEREAS, in December 2014, President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raúl Castro announced that they would begin normalizing relations between the two countries and would establish diplomatic relations, an agreement that was enthusiastically embraced by the Cuban people;3 and
WHEREAS, President Obama removed Cuba from the United States state sponsors of terrorism list; and
1 “Amnesty International Urges End to US Embargo on Cuba,” February 19, 2011, https://medicc.org/ns/amnesty-international-urges-end-to-us-embargo-on-cuba-cites-medicc/ 2 “U.S. trade embargo has cost Cuba $130 billion, U.N. says,” Reuters, May 8, 2018,https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-economy-un/u-s-trade-embargo-has-cost-cuba-130-billion- u-n-says-idUSKBN1IA00T
3 “McGovern, Meeks, Lee, Rush Lead 114 Members of Congress Calling for Biden Administration to Support Human Rights & Humanitarian Needs in Cuba,” December 16, 2021, https://mcgovern.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398780

406
Normalize Diplomatic and Economic Relations with Cuba CONSENT CALENDAR February 8,2022

WHEREAS, most Americans, including Cuban Americans, oppose the United States embargo and tens of thousands have visited the island when travel restrictions were relaxed;4 and
WHEREAS, the Trump administration imposed 243 new sanctions upon Cuba, including restrictions on Cuban-Americans to send remittances to families and businesses in Cuba, and reinstated Cuba to the state sponsor of terrorism list; and WHEREAS, for each of the last 29 years, the United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly voted to support the end of the United States blockade against Cuba; and
WHEREAS, despite campaign promises, President Biden has failed to reverse the sanctions that former President Trump imposed on Cuba.5 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council urges President Biden to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba, including restoring the full operations of the United States Embassy in Havana; and that the well- being of the Cuban people shall be the centerpiece of United States policies towards Cuba.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley urges President Biden and Congress to remove Cuba from the United States list of state sponsors of terrorism; and to immediately close the United States military base at Guantanamo Bay and return the occupied territory in Guantanamo to Cuba.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley urges President Biden and Congress to immediately reverse all sanctions against Cuba by the United States and end all aspects of the United States embargo against Cuba, including restrictions on travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens and residents, so that the peoples of Cuba and the United States can freely travel between the countries.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley asks the City Clerk send a copy of this resolution to President Joseph R. Biden, Secretary of State Antony J.

Blinken, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla, and Representative Barbara Lee. 4 “Most Americans Support Ending Cuba Embargo Times Poll Finds,” New York Times, March 21, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/international/obama-in-cuba/most-americans-support- ending-cuba-embargo-nyt-poll-finds
5 McGovern letter

407
Normalize Diplomatic and Economic Relations with Cuba CONSENT CALENDAR February 8,2022

EXHIBIT A
Fact Sheet on U.S.-Cuba Relations
THE U.S. ECONOMIC BLOCKADE AGAINST CUBA
The U.S. embargo and policies operate as a blockade against Cuba. It creates shortages of food, medicine, financial and trade opportunities and continues to inflict hardship on the men, women, and children of Cuba.

In 1960, the United States government imposed an economic, commercial, and financial embargo against Cuba. The 1996 Helms Burton Act extended the extraterritorial application of the initial embargo to apply to foreign companies trading with Cuba.

On December 17, 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama and then Cuban President Raul Castro announced a new era of relations between the two countries and agreed to reestablish diplomatic relations. Accordingly, Cuba and the U.S. re-opened their respective embassies in 2015.

The Trump administration reversed course and tightened the blockade by instituting 243 additional sanctions, including many during the pandemic. In the final days of his term, Trump placed Cuba back on the "State Sponsors of Terrorism” list. Being placed on this list exposes countries to numerous other sanctions, including restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Despite campaign promises, the Biden administration has failed to reverse any of Trump’s actions and has done nothing to alleviate hardship.

On June 23, 2021, in the United Nations General Assembly a total of 184 countries supported Cuba’s motion for the end of the U.S. blockade. It was the 29th year that the vote to end the embargo was overwhelming supported by the world’s delegates. Only the U.S. and Israel voted to maintain the U.S. embargo. The majority of the people of the United States and the world believe this embargo is ineffective, inhumane and in violation of U.S. laws and international conventions.

CUBA’S HISTORY OF MEDICAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL AID TO

OTHER COUNTRIES
Cuba has a long history of providing international medical aid to other countries. Many of its medical personnel are directly involved in the fight against COVID-19 as members of the specially trained Henry Reeve International Medical Brigade against Disasters and Serious Epidemics. One of the first countries to offer aid to the U.S. after Hurricane

408
Normalize Diplomatic and Economic Relations with Cuba CONSENT CALENDAR February 8,2022

Katrina, Cuba offered to send 1,586 doctors and 26 tons of medicine. This aid was rejected by the State Department.

Over the past year alone, Cuba has sent 3,700 health workers in 52 international medical brigades to 39 countries overwhelmed by the pandemic. Cuba’s international medical brigades have treated patients and saved lives for the past 15 years in 53 countries confronting natural disasters and serious epidemics, such as the Ebola crisis in West Africa. It has assisted in many epidemics around the world, including dengue fever, HIV, swine flu, and hepatitis. Despite the importance of international Cuban medical assistance, the U.S. has attempted to stop other countries from accepting Cuban medical brigades, even claiming that Cuba’s medical brigades represent a form of human trafficking.

In 2015 the World Health Organization recognized Cuba's medical system as a worldwide leader in biotechnology, and Cuba has made significant contributions to the international medical field, including a drug that prevents 77% of diabetic amputations.

Early in the pandemic, Cuba developed effective treatment regimens for patients and prevention protocols for health workers, including its drug Interferon Alpha 2B Recombinant and community-based treatment and contact tracing.

Cuba has developed five internationally recognized candidate COVID-19 vaccines. By the end of October 2021 more than 98% of Cuba's 11.3 million people had received at least a first shot of a three-dose immunization regimen with Cuban-made vaccines (Abdala, Soberana-2 and Soberana-plus). More than 60% of the population, ages 2 and older, had been fully vaccinated. Cuba is very likely to reach its goal of 98% fully vaccinated by December 2021. Cuba also plans to produce millions of doses of its vaccines, beyond what is needed domestically, to meet its commitment to sharing its low- cost vaccines with poor countries in the developing world.

There is precedent for collaborative initiatives between Cuba and U.S. cities. A few examples include San Francisco CA, Seattle WA, Minneapolis MN, Chicago IL, Pittsburgh PA, Cambridge, MA, which all overwhelmingly passed a resolution supporting medical collaboration.

There have also been multi-year joint ventures between Cuba's Center for Molecular Immunology and Buffalo's Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in developing CIMAvax, the Cuban lung cancer vaccine, as well as a collaboration between medical personnel from Cuba and the University of Illinois on infant mortality in Chicago.

The U.S. blockade of Cuba has severely restricted collaboration on scientific and medical research. The blockade not only causes great harm to Cuba, it also denies U.S. citizens access to Cuban medical technology such as the diabetes drug Heberpot-P, vaccines for meningitis B and hepatitis B, monoclonal antibodies for kidney transplants, as well as the

409
Normalize Diplomatic and Economic Relations with Cuba CONSENT CALENDAR February 8,2022

only therapeutic vaccine in the world against advanced lung cancer, called CIMA V AX- EGF.

EFFORTS IN THE U.S. TO END THE BLOCKADE AND PROVIDE HUMANITARIAN

RELIEF TO CUBA
There are hundreds of organizations throughout the world that are working to end the blockade against Cuba. In the U.S., the National Network on Cuba (NNOC) and its 58 local, state and national organizations throughout the country stand in solidarity with Cuba and have been working diligently to end the blockade:
 Over 40 resolutions have been passed by churches, city councils, labor unions, state legislators and school boards to call for the end of the U.S. blockade against Cuba.

These resolutions represent the will of 41 million people in the United States.  Car and bike caravans in support of Cuba occur monthly in Miami and other cities across the U.S. and around the world.
 The University of Minnesota leaders commenced and continue formal medical collaboration with Cuba to battle COVID-19.
 Federal legislation to end the embargo (S.249, H.R.3625) and other bills in support of Cuba (S.1694, H.R.198) is pending,
 U.S. residents generously donated more than $680,000 to send over 6 million syringes to Cuba to enable Cuba to administer its COVID-19 vaccines to its people  U.S. residents are providing humanitarian aid to Cuba by raising funds to purchase and ship food and medical supplies to counter the shortages caused by the blockade and Trump sanctions.
 IFCO/Pastors for Peace, Code Pink, Altruvistas, Marazul Tours, and Building Relations with Cuban Labor have regular delegations to Cuba so that U.S. residents can experience Cuba themselves and see how the U.S. blockade affects the people of Cuba.

Rev.20211108
Sources:

National Network on Cuba
http://nnoc.info
IFCO-Pastors for Peace
https://ifconews.org

410
Peace and Justice
Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Peace and Justice Commission
Submitted by: George Lippman, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission Subject: Japanese American Day of Remembrance

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution calling on leaders to denounce anti-Asian racism, and for the City to collaborate with AAPI communities and community-based organizations to promote community building and safety, and to address systemic barriers for reporting anti-Asian hate crimes.

Adopt in perpetuity February 19 as the Japanese American Day of Remembrance in Berkeley in recognition of the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans and Japanese Latin Americans during World War II.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Minimal impact to staff time.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On the 80th anniversary of Executive Order 9066, it is important to remember the unconstitutional and ethnically discriminatory incarceration of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry at the onset of World War II.

Up to the present day, the U.S. government has failed to meet international obligations to make reparation for wartime human rights violations to over 2200 Japanese Latin Americans forcibly deported to the U.S.

The incarceration of Japanese Americans and Japanese Latin Americans is part of a long history of racial prejudice and hate that continues to today. In 2020, there was a rise in anti-Asian hate and violence across the United States, resulting in people of AAPI ancestry being killed, beaten, and harassed without provocation.

At its regular meeting of December 13, 2021, the Peace and Justice Commission unanimously proposed the attached resolution for the City Council to address anti-Asian racism, and to adopt in perpetuity February 19 as the Japanese American Day of Remembrance in Berkeley.

411
Japanese American Day of Remembrance CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022

M/S/C: (Morizawa/Rodriguez)
Ayes: Bohn, Gussman, Lippman, Maran, Morizawa, Rodriguez Noes: None.

Abstain: None.

BACKGROUND
On February 19, 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which resulted in the federal government forcibly removing and incarcerating around 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, including 75,000 United States citizens and 1,300 Berkeley residents solely because of their Japanese ancestry.

Despite thousands of Japanese Americans losing their homes and economic livelihoods, many thousands of young Japanese American people bravely took up arms and sacrificed their lives to defend this country which wrongly incarcerated them.

The US government instituted an extraordinary rendition program during World War II whereby over 2200 people of Japanese ancestry were seized from 13 Latin American countries, transported to the US and interned in Department of Justice camps, and over 800 were used in hostage exchanges for US citizens.

The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, states that the United States apologizes for the forced removal and incarceration of the Japanese Americans.

In 2017, the City of Berkeley acknowledged a day of remembrance for those affected by Japanese American mass incarceration and recognized the Japanese community’s rich history and profound contributions to the City of Berkeley.

While racism and scapegoating increased in 2020-21, it is not new and is part of an over 150-year history of violence and hate against AAPI people and even longer for other communities who continue to be marginalized.

The unjust incarceration of around 120,000 Japanese Americans without charge or a fair hearing must serve as a potent reminder that this nation’s character is reflected in how it treats its citizens, immigrant residents, and those seeking safety and refuge from violence, hate, and climate change.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No identifiable impact.

412
Japanese American Day of Remembrance CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Peace and Justice Commission is charged in its mandate to “advise the City Council and Berkeley Unified School District on all matters relating to peace and social justice…support for human rights and self-determination around the world…help develop proposals for the City Council and the School Board for actions in furtherance of the goals of peace and justice, and help publicize such actions in the community…initiate and develop cultural and educational foreign exchange.” Reconciliation must come from speaking truth. Without recognition of the human rights violations that our government committed against Japanese Americans 80 years ago, we cannot hope to end the continuing pattern of anti-Asian racism in the community.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager takes no position on the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.

CONTACT PERSON
Okeya Vance-Dozier, Peace and Justice Commission Secretary, City Manager’s Office, (510) 529-5376
Attachments:
1: Resolution

413
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

JAPANESE AMERICAN DAY OF REMEMBRANCE
WHEREAS, the Peace and Justice Commission advises the City Council on all matters relating to the City of Berkeley's role in issues of peace and social justice (Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 3.68.070); and
WHEREAS, 80 years ago, on February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which resulted in the federal government forcibly removing and incarcerating around 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, including 75,000 United States citizens and 1,300 Berkeley residents solely because of their Japanese ancestry; and
WHEREAS, this Executive Order was in violation of United States Constitutional rights and human rights, the government removed and incarcerated an entire ethnicity claiming it was on the grounds of national security and military necessity; and WHEREAS, despite thousands of Japanese Americans losing their homes and economic livelihoods, many thousands of young Japanese American people bravely took up arms and sacrificed their lives to defend this country which wrongly incarcerated them; and WHEREAS, the US government instituted an extraordinary rendition program during World War II whereby over 2200 people of Japanese ancestry were seized from 13 Latin American countries, transported to the US and interned in Department of Justice camps, and over 800 were used in hostage exchanges for US citizens;1 and WHEREAS, after WWII, while most interned Japanese Latin Americans were forcibly deported to US-occupied Japan, over 300 were able to remain in the US, some in the San Francisco Bay Area, including in the city of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, in 1983, the federal Commission on the Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians found that the incarceration of Japanese Americans was not justified by military necessity and were not based in military analysis; instead, the unjust incarceration was based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership;” and 1 For more information see “Americans Forgotten Internment,” Politico, December 5, 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/12/05/japanese-latinos-us-war-hostages-history-523711

414
Japanese American Day of Remembrance CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022

WHEREAS, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, states that the United States apologizes for the forced removal and incarceration of the Japanese Americans; and
WHEREAS, the US government failed to include Japanese Latin American internees in its initial redress bill and continues to disregard the 2019 decision of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (a body of the Organization of American States) affirming its obligation to make reparation for both “material and moral dimensions” of wartime human rights violations perpetrated against Japanese Latin Americans; and WHEREAS, in 2017, the City of Berkeley acknowledged a day of remembrance for those affected by Japanese American mass incarceration and recognized the Japanese community’s rich history and profound contributions to the City of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, the incarceration of Japanese Americans and Japanese Latin Americans is part of a long history of racial prejudice and hate that continues to today; in 2020, there was a rise in anti-Asian hate and violence across the United States, resulting in people of AAPI ancestry being killed, beaten, and harassed without provocation; and WHEREAS, this rise in racial prejudice and hate was due to the media and rhetoric used by past political leaders resulting in the first spike in hate crimes in March and April 2020, whereas the reported hate crimes against AAPI people in 16 of the United States’ largest cities and counties were up 145% in 2020.2
WHEREAS, Stop AAPI Hate, a national coalition aimed at addressing anti-Asian discrimination amid the pandemic, documented 10,370 incidents of hate incidents from March 19, 2020, to September 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, while racism and scapegoating increased in 2020-21, it is not new and is part of an over 150-year history of violence and hate against AAPI people and even longer for other communities who continue to be marginalized; and
WHEREAS, for decades, systemic oppression and implicit bias against people of AAPI ancestry has resulted in the silencing of AAPI voices, the stifling of careers, and contributing to the invisibility of AAPI achievements and struggles; and 2 Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=mnet&hsimp=yhs-001&type=type9099612-spa-3503- 84593&param1=3503&param2=84593&p=Center+for+the+Study+of+Hate+and+Extremism+at+California+State+University%2C +San+Bernardino

415
Japanese American Day of Remembrance CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022

WHEREAS, in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act banned all Chinese people from immigrating to the United States, which led to the Immigration Act of 1924, which banned immigration from all Asian or Pacific countries; and
WHEREAS, throughout the United States’ history, this prejudice, discrimination, and violence have impacted all people of AAPI descent; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. government, including law enforcement, has discriminated against the AAPI, Black, Latin, Native American, LGBTQ+ and other marginalized communities, escalating the hate and violence they are supposed to prevent; and WHEREAS, the incarceration of around 120,000 Japanese Americans without charge or a fair hearing must serve as a potent reminder that this nation’s character is reflected in how it treats its citizens, immigrant residents, and those seeking safety and refuge from violence, hate, and climate change; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League and the UC Berkeley Nikkei Student Union have requested that the Berkeley City Council take this action.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Berkeley calls on local and national media outlets, elected officials, and community leaders to denounce racial discrimination, white supremacy, and xenophobia and continue to highlight stories of achievements and experiences of hate crimes, violence, and harassment based on one’s ancestry or appearance.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Berkeley collaborate with AAPI communities, including Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, and all immigrant communities, as well as all marginalized communities to create community programs and advocate for policy and legislation that will support community building and safety.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Berkeley collaborate with community-based organizations to address systemic barriers for reporting anti-Asian hate crimes by mitigating language or cultural barriers, or fear of immigration status repercussions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Berkeley adopt in perpetuity February 19 as the Japanese American Day of Remembrance in recognition of Japanese Americans and Japanese Latin Americans who were victims of mass incarceration in this country; and in 2022 urge Berkeley residents to tour the UC Bancroft Library exhibit, Uprooted: The Incarceration of Japanese Americans and attend the UC Berkeley Nikkei Student Union (https://nsu.berkeley.edu/) and the Bay Area annual Day of Remembrance (njahs.org) commemorations.

416
Kate Harrison
Councilmember District 4

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Harrison, Mayor Arreguín, Councilmembers Bartlett and Wengraf Subject: Budget Referral and Resolution Establishing City Process for Siting and Developing Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast-charging Hubs

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution in support of a non-binding term sheet between the City of Berkeley and East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) to establish a network of publicly available electric vehicle (EV) fast-charging hubs in municipally-owned parking lots and garages in areas with a dense concentration of multifamily housing.

2. Refer to the June, 2022 FY 23-24 budget process $600,000 in General Fund revenues to fund Berkeley’s annual maximum Service Fee of $100,000/year per fast-charging hub for three hubs. Once revenues from charging exceed the annual service fee, a portion of revenues will be remitted to the City. Over the 10-year agreement, the City will realize a net gain. Under either a low and high hub utilization scenario, EBCE estimates the City will likely see net profits from Site License Agreement revenue over the ten years estimated at between $50,000 and $851,000.

In addition, EBCE estimates that the City is already on track to realize an additional $400,000-$600,000 in Utility User Tax proceeds annually over next 2-3 years under the Renewable 100 portfolio, and that number could grow to up to $1.3 million per year by 2025 assuming EV adoption goals are met.

PROPOSED POLICY COMMITTEE
Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Policy Committee.

CURRENT SITUATION, EFFECTS, AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The world is facing a grave climate emergency, requiring municipalities to transition to a zero-carbon economy by 2030. According to Berkeley’s 2019 greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) inventory, 60% of Berkeley’s sector-based1 emissions result from 1 Emissions created in the City, as opposed to consumption-based emissions, i.e., those created by the goods Berkeleyans consume.

417
Budget Referral and Resolution Establishing City Process for Siting and Developing Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast-charging Stations

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
2 transportation.2 In addition to public transportation, walking, biking and scooters, replacing internal combustion engine cars with EVs will be a major factor in reducing emissions. EVs are significantly less carbon intensive to operate and save drivers money through reduced fuel, operations and maintenance costs.

EVs also represent an increasing share of registered vehicles as a result of market forces and state regulations. The latest models of battery electric vehicles (BEV) feature extended range that rivals internal combustion engine cars at competitive pricing, especially when factoring federal and state incentives, and volatile gasoline cost savings. Most major automobile manufacturers in the United States plan to offer full lines of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) at a similar price to internal combustion engine cars, without subsidies, by 2030. Finally, per Governor Newsom’s Zero-Emission by 2035 Executive Order (N-79-20) the California Air Resources Board is expected to develop regulations that mandate that all in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks be zero-emission by 2035.3
According to U.S. Department of Energy data from 2020, 42% of all EVs in the United States are registered in California.4 BEV sales in Alameda County have increased nearly 430% since 2015, and for the first three quarters of 2020 Alameda County saw 8,624 BEV sales.5 By the end of 2020 there were 46,239 BEV and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) countywide, or approximately 4% of all existing vehicles. Of the over 60,000 vehicles registered in Berkeley,6 approximately 3,650 are EVs (both BEVs and PHEVs). 7 Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan sets a goal of 15,229 BEVs by 2025; achieving this will require a significant increase in publicly available fast-charging stations to ensure all residents, especially renters without access to at-home charging, have convenient refueling options.
2 Berkeley’s 2019 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, OESD, November 2021, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_City_Council/2021-11- 30%20Item%2032%20Berkeley%E2%80%99s%202019%20Community-.

Wide%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20Inventory.pdf.
3 Governor Newsom’s Zero-Emission by 2035 Executive Order (N-79-20), January 2021, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/governor-newsoms-zero-emission-2035-executive-order-n- 79-20.
4 Electric Vehicles by State, U.S. Department of Energy, June 2021, https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962 5 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-insights/zero-emission-vehicle-and-charger-statistics 6 Based on DMV data.
7 As part of its Electric Mobility Roadmap report, OESD estimated that 3.7% of registered vehicles in Berkeley were EVs as of late 2018, Berkeley Electric Mobility Roadmap, July 2020, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Energy_and_Sustainable_Development/City%20of%20Berkeley%20Electric%20Mobility%20Roadm ap_2020.pdf

418
Budget Referral and Resolution Establishing City Process for Siting and Developing Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast-charging Stations

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
3 However, access to charging infrastructure is the primary barrier to broadscale EV adoption. Installing Level 1 or Level 28 charging infrastructure in multifamily housing properties is a significant equity issue. Due to their age,9 many multifamily buildings require an expensive electric panel upgrade. Renters in single family homes may face the same challenge. Single family homes in Berkeley that are owner occupied but without garages also face hurdles because installing curbside charging is extremely expensive and challenging on many levels. Charging infrastructure in Berkeley is also necessary to meet the needs of visitors and commuters doing business in the city and traveling through our community. Therefore, if we are to achieve the state’s goals of 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025 (and 5 million by 2030), and Berkeley’s CAP goals, deployment of public fast-charging infrastructure near term is critical.

In Berkeley today there are just two public direct current fast-charging (DCFC) locations at each of Berkeley’s Whole Foods Market locations).10 These do not have adequate capacity to serve increasing demand for public fast-charging.

The City of Berkeley and its public power provider, EBCE, are well positioned to fill this gap by partnering to provide cost effective, conveniently located, accountable, and equitable fast-charging hubs.

EBCE and the City of Berkeley have developed the proposed non-binding term sheet under which EBCE will develop, operate, maintain and market up to three fast-charging hubs in exchange for a Site License with the city to prove EBCE with access and use of public land for the fast-charging hubs.

BACKGROUND
In 2016, Alameda County and eleven of its cities, including Berkeley, entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to form an independent public agency known as the East Bay Community Energy Authority (Authority).11  The Authority launched a Community Choice Energy program, East Bay Community Energy. The purpose of EBCE is to secure electrical energy supply for residents and businesses and manage energy related 8 AC Level 2 EV charging offers charging through 240V or 208V electrical service (like a dryer plug) at 12- 80 amps (typically 32 amps). For every hour, Level 2 EV charging can provide about 10-20 miles of range. (See Berkeley Electric Mobility Roadmap, p. 10). 9 Data from EBCE indicates that 90% of the multi-unit buildings in its service territory are more than 50 years old.
10 Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations, U.S. Department of Energy, https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/analyze?fuel=ELEC&location_mode=address&loc ation=2180%20milvia%20st.&radius=2&ev_levels=1&ev_levels=2&ev_levels=legacy 11 EBCE JPA Agreement, Effective December 1, 2016 as amended by Resolution No. 2018-23 dated June 20, 2018, https://res.cloudinary.com/diactiwk7/image/upload/fl_sanitize,q_auto/east-bay- community-energy-authority-jpa-agreement-12-14-19-with-newark-pleasanton-tracy-1.pdf.

419
Budget Referral and Resolution Establishing City Process for Siting and Developing Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast-charging Stations

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
4 climate change programs like transportation electrification. As the nonprofit, default Load Serving Entity in Berkeley, EBCE delivers electricity with higher renewable energy content at a reduced cost to residents and businesses through PG&E’s transmission and distribution system.12 In 2019, EBCE’s service area expanded into San Joaquin County with the City of Tracy. Today EBCE meets the electricity needs of 60,735 commercial accounts and over 565,000 residential accounts representing 1.6 million people throughout its service area. EBCE is governed by a Board of Directors, with appointed municipal leaders from each of the Authority’s member communities. As a public agency with no shareholders, EBCE reinvests revenue from the sale of electricity back into the community to help its member cities achieve their climate action and economic development goals more quickly.

As Berkeley’s appointee to the EBCE Board of Directors, Vice Mayor Harrison’s office and the City’s Office of Energy and Sustainable Development have engaged in multiyear conversations with EBCE staff to explore options for providing Berkeley residents with affordable, equitable EV charging infrastructure. This work occurred alongside ongoing efforts by EBCE to help the City electrify its municipal fleet and building stock, and the recently adopted Council policy to upgrade citywide accounts to 100% renewable electricity.

In the summer of 2021, EBCE presented Vice Mayor Harrison with a potential partnership proposal to site EV fast-charging hubs at to be determined city-owned parking lots and garages. EBCE has provided a non-binding term sheet13 outlining the respective proposed responsibilities of both parties. Adopting the term sheet will facilitate a subsequent binding Service Agreement.

EBCE intends to work with the City to site the fast-charging hubs in areas with a dense concentration of multifamily housing to ensure renters, who represent nearly 50% of the population in EBCE’s service territory, have equitable access to the benefits of EVs near term. To date, these areas are significantly underserved by charging infrastructure, representing a critical barrier in achieving the State of California’s EV adoption goals.

Each EBCE fast-charging hub will consist of 10-15 dual-port DCFC stations (up to 30 ports total).

EBCE intends to scale this approach with each of its Authority member communities Berkeley would likely be the first to move forward with this non-binding term sheet. 12 Assembly Bill 117 (Stat. 2002, ch. 838, codified at Public Utilities Code Section 366.2) 13 Non-comprehensive and subject to change pursuant to ongoing conversations between the City and EBCE.

420
Budget Referral and Resolution Establishing City Process for Siting and Developing Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast-charging Stations

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
5 Overview of Non-binding Term Sheet
Building EV fast-charging hubs across EBCE’s service territory will require significant project capital. EBCE seeks to raise this capital using a public-public partnership with member communities signing a Service Agreement with EBCE. The Service Agreement and associated fees (described below) will allow EBCE to raise low-cost capital and provide dividends to EBCE’s Authority member communities through a profit-sharing agreement. Under the draft proposal, EBCE would develop, interconnect, own, operate and maintain the fast-charging hubs. EBCE would also finance the project(s) with their own capital, private equity and debt. EBCE will book, claim and sell Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits (provided through the California Air Resources Board’s LCFS program) to help fund project operations.

In addition, EBCE will be responsible for procuring wholesale renewable electricity (e.g., Renewable 100) for each fast-charging hub and associated rate structures to encourage maximum utilization. EBCE will also market the fast-charging hubs, and will partner with the City and private sector stakeholders to increase EV adoption and fast-charging hub utilization.

The City of Berkeley would be responsible for an annual Service Agreement Fee of $100,000 per EV fast-charging Hub. The contracted revenues from Service Agreement Fees will allow EBCE to raise low-cost capital to develop the fast-charging hub. Scaling this model to other member agencies will facilitate the development of a network of hubs across Alameda County.

Concurrent to the Service Agreement, EBCE and the City will execute Site License Agreements to provide access to EBCE to up to three City parking lots and/or garages to site and operate EV fast-charging hubs. The Site License will include a Site License Fee which will be paid to the City once the Net Operating Income14 from the project exceeds EBCE’s annual debt service of $500,000. As EBCE fast-charging hub utilization increases over time the Site License Fees are expected to meet and then exceed the Service Agreement fees resulting in net annual revenue to the City. The City of Berkeley will receive 40% of net proceeds from the projects. The City will also receive additional Utility Users Tax revenue and any sales tax associated with related economic activity.
14 Net Operating Income as the sum total of electricity sales and LCFS revenue minus operating costs such as electricity procurement, operations and maintenance

421
Budget Referral and Resolution Establishing City Process for Siting and Developing Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast-charging Stations

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
6 Under the Low Utilization Case15, the City is expected to receive a net investment profit of approximately $51,000. Under a high utilization scenario,16 net profit is estimated at $851,000. EBCE plans to provide the City with more detailed financing estimates. See Appendix p. 1 for details for Site License Revenue formula.

EBCE will utilize project revenue, Service Fees and EBCE capital to:
1) fund project operations and service debt
2) fund a Reserve balance equal to one year of Project Debt Service, and 3) pay dividends to EBCE (60%) and City of Berkeley (40%)
The City’s total revenue is represented by the following formula:

Berkeley Total
Revenue
= Site License Revenue + Marginal UUT
Revenue
EBCE proposes that each fast-charging hub will have a minimum of 10 dual port charging stations and each fast-charging station will require two parking spaces. Each allocated parking space must be EV Only for the purpose of charging, and each EV fast charge hub will require compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The City would provide free access to lots and/or garages to EV drivers for a minimum of one hour to enable use of the fast-charging stations. While the City could experience some loss of parking revenues for those individual spaces, it is expected, based on the experience of other parking structures with fast charging capacity, that more overall traffic will be driven to the parking lots for a net gain in parking revenue.

The City would work with EBCE to expedite permitting of the EV fast-charging hub(s). It would also commit to increase awareness of EV fast-charging hub availability to residents, businesses and visitors. EBCE has access to data about current EV owners and will provide targeted marketing to them as well as extensive marketing to the general public to encourage EV ownership.

EBCE has mapped multi-family housing against City-owned third-party parking lots, multi-unit dwellings, and concentration of TNC passenger pick-up and drop-off (see Appendix, p. 2). Each site will be assessed by EBCE in collaboration with City staff for technical feasibility, public service attributes (e.g., multi-family housing and retail proximity) and installation costs. EBCE’s technical assessment of proposed sites, should any of the City of Berkley’s lots and/or garages be determined infeasible for project deployment, the City would assist EBCE with connecting with other public 15 This scenario assumes an initial utilization of EV charging spaces of 1.5%, with a 1.5% growth in utilization of each space each year.
16 This scenario assumes an initial utilization of EV charging spaces of 5%, with a 1.5% growth in utilization of each space each year.

422
Budget Referral and Resolution Establishing City Process for Siting and Developing Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast-charging Stations

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
7 agency and/or private sector stakeholders who own strategic real estate assets suitable for EV fast-charging hub development.

Overview of Process for Supporting Non-Binding Term Sheet, Negotiating Service Agreement and Budgeting for Berkeley’s Expected Service Fee Vice Mayor Harrison’s Office has convened and will continue to hold meetings between EBCE leadership and staff, the City Manager’s Office, OESD, and the City Attorney’s Office to review and finalize the scope of the non-binding term sheet.

This Resolution requests that the non-binding term sheet be referred to the FITES Committee to hold at least two public hearings to consider this item and the term sheet, with expected submission for Council for consideration in March, 2022. Council approval of the term sheet at that time will provide direction about the allocation to be referred to the budget process and will provide EBCE and City staff with direction to negotiate and finalize a Service Agreement following adoption of the FY ‘23 - ’24 budget. A final Service Agreement would be submitted by staff for Council adoption.

Council adoption of this item and Resolution in support of the term sheet is a good faith effort towards partnership and reaching a binding agreement; however, it does not bind the City to any terms, agreements, or budgetary allocations.

Budgetary Considerations and Opportunities
EBCE forecasts that through the recent citywide decision to upgrade community accounts to its Renewable 100 electricity product, and the ongoing adoption of EVs, UUT revenues could increase by $400,000-$600,000 annually over the next 2-3 years.

This does not include any additional revenue resulting from the operation of the proposed fast-charging hubs.

EBCE estimates that UUT revenues from existing Berkeley EV drivers charging on Renewable 100 would generate approximately $105,000 per year based on 2021 EV registration figures. Therefore, a General Fund allocation of $100,000 times three hubs per year could be justified on existing and projected UUT income from EVs alone.

Further, EBCE estimates that Berkeley’s ambitious goal of 15,000 EVs by 2025 could generate approximately $1.3 million in UUT per year, plus any additional revenue from visitors who charge their EVs in Berkeley.

The City’s engagement in this partnership represents an innovative and bold realization of the original premise of EBCE’s founding—providing residents with affordable and clean publicly-procured electricity that reduces GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants. It also furthers the City’s goals of equity and equality by providing residents

423
Budget Referral and Resolution Establishing City Process for Siting and Developing Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast-charging Stations

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
8 who are renters access to a zero-carbon transportation fuel that will significantly reduce emissions from Berkeley’s transportation sector.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The City could try to raise capital to fund fast-charging hub development on its own and receive LCFC credits. However, the City would need to make a significant upfront investment without the same initial level of capital access enjoyed by EBCE. The City also lacks certain expertise in terms of operating utility-level services.

The City could wait for the private market to build fast-charging infrastructure at scale.

However, there are no guarantees that this will materialize in the timeframe needed to meet state and local climate action goals. Private sector owned fast-charging will not necessarily be sited in convenient or equitable locations that serve renters in multifamily housing. The City would forgo the benefits to residents of EV adoption at scale and the potential revenue from the proposed public-public profit-sharing agreement with EBCE.

JUST TRANSITION
Substituting passenger vehicle miles traveled with zero-carbon mobility will reduce GHG emissions and air pollution, which disproportionately impact frontline communities.

The item prioritizes deployment of fast-charging hubs in areas with dense concentrations of multifamily properties which will enable lower-income residents that need access to a personal vehicle to transition to EVs.

Consistent with City values and equity initiatives, the City should strive with EBCE to ensure that project investments support prevailing wage and other labor standards, and minority-owned contractors.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This item would result in investments of $100,000/year per hub across three hubs for 10 years, reduced by any Site License Fee revenues remitted by EBCE to the City. Under the low and high hub utilization scenarios, EBCE estimates the City will likely recoup its investment via Site License fees after 8-10 years, depending on utilization.17 The City would likely see net profits from Site License Revenue estimated at between $51,000 and $851,000. In addition, EBCE estimates that there will be an additional $400k-$600k in Utility User Tax proceeds annually over next 2-3 years due to existing City policies, and up to $1.3 million per year by 2025 if Berkeley meets its EV adoption goals.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Supporting incentives for building decarbonization will complement and accelerate 17 Not including any increase in UUT that the City collects.

424
Budget Referral and Resolution Establishing City Process for Siting and Developing Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast-charging Stations

CONSENT CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
9 Berkeley’s ongoing efforts to reduce carbon emissions at an emergency and equitable pace in line with the Climate Action Plan, Climate Emergency Declaration, and Electric Mobility Roadmap.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Kate Harrison, Council District 4, 510-981-7140

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Appendix

425
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY PROCESS FOR SITING AND DEVELOPING

PUBLIC ELECTRIC VEHICLE DC FAST CHARGING HUBS
WHEREAS, the world is facing a grave climate emergency, requiring municipalities to rapidly and justly transition towards a zero-carbon economy by 2030; and WHEREAS, 60% of Berkeley’s sector-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as of 2019 result from the transportation sector, and in addition to public transportation, walking, biking and scooters, replacing internal combustion vehicles with electric vehicles will be a major factor in reducing emissions; and WHEREAS, transitioning Berkeley’s economy will require significant investment on the part of both government and residents and low-carbon technology, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure, which is underdeveloped in Berkeley and can often be out of reach for many households; and
WHEREAS, the primary hurdle to widespread electric vehicle adoption moving forward will be the availability of reliable and convenient fast charging infrastructure for residents who are renters who do not have access to charging at home and commuters, visitors and businesses; and
WHEREAS, City’s Electric Mobility Roadmap and Climate Action goals provides a goal of having 15,000 electric light-duty vehicles registered in Berkeley by 2025, which according to California Energy Commission modeling would require a significant investment in public direct current fast charging (DCFC) ports; and WHEREAS, Alameda County’s default public power provider, East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), is proposing a public-public partnership with the City to develop and operate up to three DCFC hubs, that EBCE will own and operate, across Berkeley in areas with a dense concentration of multifamily housing that are near amenities desired by drivers; and
WHEREAS, the proposed public-public partnership would provide Berkeley residents and visitors with state-of-the-art fast charging infrastructure, enabling the transition from internal combustion vehicles for those who were not early adopters and reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector; and
WHEREAS, EBCE and the City of Berkeley have developed the proposed non-binding term sheet describing how EBCE would develop, operate and market up to three DCFC hubs under a Service Agreement; and
WHEREAS, in parallel EBCE will negotiate a Site License Agreement with the City providing EBCE with access and use of public land for EBCE’s DCFC hubs, and once the project is generating revenues above EBCE’s annual project costs, EBCE will share revenue with the City via the Site License Agreement; and

426
WHEREAS, the Site License Agreement revenue payments and Utility Users Tax proceeds, resulting from increased electricity consumption as a transportation fuel at EBCE’s DCFC hubs, can provide the City of Berkeley with new revenue sources; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City to proceed to negotiate a Service Agreement with EBCE as generally proposed by the non-binding term sheet.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or their designee is authorized to negotiate a Service Agreement with EBCE subject generally to the non-binding terms included in the attached term sheet and any subsequent amendments or modifications thereto, as the City and EBCE may deem appropriate, and that execution of the Service Agreement is contingent upon Council allocation of funding for the City’s Service Fee as part of the FY 2023-2024 budget process and subsequent adoption of the Service Agreement by Council.

Attachment:

A: Non-binding Public Electric Vehicle DC Fast Charging Hub Term Sheet between EBCE and the City of Berkeley

427

TERM SHEET FOR PUBLIC DC FAST CHARGING (DCFC) PARTNERSHIP Overview
East Bay Community Energy (“EBCE”) seeks to partner with its Joint Powers Authority member cities and the County of Alameda to develop, own, and operate a network of publicly available electric vehicle (“EV”) fast charging projects, or “EV Fast Charge Hubs”, sited at municipally owned parking lots and garages across the EBCE Service Territory. EBCE will site EV Fast Charge Hubs in areas with a dense concentration of multifamily housing to ensure renters, who represent nearly 50% of the population in EBCE’s service territory, have equitable access to the benefits of EVs. To date, these areas are significantly underserved by charging infrastructure which represents a critical barrier in achieving the State of California’s EV adoption goals due to the fact that renters do not have access to charging where they live. Each EV Fast Charge Hub will consist of a minimum of 10 dual-port fast charging stations. EBCE intends to develop up to three (3) EV Fast Charge Hubs per JPA member community.

Building EV Fast Charging Hubs across EBCE’s service territory will require significant project capital.

EBCE seeks to raise this capital using a public-public partnership with member communities providing a revenue guarantee, or “backstop,” to cover project debt service (described below). This backstop will yield a lower cost of capital and can provide dividends to our City and County partners through a profit sharing mechanism.

To develop EBCE’s EV Fast Charge Hubs, we envision entering into a Services Agreement and Site License Agreement(s) with the City of Berkeley that will include the following terms:

EBCE Responsibilities:
 Develop, interconnect, own, operate and maintain EV Fast Charge Hubs  Finance project development and operations with EBCE capital, private equity and debt o EBCE will fund working capital and a reserve account sufficient to cover one year of debt service
o EBCE will book, claim and sell Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits to fund project operations  EBCE will pay the City of Berkeley an annual Site License fee starting the year after project Net Operating Income exceeds EBCE’s cost to service Debt.
o The Site License fee will be calculated by the following formula:
 Once 'year N' Project Net Operating Income > EBCE Annual Project Debt Service payment, then:
 Site License fee (year N+1) = 40% * [Net Operating Income (year N) – EBCE Annual Project Debt Service payment (year N)]
 Net Operating Income is the sum total of electricity sales and LCFS revenue minus operating costs such as electricity procurement, operations and maintenance.  Procure wholesale renewable electricity (e.g., Renewable 100) for use as a transportation fuel  Develop EV specific charging rates, that are beneficial to all drivers, to encourage utilization  Market EV Fast Charge Hubs to drivers across EBCE territory  Partner with private sector stakeholders to increase EV adoption and EBCE EV Fast Charge Hub utilization

428
City of Berkeley Responsibilities:
 City of Berkeley will sign a Service Agreement with EBCE to provide Public DC Fast Charging with an annual Service Fee of $100,000 per EV Fast Charging Hub o The Service Fee will be billed on the first day of commercial operation and billed annually henceforth
o EBCE will reduce the annual Service Fee by the amount of the Site License fee. o The Annual Site License fee may exceed the Annual Service fee, resulting in net payments to City of Berkeley from EBCE
 Provide EBCE access to the City of Berkeley’s parking lot and/or garage real estate portfolio for siting EV Fast Charge Hubs (e.g., host site).
o The number of parking spaces at each host site (e.g., lot/garage) must be sufficient to support the deployment of EBCE’s EV Fast Charge Hubs.
 Each Fast Charge Hub will have a minimum of 10 charging stations and each dual port fast charging station will require 2 parking spaces  Each parking space must be EV Only for the use case of charging  Each EV Fast Charge Hub will require compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), which mandates allocation of additional EV Only parking spaces. o Provide free access to lots/garages to EV drivers for a minimum of one (1) hour for the use of EV charging
o Allow access 24 hours per day / 7 days per week
 Work with EBCE to expedite permitting of the EV Fast Charge Hub(s)  Increase awareness of EV Fast Charge Hub availability to residents, businesses and visitors  After EBCE site technical assessment, should any of the City of Berkley lot/garage(s) be determined infeasible for project deployment, assist EBCE with connecting with other public agency and/or private sector stakeholders who own strategic real estate assets suitable for EV Fast Charge Hub development
Next Steps and Proposed Schedule:

Action Item Timing (in sequence)
EBCE and City of Berkeley execute Services Agreement 2-4 months EBCE identifies siting priorities 2 months
EBCE and City of Berkeley execute Site License Lease
Agreement
4 months
EBCE develops EV Fast Charge Hubs 6-12 months
The following departments, at minimum, will need to be engaged in the negotiation and development process:

Department Include: (Y/N) Lead Contact
Sustainability Office:

City Manager:

429
City Attorney:

Finance Department:

Public Works:

City Council:

Other:

Conclusion:

In addition to the terms described above for the Services and Site License Agreements, each will also include terms such as indemnification, insurance, and default provisions which will be negotiated between EBCE and the City of Berkeley. The terms included in this Term Sheet serve as a summary, are not all-inclusive and do not constitute a binding commitment at this time between EBCE and the City of Berkeley.

430
Appendix
Proposed Site License Fee (Paid to City of Berkeley) Formula The City’s Site License Fee is calculated in the following manner:

Site License fee (year
N+1)
= 40% * [Net Operating Income (year N) – EBCE
Annual Project Debt Service payment (year
N)]
Whereby:
(NOI) = Net Operating Income: the sum total of electricity sales and LCFS revenue minus operating costs such as electricity procurement, operations and maintenance.

Year N = Project year where NOI > EBCE Project Debt Service

431
Appendix
EBCE Mapping of Berkeley Multi-Unit Dwellings, Favorable City-Owned and Non-City-owned Parking Lots/Garages, and Concentration of TNC Passenger Pick-up and Drop-off ⬡ Proprietary data from Transportation Network Company regarding concentration of pick- up and drop-off activities (provided to EBCE via non-disclosure agreement)

432
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

ACTION CALENDAR
February 8, 2022
(Continued from November 30, 2021)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Department of Planning and Development Subject: Berkeley’s 2019 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

SUMMARY
City staff conducts an annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory to understand the sources of community-wide GHG emissions, to measure progress towards meeting the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals, and to move toward becoming a Fossil Fuel-Free city. Like previous annual inventories, Berkeley’s 2019 community-wide GHG inventory focuses on emissions specifically occurring within the City and includes the following sources: transportation (on-road vehicles and public transit), building electricity usage, building natural gas consumption, landfill solid waste, and emissions from water consumption and wastewater treatment.

Total community-wide GHG emissions in 2019 decreased 26% from the 2000 baseline, and decreased 4% from 2018. The GHG emissions inventory for 2019 was the last inventory before the COVID-19 pandemic, which will impact the data found in future inventories, particularly in the transportation and building sectors.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Berkeley’s community-wide GHG emissions inventory is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment. 2019 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
In 2019, Berkeley’s community-wide greenhouse gas emissions totaled 540,569 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e).

The distribution of Berkeley’s emissions seen below in Figure 1 is similar to previous years, with the majority of emissions coming from Berkeley’s transportation sector and the natural gas consumed within buildings. Emissions from the transportation sector, which includes on-road vehicles, BART, AC Transit, Amtrak and maritime vessels, accounted for 60% (326,568 mtCO2e) of the overall emissions.

Energy usage data for Berkeley buildings, provided by East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) and PG&E, is broken down into residential, municipal, and commercial

433
Berkeley’s 2019 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ACTION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

(including industrial) buildings—for both electricity use and natural gas combustion. The built environment is the second largest source of emissions at 36% (196,819 mtCO2e).

As the electricity grid becomes cleaner, the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e., natural gas) within Berkeley’s buildings becomes the primary source of the building sector’s emissions, accounting for 32% of Berkeley’s overall greenhouse emissions.

Figure 1: Pie chart of 2019 community-wide GHG emissions inventory, broken down by sector and fuel.
[CA
TEGORY NAME]
[PERCENTAGE]
[CA
TEGORY NAME]
[PERCENTAGE]
[CA
TEGORY NAME]
[PERCENTAGE]Resid
ential Electricity
2%
Mun
icipal Buildings
0%Wate
r Consumption
& Waste Water
0%
Lan
dfill Waste
3%
[CA
TEGORY NAME]
[PERCENTAGE]
2019
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Emissions from Berkeley’s municipal buildings account for 0.3% (1,442 mtCO2e) of the 2019 community-wide emissions. See Attachment 1 for additional information on Berkeley’s municipal building energy efficiency and electrification projects.

The remaining 4% (17,182 mtCO2e) of Berkeley’s community-wide emissions come from landfill solid waste, water consumption, and waste water treatment.

Current Community-Wide Sector-Based GHG Emission Trends The most current community emissions from 2019 are compared to the Climate Action Plan (CAP) baseline year of 2000, to identify reductions achieved thus far. A historic summary of Berkeley’s annual emissions inventories from 2000 to 2019 is provided in Figure 2. Please note that due to data access issues, building energy use data for 2015 and 2016 was developed with assumptions and is represented with shaded coloring. No inventory was calculated for 2017, so that year of data is omitted.

Summary:

Buildings: 36%
Transportation: 60%
Waste: 3%
Water: <1%

434
Berkeley’s 2019 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ACTION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

Figure 1: Historic Berkeley emissions inventories back to 2000, broken out into building natural gas and electricity, transportation, and other (water, wastewater treatment and landfill solid waste).

Community-wide emissions in 2019 decreased 26% from the 2000 baseline and decreased 4% from 2018. Berkeley has moved beyond its initial emissions reduction goal, 80% GHG emissions reduction by 2050, established by the CAP. On May 11, 2021, Berkeley City Council committed to become zero net emissions by 2045 or sooner1, requiring an additional 74% reduction of GHG emissions over the next 24 years.

Buildings
Overall greenhouse gas emissions from Berkeley’s building sector decreased by 3% from 2018 to 2019, placing our current building sector emissions 45% below our 2000 baseline. Total community-wide electricity usage decreased 4% while total community- wide natural gas usage increased by 1% from 2018 to 2019.

Impacts to Berkeley’s Building sector emissions:
 PG&E Electricity Emission Factor - While the majority of the community-wide electricity is provided by EBCE, 7% was provided by PG&E in 2019. PG&E’s default electricity product for 2019 was initially calculated to be nearly emissions- free through a new calculation methodology, but is currently being re-evaluated 1Commit to Race to Zero Council Report and Resolution, May 11, 2021:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/05_May/Documents/2021-05- 11_Item_19_Commit_to_C40_Race_to_Zero_Campaign.aspx

435
Berkeley’s 2019 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ACTION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

by the Climate Registry2. Until the 2019 emission factor is published, the Climate Registry has specified that PG&E’s 2018 emission factor should be used for 2019 calculations.
 Continual Roll-out of East Bay Community Energy – In 2018, 31% of our community-wide electricity usage was provided by EBCE, with 1% of that usage provided by one of EBCE’s emissions-free products, Renewable 100 and Brilliant 100. The automatic roll-out, switching both residential and commercial accounts from electricity purchased through PG&E to EBCE, continued into 2019. Due to this rollout, electricity provided by EBCE increased to 93% of community-wide electricity usage for 2019 and the usage provided by one of EBCE’s emissions free products increased to 3%.
 EBCE Bright Choice Electricity Emission Factor – The emission factor for EBCE’s default electricity product, Bright Choice, increased by 34% in 2019. The Bright Choice product accounts for 90% of our 2019 community-wide electricity consumption. Even with the emission factor increasing from 2018 to 2019 it still remains significantly lower than PG&E’s emission factor for 2018. The increase is related to the changing procurement costs and loss of nuclear allocation in the 2019 electricity mix. EBCE is committed to providing 100% emission-free Bright Choice by 2030. Additionally, during 2022, all Berkeley Customers will be automatically opted-up into EBCE’s Renewable 1003.

Transportation
A new data source and methodology was used to calculate community-wide emissions from the transportation sector. Using the new methodology, total community-wide transportation emissions decreased 5% from 2018 to 2019 due in part to more sustainable modes of commuting.

The City has historically used the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Travel Model One, to calculate emissions for the transportation sector. Travel Model One is based on a simulation model of typical weekday travel, created to assist in regional planning activities. The model’s projections use historic data, and estimate total vehicle miles on 5-year increments. As a result, using this model makes it difficult to track the impact of new transportation policies, yearly changes to commuting patterns, or impacts from events like the COVID-19 pandemic.
2 Emission factors for both PG&E and EBCE electricity are verified by a third-party and publicly reported through the Climate Registry: https://www.theclimateregistry.org/our-members/cris-public-reports/ 3 Energy Commission Report to Council: Adopt a Resolution to Upgrade Residential and Commercial Customers to East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) Renewable 100 Plan, June 29, 2021:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/06_June/Documents/2021-06- 29_Item_24_Adopt_a_Resolution_to_Upgrade_Residential.aspx

436
Berkeley’s 2019 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ACTION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

In December 2018, Google launched the Environmental
Insights Explorer (EIE). Google EIE is a free tool that helps cities measure emissions from both building
energy usage and on-road transportation. Google EIE
estimates vehicle miles based on aggregated and
anonymized location history data4. Since the data is
based on continuous observation, Google EIE data is a
more accurate indicator of year-to-year changes to local transportation activity and the commuting impacts from
COVID-19.

In addition to providing vehicle miles, Google EIE data provides the share of miles traveled through
sustainable modes of transportation (see Figure 3).

The total number of miles traveled through sustainable
modes of transportation, which includes public transit, cycling, and walking, increased by 13% from 2018 to
2019, with the majority of these miles being taken on
BART and/or on foot (see Figure 4). During that same
time period, the total number of miles driven by people in automotive vehicles decreased by 4%. This is the
first year Berkeley has been able to track these modes
at this level of detail.

Impacts to Berkeley’s Transportation sector emissions:
 Switching from MTC to Google EIE model - 2018 is the first available year for Google’s EIE data and Berkeley’s 2018 emissions inventory was updated with the new methodology. Inventories prior to 2018 will remain on the MTC modeled transportation emissions. Switching to the Google EIE data has slightly increased the transportation sector emissions for both 2018 and 2019. The 2018 transportation sector emissions calculated with
Google EIE data was 7% higher than the MTC
modeled emissions, and the 2019 transportation
emissions with Google EIE data was only 2%
higher than the MTC modeled emissions.
 Using National Defaults – The 2019
transportation emissions were calculated using
total vehicle miles traveled from Google EIE and
national default values for determining vehicle
categories and their average fuel economy. Over
the next year, staff will work to develop and vet a
4 Technical Review of Google Environmental Insights Explorer 11%
14%
47%
29%
CY

CLING BUS (AC T

RANSIT)

BART WA
LKING
2019 Sustainable Modes
Figure 2: Total miles traveled via
automotive and sustainable modes
of transportation.

Figure 3: Proportion of miles
traveled on sustainable modes of
transportation by type for 2019.
648,
756
,900 620
103 116
2018 2019
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700

AUTOMOTIVE SUSTAINABLE MODES
Mil
es Traveled by Mode
Miles Traveled (millions)

437
Berkeley’s 2019 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ACTION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

new methodology to replace the national defaults with local values.

Landfill Solid Waste
Total community-wide landfill solid waste and overall emissions from the waste sector decreased by 3.6% in 2019 compared to 2018, placing our current waste sector emissions 35% below our 2000 baseline.

Additional Context
 Race to Zero – The Race to Zero is global campaign run by the COP26 Presidency and High-Level Climate Champions to rally non-state entities, including companies, cities and regions, to take immediate action to halve global emissions by 2030 and be net zero emissions by 2050. The City of Berkeley joined5 the Race to Zero initiative on May 11, 2021, committing to reach net zero emissions by 2045 and to set an interim 2030 target consistent with a fair share of 50% global emission reductions.
 Consumption-Based GHG Emissions Inventory - Although the more traditional emission inventory that Berkeley uses—known as a “production-based” or “sector-based” inventory—lays a foundation for key climate policy and program planning, taking a look at the emissions beyond Berkeley’s borders is necessary to address the climate crisis as a regional or global issue. Consumption-based inventories consider the entire life cycle of a specific product to calculate its GHG emissions. Included are goods and services such as air travel (even if, as for Berkeley, the airport is located outside of a jurisdictional boundary), food, appliances, and construction of buildings. An inventory of all Alameda County cities was created by the CoolClimate Network in 20186 and was reported in Berkeley’s Community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory that year.

Capturing this data accurately has been proven very complex and there is currently no standardized methodology to account and report across cities.  Embodied Carbon – Embodied carbon is the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions associated with the materials and construction process for buildings or infrastructure. Only operational carbon, from building energy consumption, is captured through Berkeley’s building sector emissions and emissions related to a building’s embodied carbon are not included in Berkeley’s annual emissions inventory.
 Interest in Regional/State inventories – There is increasing interest in transitioning annual local greenhouse gas inventories to a regional or state entity, such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB). These inventories would continue to provide sector-based emissions at the city-level jurisdictional 5 Commit to Race to Zero Council Report and Resolution, May 11, 2021:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/05_May/Documents/2021-05- 11_Item_19_Commit_to_C40_Race_to_Zero_Campaign.aspx
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Consumption-Based GHG Emissions Inventory:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/emission-inventory/consumption-based-ghg-emissions- inventory

438
Berkeley’s 2019 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ACTION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

boundary but the data collection, processing, and reporting would be completed by a regional or state entity. These groups have better access to the data needed for this work and it would increase standardization of the varying inventory methodologies across local jurisdictions, allowing for meaningful cross- jurisdictional comparisons.

Staff will continue to work with regional and other partners, such as StopWaste, the Local Government Commission, and the Urban Sustainability Director’s Network, to monitor advances in greenhouse inventory models, tools, and frameworks that would improve Berkeley’s understanding and efforts to capture community-wide emissions.

BACKGROUND
Since Berkeley’s adoption of its historic Climate Action Plan in 2009, city staff has conducted an annual GHG emissions inventory in order to understand the sources of community-wide GHG emissions, and the impacts of local, regional, and larger efforts to reduce emissions. Data is gathered from regional entities on sector-specific activities, and is then converted to metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e). The inventory utilizes the best available data and follows the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy protocol which allows the City to report consistently to the community and to other agencies.

Although this inventory does not include UC Berkeley and The Berkeley Lab, as they are outside the City’s jurisdiction, they continue to be valued partners in efforts working to improve Berkeley’s shared community emissions and combat climate change.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Berkeley’s community-wide annual greenhouse gas inventory allows the city to measure and track its progress for implementing Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan and reaching zero net emissions by 2045.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Race to Zero initiative requires Cities to establish an interim science-based 2030 target that is consistent with a fair share of 50% global emission reductions. Staff is working with ICLEI, a global network of local governments, to create the required science-based 2030 target. Accompanying the 2019 GHG inventory report, staff will bring the 2030 emission reduction target to Council for consideration.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no direct fiscal impacts to establishing the science-based 2030 target.

CONTACT PERSON
Billi Romain, Manager, Office of Energy & Sustainable Development – Planning Department, (510) 981-9732
Attachments:

439
Berkeley’s 2019 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ACTION CALENDAR February 8, 2022

1: Municipal Facilities Emissions Savings Upgrades (2019)

440
Attachment 1: Municipal Facilities Emissions Savings Upgrades (2019) The City continues to make improvements to its municipal facilities to increase energy efficiency, lower energy costs, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and transition buildings toward being all-electric powered by clean electricity. Municipal buildings use emissions-free electricity from East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), purchasing the Brilliant 100 product in 2019 and the Renewable 100 product as of 2021.

Energy upgrades, including efficiency and electrification, were integrated into building renovations and capital improvement projects during 2019. Those projects and others funded through incentives and grants, are highlighted below:

Mental Health Adult Services Clinic, 2640 Martin Luther King Jr. Way Significant building renovation, with the intent of being an all-electric zero emissions building, was started in 2018. Older plumbing equipment was replaced with high efficiency products and inefficient natural gas systems were replaced with efficient electric heat pump technology. All of the natural gas end uses were eliminated and the gas meter was removed. Electric service was increased to accommodate new heating and cooling energy loads, and a solar electric system was installed that is intended to offset 100% of the electric energy used at this site. The building will have a formal case study done, as part of the Lawrence Berkeley National Labs grant, which also includes energy monitoring for several years.

Live Oak Recreation Center, 1301 Shattuck Avenue
Renovations during 2019 included energy upgrades and partial electrification of the heating systems to remove gas wall furnaces in the recreation center. Gas heat remains in the theater portion of the building, which is leased to various entities. Water heating has been electrified and a new roof with insulation was installed to reduce summer solar heat gain and preserve winter heat provided by the heat pump. Large ceiling-mounted fans were installed in the gymnasium area to increase occupant comfort and save on cooling loads. A full cost and energy analysis will be done for 2020.

North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst Avenue
This Senior Center closed for renovations in 2019 and will be an all-electric building when completed by 2022. The gas boilers were replaced with high efficiency heat pumps and a solar PV system has been added to offset annual energy use. An EBCE grant of $49,000 for Commercial Kitchen Electrification was awarded in 2021 for both North and South Berkeley Senior Centers. The grant provides funding to replace the gas range with a new six-burner electric induction cooktop. It will also replace the original kitchen steam table, which used natural gas-heated hot water and electric resistance heaters to keep food warm, with a new dry well induction food warming table, thereby reducing electric load and eliminating this need for hot water, saving both gas and water costs.

441
South Berkeley Senior Center, 2939 Ellis Street
The South Berkeley Senior Center is also a recipient of the same Commercial Kitchen Electrification grant to the City from EBCE. This grant will cover some of the costs of new induction cooktop, a new drywell food warmer to replace the original steam table, the costs of all electrical induction cooking equipment, and labor to rewire circuits to these appliances.

Public Safety Building, 2100 Martin Luther King Jr Way
Beginning in 2018, the Public Safety Building (PSB) started participating in an Automated Demand Response (ADR) project that resulted in cost savings of about $11,000 that year, plus a one-time incentive of $1,400. A lighting upgrade to LEDs and better lighting controls was completed in the PSB in 2019, resulting in total cost savings of $13,600 in 2019. The lighting upgrade was the City’s first On Bill Financing (OBF) project. The total cost was $250,000, with zero up-front costs; the City is repaying the loan on its monthly utility bill.

The loan payment is roughly equal to the energy cost savings, resulting in no cost increase for the City, while reducing energy use and GHG emissions. Additional OBF projects are being developed as energy efficiency and electrification assessments are completed for other City buildings.

Dona Spring Animal Shelter, 1 Bolivar Drive
A complete energy assessment was done in 2018-2019 of all systems at the Animal Shelter, including HVAC, lighting, and plug loads. This study delineated the energy used by the AT&T cell phone tower on top of the building from the Animal Shelter operations.

Municipal Street Light Retrofit to Lower Wattage LEDs, citywide Municipal street lights were originally converted to LEDs in 2010-2012. In 2018-2020, approximately 7,000 cobra head street light fixtures were replaced due to a manufacturing defect. The new, lower wattage fixtures, provided by the vendor to the City at no cost, meet CalTrans standards and will result in considerably less energy consumed and lower utility bills. A full cost and energy analysis of this project is pending, as PG&E is still correcting the billing and providing updated energy consumption for 2019.

442
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

PUBLIC HEARING
February 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning & Development Department Subject: ZAB Appeal: 2956 Hillegass Avenue Use Permit #ZP2021-0068

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution affirming the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision to approve Zoning Permit #ZP2021-0068 for the addition of a 170 square foot third-floor balcony to the rear of an existing three-story 2,834 square foot single-family dwelling on a 2,754 square foot lot that is non- conforming to lot coverage.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On September 9, 2021, ZAB conducted a public hearing and approved staff’s recommendation to approve the Use Permit for the addition or enlargement to a lawfully non-conforming structure that exceeded the maximum allowable lot coverage, and the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) for a residential addition over 14 feet in average height with an added condition to provide additional screening on the west and north side of the balcony (see Exhibit A to the resolution, Condition #11). ZAB approved the project with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0-1, with one recusal by a member who lived with 500 feet of the project site. (Motion Tregub / Second Sanderson; Yes: Tregub, Duffy, Gaffney, Thompson, Olson, O’Keefe, Kim, Sanderson; Abstain: None; Absent: None; Recused:

Khan.)
On September 21, 2021, staff issued the notice of the ZAB decision, which established a 14-day appeal period.

On October 4, 2021, an appeal was filed with the City Clerk/Council by the Barbara Romanowicz and Tamio Kajita, neighbors at 2954 Hillegass Avenue and 2523 Webster Street, respectively.

443
ZAB Appeal: 2956 Hillegass Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Use Permit #ZP2021-0068 February 8, 2022

On or before January 25, 2022, staff posted the City Council notice of public hearing near the site and mailed notices to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and to all registered neighborhood groups that cover this area. This public hearing is required to resolve the appeal.

BACKGROUND
On April 26, 2021, Edward W. Buchanan (Buchanan Opalach Architects) submitted an AUP application to create a new upper-floor roof balcony, approximately 170 square feet in area, over the existing roof at the rear of the house. Staff determined that a Use Permit with a public hearing was required because the lot is non-conforming to the maximum allowable lot coverage (BMC 23C.04.070.C1). An AUP was also required because the addition of the balcony, measured to the top of the railings, exceeded 14 feet in average height (BMC 23D.16.070.C).

On May 4, 2021, staff deemed the project application complete.

On August 26, 2021, staff posted the Zoning Adjustment Board (ZAB) Notice of Public Hearing near the site and mailed notices to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and to all registered neighborhood groups that cover this area.

At the time the staff report was written, 37 communications had been received expressing both support and opposition to the project. These were included as Attachment 4 of the September 9, 2021 staff report to the ZAB (see Attachment 2 to this report).

On September 9, 2021, the ZAB held a public hearing and approved staff’s recommendation to approve Use Permit # ZP2020-0060 with an added condition to provide additional screening on the north and west side of the proposed balcony. As described in the staff report, the ZAB made the findings for an addition on a lot that is non-conforming to lot coverage, because the project would not increase the lot coverage nor would it exceed the height limit of the zoning district (BMC 23C.04.070).

ZAB also made the general non-detriment finding (BMC 23B.32.040.A) because the property would continue to meet the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) development standards for density, height, and useable open space. The railings would be lower than the highest roof line and not impact the average or maximum structure height. Because the proposal would not increase the building footprint or add walls, potential impacts on light and air was found to be non-detrimental. Potential privacy impacts were found to be non-detrimental because the balcony would be located outside of all required setbacks. The ZAB added the condition for additional screening on the north and west sides of the balcony to address neighbor concerns related to noise and privacy.

Additional Permit History
1 The prior Zoning Ordinance was in effect at the time this application was deemed complete and was heard by ZAB.

The version of the BMC Title 23, Zoning Ordinance, that was in effect at the time this application was deemed complete is available online:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Planning_and_Development/Land_Use_Division/Zoning_Ordinance_Revision_Project _(ZORP).aspx

444
ZAB Appeal: 2956 Hillegass Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Use Permit #ZP2021-0068 February 8, 2022

On December 6, 2019, the same applicant had submitted Use Permit #ZP2019-0196 to enlarge the existing two-story 1,926 square foot single-family dwelling by converting 908 square feet of basement and crawl space area to habitable space, adding new openings to elevations within front and side non-conforming setbacks, increase the number of bedrooms from three to five, and establish an uncovered off-street parking space within the rear setback. On August 13, 2020, the ZAB held a public hearing and approved staff’s recommendation to approve Use Permit # ZP2019-0196 on consent.

In February 2021, during the construction of the related improvements authorized under Building Permit No. B2019-03118, the existing windows were removed and replaced with sliding glass doors, which had not been shown in the approved zoning or building permits. This alteration was allowed by-right because it is not within a setback area and did not add any square footage or modify a roofline of the building over 14 feet in height but still needed to be permitted. The applicant was required to revise the previously approved building permit to include the siding doors with a safety rail in front of them, on the exterior of the structure, for life-safety reasons. The changes were approved and the doors with the railings are now a legally permitted existing condition on the site. The applicant then applied for the use permit that is the subject of this appeal for the 170 square foot balcony with guardrails on the existing flat roof outside of the doors.

ZAB Action
The ZAB unanimously2 voted to approve the project with an added condition that the applicant provide additional screening beyond the proposed railings on the west and north side of the proposed balcony.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The project complies with all state and local environmental requirements.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Applicant/Appellant’s Appeal Issues and Staff Responses: The appellants raised one primary issue in their appeal letter: the proposed balcony will be a nuisance that impacts the privacy and peace of three neighboring sites at 2954 Hillegass Avenue, 2523 Webster Street, and 2525 Webster Street. They also offer an alternative proposal to enclose the proposed balcony area to make it a sunroom. The appeal letter is included here as Attachment 4.

The issues raised in the appellant’s letter and staff’s responses are as follows. For the sake of brevity, the appeal issues are not re-stated in their entirety. Please refer to the attached appeal letter for the full text.

Appeal Issues: The appellants state that the proposed balcony, due to its size and location, will impact the privacy and peace of three of the lots that share common lot 2 8-0-0-1 vote; one member recused because they reside within 500 feet of the subject lot.

445
ZAB Appeal: 2956 Hillegass Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Use Permit #ZP2021-0068 February 8, 2022

lines. The issues raised include the height of the balcony in relation to the rear yards of the neighboring lots at 2523 and 2525 Webster Street (southwest), and that it is only separated by 15 feet from a home office and bedroom at 2954 Hillegass (north). They anticipate noise resulting from the use of the deck and outdoor conversations.

Staff Response: The proposed balcony is 17 feet wide by 10 feet deep (170 square feet in area) and is located on the existing roof of the two-story portion of the building below which contains the existing kitchen nook and laundry area on the main floor and the play room on the lower floor. The proposed balcony would be located off of and accessed only through the master bedroom on the third floor, and is located outside of all required setbacks. Portions of the existing residence are non-conforming to side setbacks, providing 2 feet from the right (north) and 1 foot, 1 inch from the left (south) side lot lines, respectively, where 3.5 feet is required. The proposed balcony, however, sits above an inset two-story portion of the structure that exceeds the side setback requirements and is located 9 feet, 3 inches from the right (north) and 6 feet, 6 inches from the left (south) side lot lines respectively. The required rear setback of 20 feet is met. The north side of the deck is located 15 from the closest structure to the north.

Upper-level balconies are a common feature of the residences in the neighborhood, including a similar existing upper-floor balcony on the rear of the house at 2954 Hillegass, which is located behind the subject property.

Because the proposed deck is located on the roof of the existing two-story structure and outside of all required setbacks, it is situated on the lot in a manner that minimizes privacy impacts. The additional screening on the north and west sides of the proposed balcony required by the ZAB provides further measures to minimize potential privacy impacts. Activity on the residential balcony is not within the purview of the Zoning Ordinance.

Other Issues Raised in Appeal Letter:
 Piecemeal manner of improvements at project site since the initial proposal in 2019 including the upper-floor window modification to sliding doors before filing AUP application;
 Installation of an HVAC unit on the roof;
 Misleading information was presented to the ZAB:
o Sliders shown as “original condition”
o Room on neighbor’s lot is not a sunroom but a home office o Supporters lived far enough away as to not be impacted by the proposed balcony
 Tree removal w/out neighbor consultation
 New fence of poor material on lot line on street side and rear, removal of front landscaping
 Other properties have balconies
Staff Response: The balcony was not part of the original proposal in the 2019 application which included a larger scope of work, including converting existing

446
ZAB Appeal: 2956 Hillegass Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Use Permit #ZP2021-0068 February 8, 2022

basement and crawl space into habitable area. The proposed balcony does not constitute a major residential addition, and only requires a use permit because of the existing condition being non-conforming to lot coverage due to the small lot area.

The AUP for the addition of the railings is required because the railings go above 14 feet in average height, however there is no additional footprint or changes to the roofline. The proposed balcony is a relatively small project.

The installation of the HVAC unit on the roof is not subject to land use requirements as it is located outside of all required setbacks and does not constitute floor area or roof area.

The ZAB conducted a public hearing and deliberated based on all of the evidence including the Staff Report, testimony and the findings. For the witness testimony please refer to Attachment 3, the Captioner’s record.

The City of Berkeley does not have a tree protection ordinance, and only provides limitations on the removal of live coast oak trees under Ordinance 6,905-N.S. No coast live oak trees were identified on the site prior to any applications or during permitting.

Fences 6 feet or less in height are permitted within required setbacks, and the existing fence was not part of the subject use permit.

Appellant Recommendation: Appellants request that the proposed balcony instead be an enclosed sunroom.

Staff Response: Enclosing the balcony could result in other impacts and is not necessary to avoid any detriment, as determined by the ZAB and staff. It is not appropriate to require building additional floor area as a solution.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Pursuant to BMC Section 23.410.040(G), the Council may (1) continue the public hearing, (2) modify, reverse, or affirm, wholly or partly, any decision, determination, condition or requirement of the ZAB, or (3) remand the matter to the ZAB.

Action Deadline:

Pursuant to BMC Section 23.410.040(I), if the disposition of the appeal has not been determined within 30 days from the date the public hearing was closed by the Council (not including Council recess) then the decision of the Board shall be deemed affirmed and the appeal shall be deemed denied.

CONTACT PERSONS
Jordan Klein, Director, Planning & Development Department, (510) 981-7534 Steven Buckley, Land Use Planning Manager, (510) 981-7411 Samantha Updegrave, Zoning Officer, (510) 981-7414

447
ZAB Appeal: 2956 Hillegass Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Use Permit #ZP2021-0068 February 8, 2022

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution
Exhibit A: Findings and Conditions
Exhibit B: Project Plans dated April 21, 2021

2. ZAB Packet dated September 9, 2021

3. Captioner’s Record, ZAB Hearing September 9, 2021

4. Applicant’s Appeal Letter dated October 2, 2021

5. Index to Administrative Record

6. Administrative Record

7. Public Hearing Notice

448
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD’S APPROVAL OF ZONING PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 FOR THE ADDITION OF A 170 SQUARE FOOT THIRD- FLOOR BALCONY TO THE REAR OF AN EXISTING THREE-STORY 2,834 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A 2,754 SQUARE FOOT LOT THAT IS NON- CONFORMING TO LOT COVERAGE; AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL.

WHEREAS, on April 26, 2021, Edward W. Buchanan (Buchanan Opalach Architects) filed a zoning application to create a new upper-floor roof balcony, approximately 170 square feet in area, over the existing roof at the rear of the house on a lot that is non- conforming to lot coverage; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, staff deemed this application complete; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2021 staff posted the Zoning Adjustment Board (ZAB) Notice of Public Hearing near the site and mailed notices to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and to all registered neighborhood groups that cover this area; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2021, the ZAB conducted the public hearing in accordance with BMC Section 23B.32.030, determined that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (“Existing Facilities”) and approved staff’s recommendation to approve Use Permit # ZP2020-0060 with an added condition to provide additional screening on the north and west side of the proposed balcony; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021, staff issued the notice of the ZAB decision, which established a 14-day appeal period; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2021, an appeal was filed with the City Clerk/Council by the Barbara Romanowicz and Tamio Kajita, neighbors at 2954 Hillegass Avenue and 2523 Webster Street, respectively; and
WHEREAS, on or before January 25, 2022, staff posted the public hearing notice near the site in three locations and mailed notices to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and to interested neighborhood organizations; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2022, the Council held a public hearing to consider the ZAB’s decision, and, in the opinion of this Council, the facts stated in, or ascertainable from the public record, including the staff report and comments made at the public hearing, warrant denying the project.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Council hereby adopts the findings made by the ZAB in Exhibit A to affirm the decision of the ZAB to approve Use Permit # ZP2020-0060 as shown in the project plans in Exhibit B, and dismisses the appeals.

449

Exhibits
A: Findings and Conditions
B: Project Plans, dated April 21, 2021

450
A t t a c h m e n t 1, Exhibit A
Findings and Conditions
SEPTEMBER 9, 2021
1947 Center S
treet, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]
2956 Hillegass Avenue
Use Permi
t #ZP2021-0068 for the addition of a 170 square foot third-floor balcony to the rear of an existing three-story 2,834 square foot single-family dwelling on a 2,754 square foot lot.

PERMITS REQUIRED
• Use Permit, under Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 23C.04.070.C, for additions or enlargements to lawful non-conforming structures that are non-conforming by exceeding the maximum allowable lot coverage; and
• Administrative Use Permit, under BMC Section 23D.16.070.C, for additions over 14 feet in average height
I. CEQA FINDINGS

1. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, §15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (“Existing Facilities”).

2. Furthermor
e, none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, as follows: (a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and (f) the project would not affect any historical resource.

II. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

1. As required by Section 23B.32.040.A of the BMC, the project, under the circumstances of this particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City because:

A. The property
will continue to conform to the R -1 development standards regarding density, height, and usable open space (BMC 23D.16.070). Although the addition w ill increase the height of a portion of the building in the rear, its roofline would be lower than the dwelling’s highest roofline and will not impact the average or maximum height. It will continue to provide usable open space beyond the 400 square f oot minimum required for the existing single- family dwelling. One off -street parking space is provided where one is required (BMC 23D.16.080.A). The addition is allowed on a lot with a legal non -conforming lot coverage, subject to issuance of a Use Permit because the proposed project will not increase lot coverage or exceed the height limit. Therefore, air and light impacts to surrounding properties due to the project are determined to not be detrimental.

451
2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE- USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS September 9, 2021 Page 2 of 10

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS Privacy: The proposed balcony will be on the rear (west) elevation in the west would be 9’- 3” ft. from the side property line to the north where 3.5 ft. is required, 20 ft. from the rear property line to the west where 20 feet is required and 6’-6” ft. from the south property line where 3.5 ft. is required. It is separated from the closest three-story neighboring property at 2954 Hillegass Avenue by approximately 15 ft . Since the proposed balcony will be located outside of all the required setbacks, it will not create detrimental impacts to privacy of neighboring dwellings.

2. Sunlight, Air and View: The proposed addition will increase a portion of the building’s height in the rear, however, it will not create new sunlight, air, or view impacts on the neighboring dwellings because the overall height w ill be lower than the existing dwelling’s highest roofline, it will not expand the building footprint, w ill be located outside required setbacks , and will be separated from the closest neighbor property to the north by about 15 f eet. Therefore air and light impacts to surrounding properties due to the project will not be detrimental.

3. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23C.04.070.C , the Zoning Adjustments Board finds that the addition is permissible because the addition will not increase coverage or exceed the height limit.

452
2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE- USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS September 9, 2021 Page 3 of 10

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS III. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ALL PROJECTS
The following conditions, as well as all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, apply to this Permit:

1. Conditions Shall be Printed on Plans
The conditions of this Permit shall be printed on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit pursuant to this Use Permit, under the title ‘Use Permit Conditions.’ Additional sheets may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list all of the conditions. The sheet(s) containing the conditions shall be of the same size as those sheets containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2” by 11” sheets are not acceptable.

2. Applicant Responsible for Compliance with Conditions The applicant shall ensure compliance with all of the following conditions, including submittal to the project planner of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply with any condition may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation, and/or modification or revocation of the Use Permit.

3. Uses Approved Deemed to Exclude Other Uses (Section 23B.56.010) A. This Permit authorizes only those uses and activities actually proposed in the application, and excludes other uses and activities.

B. Except as expressly specified herein, this Permit terminates all other uses at the location subject to it.

4. Modification of Permits (Section 23B.56.020)
No change in the use or structure for which this Permit is issued is permitted unless the Permit is modified by the Board, except that the Zoning Officer may approve changes that do not expand, intensify, or substantially change the use or building.

Changes in the plans for the construction of a building or structure, may be modified prior to the completion of construction, in accordance with Section 23B.56.030.D. The Zoning Officer may approve changes to plans approved by the Board, consistent with the Board’s policy adopted on May 24, 1978, which reduce the size of the project.

5. Plans and Representations Become Conditions (Section 23B.56.030) Except as specified herein, the site plan, floor plans, building elevations and/or any additional information or representations, whether oral or written, indicating the proposed structure or manner of operation submitted with an application or during the approval process are deemed conditions of approval.

6. Subject to All Applicable Laws and Regulations (Section 23B.56.040) The approved use and/or construction is subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies. Prior to construction, the applicant shall identify and secure all applicable permits from the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Department and other affected City divisions and departments.

7. Exercised Permit for Use Survives Vacancy of Property (Section 23B.56.080) Once a Permit for a use is exercised and the use is established, that use is legally recognized, even if the property becomes vacant, except as set forth in Standard Condition #8, below.

453
2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE- USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS September 9, 2021 Page 4 of 10

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS

8. Exercise and Lapse of Permits (Section 23B.56.100)
A. A permit for the use of a building or a property is exercised when, if required, a valid City business license has been issued, and the permitted use has commenced on the property.

B. A permit for the construction of a building or structure is deemed exercised when a valid City building permit, if required, is issued, and construction has lawfully commenced.

C. A permit may be declared lapsed and of no further force and effect if it is not exercised within one year of its issuance, except that permits for construction or alteration of structures or buildings may not be declared lapsed if the permittee has: (1) applied for a building permit; or, (2) made substantial good faith efforts to obtain a building permit and begin construction, even if a building permit has not been issued and/or construction has not begun.

9. Indemnification Agreement
The applicant shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the City of Berkeley and its officers, agents, and employees against any and all liability, damages, claims, demands, judgments or other losses (including without limitation, attorney’s fees, expert witness and consultant fees and other litigation expenses), referendum or initiative relating to, resulting from or caused by, or alleged to have resulted from, or caused by, any action or approval associated with the project. The indemnity includes without limitation, any legal or administrative challenge, referendum or initiative filed or prosecuted to overturn, set aside, stay or otherwise rescind any or all approvals granted in connection with the Project, any environmental determination made for the project and granting any permit issued in accordance with the project. This indemnity includes, without limitation, payment of all direct and indirect costs associated with any action specified herein. Direct and indirect costs shall include, without limitation, any attorney’s fees, expert witness and consultant fees, court costs, and other litigation fees. City shall have the right to select counsel to represent the City at Applicant’s expense in the defense of any action specified in this condition of approval. City shall take reasonable steps to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, demand, or legal actions that may create a claim for indemnification under these conditions of approval.

IV. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Pursuant to BMC 23B. 32.040.D, the Zoning Adjustments Board attaches the following additional conditions to this Permit:

Prior to Submittal of Any Building Permit:

10. Project Liaison. The applicant shall include in all building permit plans and post onsite the name and telephone number of an individual empowered to manage construction- related complaints generated from the project. The individual’s name, telephone number, and responsibility for the project shall be posted at the project site for the duration of the project in a location easily visible to the public. The individual shall record all complaints received and actions taken in response, and submit written reports of such complaints and actions to the project planner on a weekly basis.

Please designate the name of this individual below:

 Project Liaison ____________________________________________________ Name Phone #

454
2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE- USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS September 9, 2021 Page 5 of 10

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS Prior to Issuance of Any Building Permit:

11. Low-Carbon Concrete. The project shall verify compliance with the Berkeley Green Code (BMC Chapter 19.37) including use of concrete mix design with a cement reduction of at least 25%.

12. Recycling and Organics Collection. Applicant shall provide recycling and organics collection areas for occupants, clearly marked on site plans, which comply with the Alameda County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance (ACWMA Ordinance 2012-01).

During Construction:

13. Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and Noon on Saturday. No construction- related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.

14. Public Works - Implement BAAQMD -Recommended Measures during Construction. For all proposed projects, BAAQMD recommends implementing all the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, listed below to meet the best management practices threshold for fugitive dust:

A. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

B. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

C. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

D. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

E. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

F. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

G. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

H. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

The Air District‘s p hone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

15. Construction and Demolition Diversion.

Divert debris according to your plan and collect required documentation. Get construction debris receipts from sorting facilities in order to verify diversion requirements. Upload recycling and disposal receipts if using Green Halo and submit online for
City review and approval prior to final inspection. Alternatively, complete the second page of the original
Construction Waste Management Plan and present it, along with your construction debris receipts, to the Building Inspector by the final inspection to demonstrate diversion rate compliance.

The Zoning Officer may request summary reports at more frequent intervals, as necessary to ensure compliance with this requirement.

16. Low-Carbon Concrete. The project shall maintain compliance with the Berkeley Green Code (BMC Chapter 19.37) including use of concrete mix design with a cement reduction of at least 25%.

455
2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE- USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS September 9, 2021 Page 6 of 10

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS Documentation on concrete mix design shall be available at all times at the construction site for review by City Staff.

17. Transportation Construction Plan. The applicant and all persons associated with the project are hereby notified that a Transportation Construction Plan (TCP) is required for all phases of construction, particularly for the following activities:
• Alterations, closures, or blockages to sidewalks, pedestrian paths or vehicle travel lanes (including bicycle lanes);
• Storage of building materials, dumpsters, debris anywhere in the public ROW; • Provision of exclusive contractor parking on-street; or • Significant truck activity.

The applicant shall secure the City Traffic Engineer’s approval of a TCP. Please contact the Office of Transportation at 981- 7010, or 1947 Center Street, and ask to speak to a traffic engineer. In addition to other requirements of the Traffic Engineer, this plan shall include the locations of material and equipment storage, trailers, worker parking, a schedule of site operations that may block traffic, and provisions for traffic control. The TCP shall be consistent with any other requirements of the construction phase.

Contact the Permit Service Center (PSC) at 1947 Center Street or 981-7500 for details on obtaining Construction/No Parking Permits (and associated signs and accompanying dashboard permits).

Please note that the Zoning Officer and/or Traffic Engineer may limit off-site parking of construction- related vehicles if necessary to protect the health, safety or convenience of the surrounding neighborhood. A current copy of this Plan shall be available at all times at the construction site for review by City Staff.

18. Archaeological Resources ( Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction) .

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), “provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” should be instituted. Therefore:

A. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant and/or lead agency shall consult with a qualified archaeologist, historian or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find.

B. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project proponent and/or lead agency and the qualified professional would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City of Berkeley. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by the qualified professional according to current professional standards.

C. In considering any suggested measure proposed by the qualified professional, the project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is necessary or feasible in light of factors such as the uniqueness of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.

D. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation measures for cultural resources is carried out.

E. If significant materials are recovered, the qualified professional shall prepare a report on the findings for submittal to the Northwest Information Center.

456
2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE- USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS September 9, 2021 Page 7 of 10

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS

19. Human Remains (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction) . In the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during ground- disturbing activities, all work shall immediately halt and the Alameda County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, and following the procedures and protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all excavation and site preparation activities shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find until appropriate arrangements are made. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities.

Monitoring, data recovery, determination of significance and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously.

20. Paleontological Resources ( Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP 1995,1996]).

The qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

21. Paleontological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).

A. Qualified Paleontologist. The project applicant shall retain a Qualified Paleontologist prior to excavations or ground disturbance that will exceed three feet in depth. The Qualified Paleontologist shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. A qualified professional paleontologist is defined by the SVP standards as an individual preferably with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is experienced with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for a least two years (SVP 2010).

B. Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall incorporate information on paleontological resources into the Project’s Worker Environmental Awareness Training (WEAP) materials, or a stand-alone Paleontological Resources WEAP shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Development at the City of Berkeley. The Qualified Paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The Paleontological WEAP training shall be fulfilled simultaneously with the overall WEAP training, or at the first preconstruction meeting at which a Qualified Paleontol ogist attends prior to ground disturbance. Printed literature (handouts) shall accompany the initial training. Following the initial WEAP training, all new workers and contractors must be trained prior to conducting ground disturbance work.

C. Paleontological Monitoring. The extent of required paleontological monitoring for the project shall be determined by the Qualified Paleontologist based on an evaluation of the previously undisturbed geologic units exposed during ground disturbing activity. The Qualified

457
2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE- USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS September 9, 2021 Page 8 of 10

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS Paleontologist shall conduct and initial spot check and evaluation of geologic conditions for ground disturbing activity for excavations between 5- 10 feet below ground surface (BGS).

The evaluation shall be based on field evidence including lithology of geologic units and results of microscreening or other inspections for fossil resources. If the paleontologist determines that geologic units exposed between 5- 10 feet BGS have high paleontological sensitivity, then full-time monitoring shall be conducted for the duration of ground disturbing activity. If sediments between 5 -10 feet BGS are determined to not be paleontological sensitive, spot checks should be conducted again for ground disturbance between 10- 15 feet BGS and again for ground disturbance between 15- 20 feet BGS, and again to the full depth of ground disturbance. If spot checks indicate low or no paleontological sensitivity, or if full time monitoring results in no fossil discoveries once the full depth of ground disturbance has been reached, paleontological monitoring can be discontinued for the remainder of project activity. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances are required to depths exceeding previous depths of previous work, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Paleontologist at that time.

D. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. A Qualified Paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the Qualified Paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources:
1) Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt or temporarily divert construction equipment within 50 feet of the find until the monitor and/or lead paleontologist evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case, the Construction Contractor may be requested to supply heavy equipment and an operator to assist in the rapid removal of a large fossil specimen(s) or sediment sample(s). Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically- sensitive Quaternary old alluvial deposits.
2) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the UCMP), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Paleontologist.

E. Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Qualified Paleontologist sh all prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project .

The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Development at the City of Berkeley. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository.

458
2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE- USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS September 9, 2021 Page 9 of 10

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS

22. Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources . In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected. The project applicant and project construction contractor shall notify the City Planning Department within 24 hours. The City will again contact any tribes who have requested consultation under AB 52, as well as contact a qualified archaeologist, to evaluate the resources and situation and provide recommendations. If it is determined that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups.

If the resource cannot be avoided, additional measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource and to address tribal concerns may be required.

23. Public Works. All piles of debris, soil, sand, or other loose materials shall be covered at night and during rainy weather with plastic at least one-eighth millimeter thick and secured to the ground.

24. Public Works. The applicant shall ensure that all excavation takes into account surface and subsurface waters and underground streams so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties and rights-of-way.

25. Public Works. The project sponsor shall maintain sandbags or other devices around the site perimeter during the rainy season to prevent on- site soils from being washed off -site and into the storm drain system. The project sponsor shall comply with all City ordinances regarding construction and grading.

26. Public Works. Prior to any excavation, grading, clearing, or other activities involving soil disturbance during the rainy season the applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion prevention plan by the Building and Safety Division and the Public Works Department. The applicant shall be responsible for following these and any other measures required by the Building and Safety Division and the Public Works Department.

27. Public Works. The removal or obstruction of any fire hydrant shall require the submission of a plan to the City’s Public Works Department for the relocation of the fire hydrant during construction.

28. Public Works. If underground utilities leading to adjacent properties are uncovered and/or broken, the contractor involved shall immediately notify the Public Works Department and the Building & Safety Division, and carry out any necessary corrective action to their satisfaction.

Prior to Final Inspection or Issuance of Occupancy Permit:

29. Compliance with Approved Plan. The project shall conform to the plans and statements in the Use Permit. All landscape, site and architectural improvements shall be completed per the attached approved drawings dated May 4, 2021, except as modified by conditions of approval.

At All Times:

30. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to prevent excessive glare beyond the subject property.

31. Drainage Patterns. The applicant shall establish and maintain drainage patterns that do not adversely affect adjacent properties and rights -of-way. Drainage plans shall be submitted for approval of the Building & Safety Division and Public Works Department, if required.

459
2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE- USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0068 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS September 9, 2021 Page 10 of 10

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS

460
j~ñpí~ãé=VVUM
fab^i =OMM
fab^i =PMM
fab^i =NMM
OMMM=mirp=OOSM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVOM
mêáåíÉê=RM=J=NKO=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=QM=J=MKUUT=ñ=OKPOR=
mêáåíÉê=NR=J=MKPOR=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=RR=J=OKPR=ñ=NKRR
OMMM=mirp=OPSM
qola^ q=RQPM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVMR
mêáåíÉê=OM=J=MKRNP=ñ=NKQR=
OMMM=mirp=OOSM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVOM
mêáåíÉê=RM=J=NKO=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=PM=J=MKT=ñ=NKUOR
mêáåíÉê=RR=J=OKPR=ñ=NKRR
OMMM=mirp=OPSM
qola^ q=RQPM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVMR
j~ñpí~ãé=VNMR
mêáåíÉê=SM=J=NKQR=ñ=OKVR
mêáåíÉê=NM=J=MKPOR=ñ=NKMNPmêáåíÉê=NM=J=MKPOR=ñ=NKMNP
mêáåíÉê=OR=J=MKRTR=ñ=OKVR
Don Mack, LMFT
QNQ=dçìÖÜ=píêÉÉíI=@R
p~å=cê~åÅáëÅçI=`^ =VQNMO
=^ oa `b ep fqk bb `` qfi
i ikçK=`JOQRVQp ^q f^ kq ob= ll cfc i=` ^
obkbt ^i
a^ qb
K=_rt= `a eo ^^ kt ^kab
SHEET TITLE:

DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO:

COPYRIGHT: 2021 BOA
DATE
1 PROJECT & CLIENT:
1906
Cover Sheet
580 2nd St, Suite 275
Oakland, CA 94607
510 595 1844
boa-inc.com
New Upper Roof
Deck

AUP APPLICATION
boA

BUCHANAN

OPALACH

ARCHITECTS
Mollie & Adam Starr
2956 Hillegass Ave
Berkeley, CA 94705
415 602 4759
[email protected]
4/21/21
10/31/19
Sheet Index
1 2
3 4
5 Cover Sheet
Existing Floor Plans
Proposed Floor Plans
Existing Exterior Elevations
Proposed Exterior Elevations
(E) 1.11'
(E) 2.55'
(E) 4.45'
(E) 3.19'
8'-0"

INGRESS/
EGRESS
EASEM'T.
(E) 20.80'
11'-7"±

12.31'
(E) 2.0'±

12.10'

13.20'
16'-10"± (E) CURB CUT
9'-3"±
(E) & (N)
6'-6"±
(E) & (N) PROPOSED UPPER ROOF

DECK SHOWN HATCHED
171 sq ft
24" H. MAX.

RET. WALL
15" H. MAX.

ROCK WALL
(E) 30"

CAMPHOR
TREE
(E) 6' WOOD
FENCE
(E) 6' WOOD
FENCE
(E) 6' WOOD
FENCE
(E) 2" JAP.

MAPLE
(E) 7" TEA
TREE
(E) CAMELIA
BUSH
(E) 8"
CHERRY
TREE
(E) 6' WOOD
FENCE,

REMOVED
MAX. 2% SLOPE IN
ANY DIRECTION @
(E) PARKING PAD
(E) PERMEABLE PARKING PAD
(E) 2 1/2 STORY HOUSE
2956 HILLEGASS AVE

HIL L EGA SS A V E N U E

71.82' N 74° E
N 16° W34.00'

2.00' 50.00'

40.90'
N 74° E
N 74° E
R = 222.84' L = 27.07'
R = 282.40' L = 10.22'

S ID E W A L K
UP
UP
NOTE:

ALL SITE PLAN INFORMATION BASED ON A
SURVEY PREPARED BY ANDREAS P. DEAK,
LAND SURVEYOR #4739, 6/17/2019,
UPDATED 1/8/2020
N 16° W
UP
2954 HILLEGASS
2958 HILLEGASS

STRUCTURE
2525 WEBSTER

STRUCTURE
2523 WEBSTER
20' REQ'D SETBACK

3.3' REQ'D
10% SIDE

SETBACK
20' REQ'D SETBACK
(E) DRIVEWAY
(E) 8' x 18'

PARKING

PLUM TREE
W.M.

TEL.

CATV
TREE

LIGHT WELL
UP
For Assessment Use Only
NORTH REF.

NORTH
Land Use Planning, 1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420 Email: [email protected] g: \landuse\forms & instructions\land use planning forms\word files\forms_all\tabulation_form_05-15.doc

TABULATION FORM
Project Address: Date:

Applicant’s Name:

Zoning District
Please print in ink the following numerical information for your Administrative Use Permit, Use Permit, or Variance application:

Existing Proposed Permitted/
Required
Uni ts, Parking Spaces & Bedrooms
Numb er of Dwelling Units (#)
Numb er of Parking Spaces (#)
Number of Bedrooms (#)
(R-1, R -1A, R -2, R -2A, and R -3 only)
Yards and Height
Front Y ard Setback (Feet )
Side Yard Setbacks:
(facing property) Left: (Feet )
Right: ( Feet )
Rear Ya rd Setback (Feet )
Building Height* (# Stories)
Average* (Feet )
Maximum* (Feet )
Areas
Lot Area (Square -Feet)
Gross Floor A rea* (Square -Feet)
Total Area Covered by All Floors
Bui lding Footprint* (S quare -Feet)
Total of All Structures
Lot Cover age* (%)
(Footprint/Lot Area)
Useable Open Space* (S quare -Feet)
Floor Area Ratio*
Non -Residential only (Except ES-R)
*See Definitions – Zoning Ordinance Title 23F. Revised: 05/15 2956 Hillegass Ave
Edward Buchanan, Architect
R-1
1 1
1 1
1 5
5 11.6’±
No Change

1.11’
6’-6”± at Deck

2.0’

20.8’
No Change
3 22’-3”±
No Change
No Change
31’-7”±
2754± sf
2834± sf
No Change
1188± sf
No Change

43.1%
No Change
1081± sf
2834± sf
910± sf
1 3
4/01/21
9’-3”± at Deck
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Proposed Site Plan

NOT TO SCALE
Parcel Map 0521573.02

PROJECT
SITE Parties Involved:

General Notes:

1. SITE CONDITIONS:

Bidders shall visit the site and familiarize themselves with all existing limitations. All features of construction not fully shown shall be of the same type and character as that
shown for similar conditions. For special conditions or discrepancies, notify the architect before bidding or
proceeding with the work.

2. PERMIT FEES AND INSURANCE:

The contract shall include all permit fees unless specifically noted in the bid and contract. The contractor shall carry liability, property damage, and workers compensation
insurance, and provide owner certificates for these policies.

The owner shall carry fire insurance.

3. BUILDING CODES:

All work shall conform with all applicable current codes and ordinances. The contractor shall notify the architect of all modifications requested by the building department, the owner, consultants, and other parties.

4. SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL PROVIDE SIGNED CF24R
FORMS to the general contractor upon completion of their scope of work.

5. TRADE STANDARDS:

Work shall be completed skillfully and in accordance with accepted trade standards. Standards for care and
workmanship shall be as defined and outlined by the national trade body such as SMACNA, Tile Council of America,
NWMA, NRCA, Lathing and Plaster Institute of Northern
California, etc.

6. MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS:

Follow the manufacturers’ instructions carefully. Instructions and warranties shall be given to the owner upon substantial completion.

7. SUBSTITUTIONS:

Substitutions will be considered, but the contractor shall not substitute equipment, material, or methods without specific approval by the architect prior to execution of work.

8. SCHEDULE:

The contractor shall inform the owner and architect of the construction schedule prior to starting work. The contractor shall make every effort to minimize disruption to occupants and neighbors during construction.

9. COORDINATION OF WORK:

The contractor shall coordinate work between
subcontractors, tradespeople, and suppliers as shown in the drawings, specifications, and contract.

10. DIMENSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES:

Contractor shall verify all dimensions in the field. Written dimensions have precedence over scaled dimensions.

Dimensions are to the rough frame unless otherwise noted.

Any discrepancies between the drawings and/or
specifications must be brought to the attention of the
architect for clarification, prior to proceeding with work.

11. NOTCHES, BORES AND CUTS TO THE STRUCTURE:

Do not notch, bore or cut members for pipes, ducts or other reasons except as shown on drawings without the specific advance approval of the architect.

12. DEMOLITION:

The contractor shall execute demolition work to ensure the safety of persons and adjacent property from damage by
settlement, falling debris, and other causes in connection with this work. Where existing construction is cut, damaged, or remodeled, patch or replace with materials which match the kind, quality and performance of adjacent surfaces.

13. LEAD PAINT: Where existing painted materials are to be painted or have the paint removed and lead paint may be present, take proper precautions to ensure that the
existing spaces, grounds and soil are not contaminated.

Removal of lead paint and/or contaminated materials to be done using methods to minimize lead dust and flakes,
airborne particles and exposure to technicians and
residents. Dispose of contaminated materials in a lawful manner.

14. ASBESTOS:

If the contractor encounters asbestos, he or she shall warn all employees, subcontractors, owner, occupants, and
architect prior to demolition and construction. Also, if during demolition or construction, materials containing asbestos become disturbed or airborne, they must be removed.

Removal and disposal must conform to the latest
requirements of the EPA, OSHA, California Department of Health Service and local authorities. Asbestos removal is the responsibility of the general contractor.

15. CLEANUP:

The contractor shall remove all construction debris at the end of the job and dispose of it legally. Clean all new windows and leave the job broom clean.

16. WARRANTY:

Contractor shall warrant all workmanship and materials for a period of one year from the date of substantial completion or from the commencement of specific warranties, and make
corrections to the work during these periods.

17. CHANGE ORDERS:

All change orders shall be agreed to and in writing prior to execution of work.

Project Information:

BUILDING CODES:
2019 California Residential Code
2019 California Building Code
2019 California Electrical Code
2019 California Mechanical Code
2019 California Plumbing Code
2019 California Energy Code
2019 California Fire Code
2019 California Green Building Standards Code
2019 California Building Code-Structural Provisions
All codes are as further modified by the City of Berkeley.

BUILDING INFORMATION:

OCCUPANCY: R-3
BUILDING TYPE: VB (non fire-rated construction)
SPRINKLERED: NO
FIRE ZONE 1 (NOT WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE)
APPROVALS:

USE PERMIT: ZP2019-0196 Approved 8/13/2020 for windows
in setback, create 2 additional bedrooms, create
parking space
Scope of Work:

Convert an existing rear main floor roof to a new
upper floor roof deck off the existing master
bedroom.

OWNER: Mollie & Adam Starr
2956 Hillegass Ave
Berkeley CA 94705
415 602 4759
[email protected]
ARCHITECT: BUCHANAN OPALACH ARCHITECTS
580 2nd Street, Suite 275
Oakland, CA 94607
Contact: Edward Buchanan
[email protected]
(510) 853-4567

STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER: VAN MAREN AND ASSOC.
460 Boulevard Way
Oakland, CA 94610
Contact: Peter Van Maren
[email protected]
(510) 499-0300
ENERGY
CONSULTANT: GABEL ASSOCIATES, LLC
20825 Nunes Avenue Suite A
Castro Valley, CA 94546
Contact: Michelle Austin
[email protected]
(510) 428-0803
SOILS
ENGINEER: GEOTECNIA
Contact: Luis Moura
[email protected]
(510) 913-1067
SURVEYOR: ANDREAS DEAK, LS
Contact: Andreas Deak
[email protected]
(510) 865-4289
New Upper Roof Deck
Mollie & Adam Starr
2956 Hillegass Ave Berkeley CA 94705Work in Public Right-of-Way:

An Engineering Permit will be required for any work in the public right-of-way, including but not limited to construction staging, construction parking, sidewalk, shoring, drainage, or sewer work.

The Engineering Permit can be issued after the Building Permit is approved and issued. Approval of this Building Permit does not authorize work in the public right-of-way.

NOTE:

NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE NOT SIGNED,

HAVE BEEN SENT THE DRAWINGS VIA
USPS CERTIFIED MAIL.

ATTACHMENT 1, Exhibit B

461
j~ñpí~ãé=VVUM
fab^i =OMM
fab^i =PMM
fab^i =NMM
OMMM=mirp=OOSM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVOM
mêáåíÉê=RM=J=NKO=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=QM=J=MKUUT=ñ=OKPOR=
mêáåíÉê=NR=J=MKPOR=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=RR=J=OKPR=ñ=NKRR
OMMM=mirp=OPSM
qola^ q=RQPM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVMR
mêáåíÉê=OM=J=MKRNP=ñ=NKQR=
OMMM=mirp=OOSM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVOM
mêáåíÉê=RM=J=NKO=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=PM=J=MKT=ñ=NKUOR
mêáåíÉê=RR=J=OKPR=ñ=NKRR
OMMM=mirp=OPSM
qola^ q=RQPM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVMR
j~ñpí~ãé=VNMR
mêáåíÉê=SM=J=NKQR=ñ=OKVR
mêáåíÉê=NM=J=MKPOR=ñ=NKMNPmêáåíÉê=NM=J=MKPOR=ñ=NKMNP
mêáåíÉê=OR=J=MKRTR=ñ=OKVR
Don Mack, LMFT
QNQ=dçìÖÜ=píêÉÉíI=@R
p~å=cê~åÅáëÅçI=`^ =VQNMO
=^ oa `b ep fqk bb `` qfi
i ikçK=`JOQRVQp ^q f^ kq ob= ll cfc i=` ^
obkbt ^i
a^ qb
K=_rt= `a eo ^^ kt ^kab
SHEET TITLE:

DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO:

COPYRIGHT: 2021 BOA
DATE
2 PROJECT & CLIENT:
1906
Existing Floor Plans
580 2nd St, Suite 275
Oakland, CA 94607
510 595 1844
boa-inc.com
New Upper Roof
Deck

AUP APPLICATION
boA

BUCHANAN

OPALACH

ARCHITECTS
Mollie & Adam Starr
2956 Hillegass Ave
Berkeley, CA 94705
415 602 4759
[email protected]
4/21/21
10/31/19
36" MIN.

CLR.
(E) FLAGSTONES
(E) +15" H.

ROCK WALL

STAIR REMOVED
(E) CEILING
BEAMS
BLDG. ABOVE,
TYP.

AREA
DRAIN
(E) LANDSCAPE

ROCK WALLS,
24" MAX. HIGH
(E) PERMEABLE

PARKING PAD
UP
7R
UP 10R
@ 7 3/4" MAX
T @ 11"
UP
2R
UP
2R
(E) SUMP PUMPS
Bath
Family / TV
Hall
Play Area
Mech/
Storage
Clos.

WINDOW WELL
(N)
F.A.U.

SHWR.

T. LAV.
(E)
TREE
(56 CEILING)
(80 CEILING)
(70 CEILING)
STOR. CUBBIES
+36"
BINS
UP
14R
PROP. LINE
W.H.

PROP. LINE
Sauna
Bar
WINE
REF.

SINK
7'-1" x 5'-6" NO PROPOSED

CHANGES IN

LOWER FLOOR
DN 1"

SUB PANEL
Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5
REF.

NORTH
F
UP
16R
DN
7R
Living
Entry
Dining
Kitchen

LAUNDRY

SINK DW
Covered
Porch
1/2 Bath
DN
14R
DN
10R
(E)
TREE
Nook

PASS-THRU
REF
(E) 30"

RANGE &

HOOD PANTRY

NO PROPOSED

CHANGES IN

MAIN FLOOR
FP
(E) SLIDING

FRENCH DOOR
(E) WALLS BELOW

SHOWN DASHED
Bath
Closet
Closet
Master
Bedroom
Master Bath
Bedroom 2
Bedroom 3
Closet
Closet

CHIMNEY

SHELVES
ROOF
ROOF
(E) ROOF
DN
16R
Hall
LAVT
TB
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing Lower Floor Plan
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing Main Floor Plan
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing Upper Floor Plan
ATTACHMENT 1, Exhibit B

462
j~ñpí~ãé=VVUM
fab^i =OMM
fab^i =PMM
fab^i =NMM
OMMM=mirp=OOSM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVOM
mêáåíÉê=RM=J=NKO=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=QM=J=MKUUT=ñ=OKPOR=
mêáåíÉê=NR=J=MKPOR=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=RR=J=OKPR=ñ=NKRR
OMMM=mirp=OPSM
qola^ q=RQPM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVMR
mêáåíÉê=OM=J=MKRNP=ñ=NKQR=
OMMM=mirp=OOSM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVOM
mêáåíÉê=RM=J=NKO=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=PM=J=MKT=ñ=NKUOR
mêáåíÉê=RR=J=OKPR=ñ=NKRR
OMMM=mirp=OPSM
qola^ q=RQPM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVMR
j~ñpí~ãé=VNMR
mêáåíÉê=SM=J=NKQR=ñ=OKVR
mêáåíÉê=NM=J=MKPOR=ñ=NKMNPmêáåíÉê=NM=J=MKPOR=ñ=NKMNP
mêáåíÉê=OR=J=MKRTR=ñ=OKVR
Don Mack, LMFT
QNQ=dçìÖÜ=píêÉÉíI=@R
p~å=cê~åÅáëÅçI=`^ =VQNMO
=^ oa `b ep fqk bb `` qfi
i ikçK=`JOQRVQp ^q f^ kq ob= ll cfc i=` ^
obkbt ^i
a^ qb
K=_rt= `a eo ^^ kt ^kab
SHEET TITLE:

DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO:

COPYRIGHT: 2021 BOA
DATE
3 PROJECT & CLIENT:
1906
Proposed Floor
Plans
580 2nd St, Suite 275
Oakland, CA 94607
510 595 1844
boa-inc.com
New Upper Roof
Deck

AUP APPLICATION
boA

BUCHANAN

OPALACH

ARCHITECTS
Mollie & Adam Starr
2956 Hillegass Ave
Berkeley, CA 94705
415 602 4759
[email protected]
4/21/21
10/31/19
REF.

NORTH
36" MIN.

CLR.
(E) FLAGSTONES
(E) +15" H.

ROCK WALL

STAIR REMOVED
(E) CEILING
BEAMS
BLDG. ABOVE,
TYP.

AREA
DRAIN
(E) LANDSCAPE

ROCK WALLS,
24" MAX. HIGH
(E) PERMEABLE

PARKING PAD
UP
7R
UP 10R
@ 7 3/4" MAX
T @ 11"
UP
2R
UP
2R
(E) SUMP PUMPS
Bath
Family / TV
Hall
Play Area
Mech/
Storage
Clos.

WINDOW WELL
(N)
F.A.U.

SHWR.

T. LAV.
(E)
TREE
(56 CEILING)
(80 CEILING)
(70 CEILING)
STOR. CUBBIES
+36"
BINS
UP
14R
PROP. LINE
W.H.

PROP. LINE
Sauna
Bar
WINE
REF.

SINK
7'-1" x 5'-6" NO PROPOSED

CHANGES IN

LOWER FLOOR
DN 1"

SUB PANEL
Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5
F
UP
16R
DN
7R
Living
Entry
Dining
Kitchen

LAUNDRY

SINK DW
Covered
Porch
1/2 Bath
DN
14R
DN
10R
(E)
TREE
Nook

PASS-THRU
REF
(E) 30"

RANGE &

HOOD PANTRY

NO PROPOSED

CHANGES IN

MAIN FLOOR
FP
17'-0"±
10'-0"±
(E) SLIDING

FRENCH DOOR
(N) 42" PAINTED WOOD
GUARDRAIL, 4" MAX.

OPENINGS
(E) WALLS BELOW

SHOWN DASHED

REMOVE (E) GUARDRAIL
Bath
Closet
Closet
Master
Bedroom
Master Bath
Bedroom 2
Bedroom 3
Closet
Closet

CHIMNEY

SHELVES
ROOF
ROOF
DN
16R
Hall
LAVT
TB
(N) DECKING OVER (E)

LOW-SLOPE ROOF
A
4 1
A

NEW (N) WALLS
Legend

EXISTING (E) WALLS TO REMAIN

LINE ABOVE

LINE BELOW OR BEYOND

SECTION CUT

DOOR KEY

WINDOW KEY

EXISTING (E) WALLS, REMOVED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed Lower Floor Plan
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed Main Floor Plan
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed Upper Floor Plan
ATTACHMENT 1, Exhibit B

463
j~ñpí~ãé=VVUM
fab^i =OMM
fab^i =PMM
fab^i =NMM
OMMM=mirp=OOSM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVOM
mêáåíÉê=RM=J=NKO=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=QM=J=MKUUT=ñ=OKPOR=
mêáåíÉê=NR=J=MKPOR=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=RR=J=OKPR=ñ=NKRR
OMMM=mirp=OPSM
qola^ q=RQPM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVMR
mêáåíÉê=OM=J=MKRNP=ñ=NKQR=
OMMM=mirp=OOSM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVOM
mêáåíÉê=RM=J=NKO=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=PM=J=MKT=ñ=NKUOR
mêáåíÉê=RR=J=OKPR=ñ=NKRR
OMMM=mirp=OPSM
qola^ q=RQPM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVMR
j~ñpí~ãé=VNMR
mêáåíÉê=SM=J=NKQR=ñ=OKVR
mêáåíÉê=NM=J=MKPOR=ñ=NKMNPmêáåíÉê=NM=J=MKPOR=ñ=NKMNP
mêáåíÉê=OR=J=MKRTR=ñ=OKVR
Don Mack, LMFT
QNQ=dçìÖÜ=píêÉÉíI=@R
p~å=cê~åÅáëÅçI=`^ =VQNMO
=^ oa `b ep fqk bb `` qfi
i ikçK=`JOQRVQp ^q f^ kq ob= ll cfc i=` ^
obkbt ^i
a^ qb
K=_rt= `a eo ^^ kt ^kab
SHEET TITLE:

DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO:

COPYRIGHT: 2021 BOA
DATE
4 PROJECT & CLIENT:
1906
Existing Exterior
Elevations
580 2nd St, Suite 275
Oakland, CA 94607
510 595 1844
boa-inc.com
New Upper Roof
Deck

AUP APPLICATION
boA

BUCHANAN

OPALACH

ARCHITECTS
Mollie & Adam Starr
2956 Hillegass Ave
Berkeley, CA 94705
415 602 4759
[email protected]
4/21/21
10/31/19
LOWER FLR.
(E) LOWER FLOOR
(E) UNDER DECK FLOOR
31'-7"± EXISTING
(NO CHANGE)
7'-9" 7'-9"
1'-2" GRADE DIFF.
(E) 22'-3"± AVERAGE BLDG HT.
(E) LOWER FLOOR
(E) WINDOW
WELL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing East Elevation SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing North Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing West Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing South Elevation
ATTACHMENT 1, Exhibit B

464
j~ñpí~ãé=VVUM
fab^i =OMM
fab^i =PMM
fab^i =NMM
OMMM=mirp=OOSM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVOM
mêáåíÉê=RM=J=NKO=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=QM=J=MKUUT=ñ=OKPOR=
mêáåíÉê=NR=J=MKPOR=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=RR=J=OKPR=ñ=NKRR
OMMM=mirp=OPSM
qola^ q=RQPM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVMR
mêáåíÉê=OM=J=MKRNP=ñ=NKQR=
OMMM=mirp=OOSM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVOM
mêáåíÉê=RM=J=NKO=ñ=OKT
mêáåíÉê=PM=J=MKT=ñ=NKUOR
mêáåíÉê=RR=J=OKPR=ñ=NKRR
OMMM=mirp=OPSM
qola^ q=RQPM
j~ñpí~ãé=VVMR
j~ñpí~ãé=VNMR
mêáåíÉê=SM=J=NKQR=ñ=OKVR
mêáåíÉê=NM=J=MKPOR=ñ=NKMNPmêáåíÉê=NM=J=MKPOR=ñ=NKMNP
mêáåíÉê=OR=J=MKRTR=ñ=OKVR
Don Mack, LMFT
QNQ=dçìÖÜ=píêÉÉíI=@R
p~å=cê~åÅáëÅçI=`^ =VQNMO
=^ oa `b ep fqk bb `` qfi
i ikçK=`JOQRVQp ^q f^ kq ob= ll cfc i=` ^
obkbt ^i
a^ qb
K=_rt= `a eo ^^ kt ^kab
SHEET TITLE:

DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO:

COPYRIGHT: 2021 BOA
DATE
5 PROJECT & CLIENT:
1906
Proposed Exterior
Elevations
580 2nd St, Suite 275
Oakland, CA 94607
510 595 1844
boa-inc.com
New Upper Roof
Deck

AUP APPLICATION
boA

BUCHANAN

OPALACH

ARCHITECTS
Mollie & Adam Starr
2956 Hillegass Ave
Berkeley, CA 94705
415 602 4759
[email protected]
4/21/21
10/31/19
LOWER FLR.

NO CHANGE TO

THIS ELEVATION
16'-5"± PROP. DECK 3'-6"
15'-3"± PROP. DECK 3'-6"
(E) LOWER FLOOR
(E) UNDER DECK FLOOR
(E) ROOF TO
REMAIN

BELOW DECK
(N) GUARDRAIL
& DECK
31'-7"± EXISTING
(NO CHANGE)
16'-5"± PROP. DECK 3'-6"
18'-11"± PROP.
42" H. PAINTED

WOOD GUARDRAIL,
4" MAX. OPENINGS
3'-6"
7'-9" 7'-9"
1'-2" GRADE DIFF.
(E) 22'-3"± AVERAGE BLDG HT.
(E) ROOF TO
REMAIN

BELOW DECK
(N) GUARDRAIL
& DECK
(E) LOWER FLOOR
(E) WINDOW
WELL

NO CHANGE TO

THIS ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed East Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed North Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed West Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed South Elevation
ATTACHMENT 1, Exhibit B

465

Z ONIN G

A DJUSTMENTS
B OARD
Staff Report
1947 Center S
treet, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

FOR BOARD ACTION
SEPTEMBER 9, 2021
2956 Hillegass Avenue
Use Permit #ZP2021-0068 for the addition of a 170 square foot third-floor balcony to the rear of an existing three-story 2,834 square foot single- family dwelling on a 2,754 square foot lot.

I. Background
A. Land Use Designations:
• General Plan: LDR-Low Density Residential
• Zoning: R-1(Single Family Residential)
B. Zoning Perm
its Required:
• Use Permit, under Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 23C.04.070.C, for additions or enlargements to lawful non-conforming structures that are non- conforming by exceeding the maximum allowable lot coverage; and • Administrative Use Permit, under BMC Section 23D.16.070.C, for additions over 14 feet in average height
C. CEQA
Determination: It is staff’s recommendation to ZAB that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, §15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15301 (“Existing Facilities”) and Section 15303 (“New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”) of the CEQA Guidelines. The determination is made by ZAB.

D. Parties
Involved:
• Applicant Edward W. Buchanan
• Property Owner Mollie & Adam Starr
Attachment 2

466
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE
September 9, 2021 Page 2 of 11

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Figure 2: Aerial View

Project Site:

Webster St.

Ashby Ave.

Regent St.

467
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE
September 9, 2021 Page 3 of 11

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS Figure 3: Site Survey

Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan

Area of
proposed work

468
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE
September 9, 2021 Page 4 of 11

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS Figure 5: Existing Upper Floor

Figure 6: Proposed Upper Floor Balcony

469
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE
September 9, 2021 Page 5 of 11

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS

Figure 7: Existing Elevations

Figure 8: Proposed Elevations

470
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE
September 9, 2021 Page 6 of 11

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS Table 1: Land Use Information

Table 2: Special Characteristics
Characteristic
Applies
to
Project?
Explanation
Affordable Child Care Fee for
qualifying non-residential projects
(Per Resolution 66,618-N.S.)
No These fees apply to projects with more than 7,500
square feet of new non-residential gross floor area. This project is not subject to these resolutions because no
new non-residential space is proposed.

Affordable Housing Fee for qualifying
non-residential projects (Per
Resolution 66,617-N.S.)
No
Creeks No No open creek or culvert exists within 40 ft. of the site.

Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t
Code Section 65589.5) No
The proposed project is not a “Housing Development
Project”1 as defined by Government Code because it
does not propose to add dwelling units.

Oak Trees No There are no oak trees on the site.

Rent Controlled Units No No rent controlled units are at this site.

Residential Preferred Parking (RPP) No The site is not within a Residential Preferred Parking Area.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
(Liquefaction, Fault-rupture,
Landslide)
No
The site is not located within an area susceptible to
liquefaction, Fault-rupture or Landslide as shown on the State Seismic Hazard Zones map.

Soil/Groundwater Contamination No The site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
Transit No
There is a bus stop near the project site on College
Avenue that provides access to an AC Transit bus
routes (51B).

1 Per Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2) "Housing development project" means a use consisting of any of the following: (A) Residential units only; (B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses with at least two -thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; and (C) Transitional housing or supportive housing.

Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan
Designation
Subject Property Three-story single-family
residence
Single Family
Residential
District (R-1)
Low Density
Residential (LDR)

Surrounding
Properties
North Two-story single family dwelling
(2954 Hillegass Avenue)
Restricted Multiple-
Family Residential
District (R-2A)
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
South
Two-story single family dwelling
(2954 Hillegass Avenue) & two-
story, single family dwelling
(2525 Webster St.)

Single Family
Residential
District (R-1)

Low Density
Residential (LDR)
East Three-story duplex (2955 &
2957 Hillegass Ave.)
West Single-story single family
residence (2523 Webster St.)

471
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE
September 9, 2021 Page 7 of 11

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS Table 3: Project Chronology
Date Action
May 4,
2021 Application submitted
June 4,
2021 Application deemed complete
N/A DRC/LPC hearing
August 26,
2021 Public hearing notices mailed/posted
September
9, 2021 ZAB hearing

Table 4: Development Standards
Standard
BMC Sections 23C,16.070-080 Existing Proposed Total Permitted/ Required
Lot Area (sq. ft.) 2,754 2,754 5,000 min
Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 2,834 2,834 N/A
Dwelling Units Total 1 1 1
Building
Height
Average
22’ - 3” 22’ - 3”
28’
35’ w/Use
Permit
Maximum 31’-7” 31’-7” 35’ max
Stories 3 3 3 max
Building
Setbacks
Front 11’-7” 11’-7” 20’ min
Rear 20’-9” 20’-9” 20’ min
Left Side 1’-1” 1’-1” 3.5 min
Right Side 2’-0” 2’-0” 3.5 min
Lot Coverage (%) 43.1% 43.1% 40% max
Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) >400 >400 400 min
Parking Automobile 1 1 1 min

II. Project Setting

A. Neighborhood/Area Description: The subject site is located in a generally flat residential neighborhood that consists of primarily two and three-story residential properties that include single-family dwellings, duplexes, and multi-family dwellings with conforming and non-conforming setbacks and densities. While the majority of the surrounding uses are residential, the Ashby Avenue (north), Telegraph Avenue (west) and College Avenue (east) commercial districts are within close proximity. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center is one block to the west of the subject property.

B. Site Conditions: The subject property is approximately 2,754 square feet in area.

The existing three-story single-family dwelling was constructed in 1910 and is approximately 2,834 square feet. As shown in Table 4 above, it is non-conforming for lot coverage and front and side setbacks.

472
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE
September 9, 2021 Page 8 of 11

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS III. Project Description: The proposed project includes the addition of a 170 square foot balcony off of the third-floor master bedroom at the rear of the subject dwelling. The proposed balcony would be located above the existing roof of the story below, approximately 16 feet, 3 inches above grade plus a 3-foot, 6-inch guard rail. This would increase the overall height (to the top of the railings) of this portion of the building to approximately 20 feet. The balcony would be located within the existing footprint and outside the required rear and side setbacks.

IV. Community Discussion

A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: Prior to subm itting this application to the C ity, a pre-application poster was erected by the applicant in April 2021. On August 26, 2021, the City mailed public hearing notices to property owners and occupants within a 300- foot radius and to interested neighborhood organizations and posted notices within the neighborhood in three locations. At the time of this writing, staff has received 18 communications from different neighbors in support of the project and 19 communications from the neighbor to the north at 2954 Hilllegass Avenue with objections to the proposed project. (Attachment 4)

B. Committee Review: This project is not subject to advisory committee review.

V. Issues and Analysis

A. Compatibility with District Purposes:

The purposes of the Single Family Residential (R-1) District are to:

1. Recognize and protect the existing pattern of development in the low density, single family residential areas of the City in accordance with the Master Plan;

2. Make available housing for persons who desire detached housing accommodations and a relatively large amount of Usable Open Space;

3. Protect adjacent properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and air; and

4. Permit the construction of community facilities such as places for religious assembly, Schools, parks and libraries which are designed to serve the local population when such will not be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood.

The proposed addition to the structure on this property with non-conforming lot coverage and setbacks is not expected to be detrimental as this project would continue to meet other development regulations in the R-1 district including building heights and building separation.

The lot ’s existing lot coverage and front and side setback non- conformities are commonly found in the su rrounding neighborhood. The proposed addition is under the 28 feet average height limit of the District, and would be compatible with the development pattern for the broader area that is characterized by a mix of two and three- story residential buildings with single family and multiple units and buildings per parcel.

473
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE
September 9, 2021 Page 9 of 11

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS

B. Addition to a Structure on a Parcel with Non- Conforming Lot Coverage: BMC Section 23C.04.070.C allows additions and/or enlargements of lawful non-conforming structures that are non-conforming by reason of violation of the maximum allowable lot coverage to be permitted with a Use Permit if the addition does not increase lot coverage or exceed the height limit. The proposed project would add a 17 by 10 foot third-story balcony above an existing roof within the exiting footprint.

Pursuant to BMC section 23D. 16.090.A for the R-1 zoning district, the Board may approve an application for a Use Permit for additions on a property with non- conforming lot coverage if the proposed construction satisfies the applicable development standards of the district and meets the findings of non- detriment. As shown in Table 4: Development Standards, the proposed addition meets the R -1 district standards for density, height, number of stories, rear yard setback, open space and parking. A discussion of the project’s potential impact to sunlight, shadows, privacy, air and views follows below:

C. General Non-Detriment for Use Permits and Administrative Use Permits:

1. As required by Section 23B.32.040.A of the BMC, the project, under the circumstances of this particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City because:

• The property would continue to conform to the R-1 development standards regarding density, height, and usable open space (BMC 23D.16.070), and parking. Although the addition would increase the height of a portion of the building in the rear, its roofline would be lower than the dwelling’s highest roofline and would not impact the average or maximum height. It would continue to provide usable open space beyond the 400 square foot minimum requirement for the existing single-family dwelling. One off-street parking space is available where one is required. Although the addition would increase the height of a portion of the building in the rear, its roofline would be lower than the dwelling’s roofline, it would not impact the average or maximum height and It would maintain the existing building footprint for the dwelli ng. The addition would not increase lot coverage or exceed the height limit . Therefore, air and light impacts to surrounding properties due to the project would not be detrimental.

• The project is subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval regarding construction noise and air quality, waste diversion, toxics, and storm water requirements, thereby ensuring the project would
not be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

474
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE
September 9, 2021 Page 10 of 11

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS • Privacy:

The proposed balcony along the rear elevation in the west would be 9’-3” ft. from the side property line to the north where 3.5 ft. is required, 20 ft. from the rear property line to the west where 20 ft. is required and 6’-6” ft. from the south property line where 3.5 ft. is required. It is separated from the closest three-story neighboring property at 2954 Hillegass Avenue by approximately 15 f eet. Since the proposed balcony would be located out side of all the required setbacks, it is not expected to create detrimental impacts to privacy of neighboring dwellings.

2. Sunlight, Air and View (BMC Section 23D.16.090): The proposed addition would increase a portion of the building’s height in the rear, however, it would not create new sunlight, air, or view impacts on the neighboring dwellings because the overall height would be lower than the existing dwelling’s highest roofline, it would not expand the building footprint , would be located outside of all required setbacks, and would be separated from the closest neighbor property to the north by more than 15 feet.

D. General Plan Consistency: The 2002 General Plan contains several policies applicable to the project, including the following:

1. Policy LU-3–Infill Development: Encourage infill development that is architecturally and environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of sustainable planning and construction, and is compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale.

2. Policy LU-7– Neighborhood Quality of Life, Action A: Require that new development be consistent with zoning standards and compatible with the scale, historic character, and surrounding uses in the area.

3. Policy UD-16–Context: The design and scale of new or remodeled buildings should respect the built environment in the area, particularly where the character of the built environment is largely defined by an aggregation of historically and architecturally significant buildings.

4. Policy UD- 24–Area Character : Regulate new construction and alterations to ensure that they are truly compatible with and, where feasible, reinforce the desirable design characteristics of the particular area they are in.

5. Policy UD-32–Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows.

Staff Analysis: As discussed above, the project would not substantially block views, cast shadows, or create impacts on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. The balcony addition would occur within the existing building footprint and meets the R-1 Zoning District requirements. Because the balcony would be located above the existing roof of the story below, it will not increase the non-conforming lot coverage .

475
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 HILLEGASS AVENUE
September 9, 2021 Page 11 of 11

G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Hillegass\2956\ZP2021-0068\DOCUMENT FINALS Additionally, the project would be consistent with the design character of other buildings in the vicinity.

VI. Recommendation

Because of the project’s consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and its minimal impact on surrounding properties, staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board APPROVE Use Permit #ZP2021- 0168 pursuant to Section 23B.32.030 and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1).

Attachments:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Project Plans, received May 4, 2021

3. Notice of Public Hearing

4. Communications received from January 2021 to September 2021

Staff Planner: Nilu Karimzadegan, [email protected] , (510) 981-7419

476
Attachment 3

>> WELL, WE HAVE A QUORUM SO I WANT TO GET GOING BECAUSE WE HAVE

A PACKED SCHEDULE TONIGHT AND SEVERAL ISSUES THAT HAD SOME

CONCERNS AND WE NEED TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND WANT TO

REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THERE IS AN EFFECTIVE TIME LIMIT ON THE COMMISSION. SHOSHANA CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG WE CANNOT START NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10:00 P.M. WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE COMMISSION TO CONTINUE. AM I GETTING THAT RIGHT.
>> WHAT I CAN'T REMEMBER AND WE SHOULD CLARIFY IS A MAJORITY VOTE OR UNANIMOUS VOTE OR TWO-THIRDS VOTE.
>> I PRESUME IT WOULD HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS BECAUSE WE COULDN'T HAVE COMMISSIONERS NOT PARTICIPATING AFTER 10:00 P.M.
>> I'LL LOOK THAT UP.
>> WE HAVE TO 10:00 TO FIGURE IT OUT.
>> BUT I'LL TRY TO MOVE THINGS ALONG TONIGHT WITH YOUR HELP AND THE PEOPLE WHO JOINED US FROM THE PUBLIC. SO WITHOUT FURTHER

ADO, THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH VIDEO

AND TELECONFERENCE PURSUANT TO ORDER ISSUED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM MARCH 17, 2020. THE MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH TELECONFERENCE AND ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCE. BE ADVISED

PURSUANT TO THE ORDER AND SHELTER IN PLACE ORDER TO LIMIT THE SPREAD OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS THERE WILL NOT BE A PHYSICAL

477
MEETING LOCATION AVAILABLE. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE JOINED TO SPEAK

TONIGHT FROM THE PUBLIC YOU'LL BE INVITED TO SPEAK AT KEY MOMENT S. WHEN YOU ARE INVITED TO SPEAK YOU SHOULD USE THE RAISE HAND

ICON ON YOUR SCREEN AND CLICK ON IT AND YOUR HAND WILL POP UP AND THE CHAIR WILL BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE YOU. IF YOU HAVE JOINED BY PHONE, YOU'LL NEED TO PRESS STAR 9 WHEN YOU'RE INVITED TO SPEAK AND RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR. BE MINDFUL WILL THE

TELECONFERENCE WILL BE RECORDED AS ALL MEETINGS ARE AND OTHER

RULES AND PROCEDURE OF DECORUM WILL APPLY FOR SAID MEETINGS TO BE CONDUCTED BY TELECONFERENCE, VIDEO CONFERENCE OR IN PERSON.

ALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO ROLL CALL. AND EX PARTE
COMMUNICATION DISCLOSURES.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN KAHN. WE'LL DO THE ROLL CALL AND

EX PARTE DISCLOSURES. SO WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME PLEASE SAY IF YOUR PRESENT AND HAVE DISCLOSURES. BOARD MEMBER TREGUB. >> I HAVE AN EX PARTE ON 1151 GRIZZLY PEEK BOULEVARD. I RECEIVED A CALL BY A REPRESENTATIVE OBJECTING TO THE PROJECT. SHE GAVE ME STATEMENTS THAT WERE NOT SUBMITTED TO US.
>> OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER DUFFY
>> PRESENT, NO EX PARTE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER OLSON.
>> PRESENT, NO EX PARTE.

478
>> COUNCIL MEMBER O'KEEFE.
>> PRESENT AND NO EX PARTE.
>> I FORGOT A FEW PEOPLE.
>> I'M SORRY.
>> BOARD MEMBER KIM.
>> PRESENT, NO EX PARTE.
>> BOARD MEMBER SANDERSON.
>> PRESENT, EX PARTE.
>> I'M GLAD YOU'RE HERE. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS. I'M GLAD EVERYBODY GOT RECOGNIZED. THESE ARE THE ACTION MINUTES FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ACTION ITEM FROM AUGUST 26, 2021 AS A STAND ALONE VOTE? IS THAT A MOTION? IS THAT A SECOND? I SEE A NOD. WE HAVE A NOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. CAN YOU TAKE THE ROLL CALL AND DON'T LEAVE ANYBODY OUT.
>> THIS IS FOR AUGUST 21, 2021. BOARD MEMBER KIM.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER DUFFY.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER GAFFNEY.

479
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER TREGUB.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER SANDERSON.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER OLSON.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR O'KEEFE.
>> YES.
>> AND CHAIRPERSON KAHN.
>> YES.
>> WE FORGOT NON-AGENDA ITEMS.
>> LET'S GO BACK TO THAT. SO IF THERE'S ANY THERE WE GO. IF

THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OR ATTENDEES THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON

NON-AGENDA ITEMS NOT ON THE CALENDAR AND GENERAL INTEREST TO THE

ZONING BOARD OR OTHER PEOPLE ATTENDING THIS HEARING, THIS IS

YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OR RAISE YOUR HAND AND I'LL RECOGNIZE

480
YOU, PATRICIA. AM I NOT ABLE TO RECOGNIZE PATRICIA? I'M CLICKING ON HER.
>> OKAY. HAVE YOU THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON A TOPIC OF INTEREST.

YOU SHOULD UNMUTE YOURSELF FIRST. YOU'RE STILL MUTED. YOU'RE STILL MUTED. THERE YOU GO. WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
>> CALLER: MY NAME IS PATRICIA MCCULK AND I'M A GOOD FRIEND OF JOAN WAGERS AND HAVE SEEN MATT AND GINA IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> ARE YOU SPEAKING ON ONE OF THE ITEMS?
>> YES.
>> WE'RE NOT DOING THAT NOW.
>> OH, YOU JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU CAN HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> AND ALLISON, SHE NEEDS TO BE PUT BACK AS AN ATTENDEE. WE HAD A LITTLE BIT LAST WEEK.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE TO BE RECOGNIZED WE'LL CLOSE OUT

THAT PORTION AND BRINGS US TO THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. I'LL RECUSE MYSELF FROM ITEM 2 AS OUR OFFICE IS THE ARCHITECT FOR THAT PROJECT. AND DEFER TO SHOSHANA TO HANDLE THAT CONSENT ITEM. ALLISON, IF YOU CAN DEMOTE ME TO ATTENDEE THAT

WOULD BE GREAT AS A DON'T WANT TO BE PRESENCE FOR THIS

481
DISCUSSION. WE PRACTICES THIS EARLIER AND IT SHOULD WORK I SEE STOP VIDEO.
>> I CAN MUTE MYSELF AND TURN OFF MY VIDEO AND SHUT UP. >> IS IT BECAUSE HE'S CO-HOST?
>>
>> WE HAVE TO UNDO AND REMOVE HIS CO-HOST PERMISSIONS. THEN CHANGE ROLE TO ATTENDEE.
>> OKAY. CHARLES HAS LEFT THE ROOM.
>> OKAY. SAFE. WELL, OKAY. HOLD ON I SEE SOME MEMBERS WANTING TO BE RECOGNIZED. I WAS GOING TO GET COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC FIRST

ABOUT WHAT IF THERE WAS ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE TWO REMAINING CONSENT ITEMS. CARRIE WOULD YOU LIKE IT SPEAK BEFORE THE PUBLIC?

IF YOU WANT TO TAKE SOMETHING OFF, ACTUALLY, MAYBE WE SHOULD GET THE BOARD IF ANYONE FROM THE BOARD WANTS TO REMOVE ANYTHING.

CARRIE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO PULL THE ITEM ON COLLEGE OFF CONSENT. >> LET'S PULL THAT. IF YOU'RE HEAR TO SPEAK ON COLLEGE AVENUE YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IN MOMENTS. THANK YOU. IGOR DID YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT COMMENT?
>> SAME ONE.

482
>> IT'S OFF CONSENT AND ACTIONS WHAT ABOUT SAN PABLO, IS THERE OBJECTION FROM THE BOARD ON LEAVING IT ON CONSENT? I'LL CHECK WITH THE PUBLIC. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT

NOW LISTEN CAREFULLY BECAUSE THIS IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING AND WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING INFORMATIONS WHAT'S GOING ON. ITEM 2, COLLEGE AVENUE WE'LL GIVE THAT A FULL HEARING. IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THAT ONE, SIT TIGHT. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON 1443 SAN

PABLO AND HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT IT WHERE YOU'D LIKE TO REGISTER AN OBJECTION, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU NOW. IF YOU'RE HEAR TO

SUPPORT IT, YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK BECAUSE THE MOST LIKELY

THING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS IF NOBODY HAS AN OBJECTION IT

WILL REMAIN ON CONSENT AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE SO

IF THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS APPROVED THIS WILL BE APPROVED BUT IF

ANYBODY IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP AN OBJECTION WE'D

LIKE TO HEAR THAT NOW AND IF THERE'S SUCH AN OBJECTION WE'LL

PULL THIS ONE FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND GIVE IT A FULL HEARING. ATTENDEES AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, RAISE YOUR HAND

NOW IF YOU HAVE OBJECTION OR WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT ITEM 3, SAN PABLO AVENUE. PRESS STAR 9 IF JOINING BY PHONE.

PATRICIA, I'M GOING RECOGNIZE YOU THOUGH AM I A CO-HOST? NOTHING HAPPENS WHEN I CLICK ON PEOPLE.
>> I DO NOT APPEAR TO BE A CO-HOST. PATRICIA I AM PROMISE I'M TRYING TO RECOGNIZE YOU BUT HAVING A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY ASKING ABOUT 1443 SAN PABLO. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU

483

WOULD LIKE IT SPEAK ON, NOW'S YOUR CHANCE OTHERWISE PUT YOUR HAND DOWN IF YOU'RE HEAR TO SPEAK ON A DIFFERENT ITEM. SHE PUT HER HAND DOWN. THANK YOU. SO 1443 SAN PABLO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT TO THAT ITEM NOW? SEEING NONE I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>> TO CLARIFY, THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH 1443 SAN PABLO.
>> I SECOND.
>> GREAT.
>> SO A MOTION AND SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

LET'S DO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR JUST ITEM 3. >> SO FOR 1443 SAN PABLO AVENUE, BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON. >> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER KIM.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER GAFFNEY.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER SANDERSON.

484
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER OLSON.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER DUFFY.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER TREGUB.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR O'KEEFE.
>> YES.
>> AND CHAIRMAN --
>> HE'LL ABSTAIN. YOU CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. WE DON'T NEED HIS VOTE TO PASS IT.
>> THAT HAS PASSED. THE CONSENT CALENDAR PASSES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, ACTION CALENDAR. WHAT WE ALL CAME FOR. SO

TRADITIONALLY AND TODAY WE'RE GOING TO FIRST BEFORE WE HEAR THE

PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED ITEM WE'LL HEAR THE ITEM THAT CAME OFF CONSENT, 2125 COLLEGE AVENUE SO IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THAT GET READY. STAFF AUDIENCE, WE'LL DO THAT FIRST. FIRST WHAT WE'LL DO

IS BEGIN WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND THEN HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF

FROM THE BOARD THEN WE'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT

FOLLOWED BY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND THEN PUBLIC COMMENT

485
AND ANYONE WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON 2521 COLLEGE AVENUE WILL HAVE A

CHANCE TO DO SO AT THAT TIME AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE ONE

MORE CHANCE TO SPEAK AND THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I HAVE BOARD COMMENTS AND HOPEFULLY VOTE THOUGH YOU NEVER KNOW.

SO WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING? STAFF REPORT. LET'S HAVE IT. >> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS. THIS IS CASE PERMIT 2020-2147 TO

MODIFY THE PERMIT ALLOWING FOR A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT OCCUPANTS IN A 268,000 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING TO ALLOW 13 OCCUPANTS AND 13

OCCUPATION ROOMS AND TO LEGALIZE THE ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH AN AVERAGE HEIGHT OF 10 FEET AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF GROUP LIVING ACCOMMODATION OCCUPANT. IT'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IT'S EXEMPT OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES AND THE DETERMINATION MADE BY ZAB.

IT'S A LAND USE OF MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL. THIS LOCATED ON THE EAST

SIDE OF COLLEGE AVENUE BETWEEN DWIGHT WAY AND PARKER STREET SOUTH OF THE U.C. BERKELEY CAMPUS AMONG DORM TRIES AND SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS. IT LEADS TO A GARAGE AT THE BASEMENT

LEVEL CONTAINING FOUR OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES AND SHARED WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS A

NON-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND STAFF RECEIVED NOTICE FROM THE

PUBLIC THAT TWO DETACHED ADUS HAVE REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION AND

THEY'RE SEPARATE PARCELS AND THE ADUS ARE NOT PART OF THIS PROPOSAL. OCTOBER 13, 1988, THE ZAB UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE

PREVIOUS USE PERMIT TO LEGALIZE THE BOARDING HOUSE UP TO SEVEN OCCUPANTS AND ONE MANAGER FOR A TOTAL OF EIGHT OCCUPANTS. WITH

486
TWO PARKING SPACES AND USABLE PARKING SPACE. SUBSEQUENTLY ON JULY 7, 1997, THE OTHER REGISTERED A 13-BED REMEMBER ROOMING

HOUSE WITH THE RENT STABILIZATION BOARD AND NO CHANGE HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS REGISTERED SINCE THAT TIME. BOARD RECORDS CURRENTLY INDICATE ALL 13 ROOMS ARE REGISTERED AND

AVAILABLE FOR RENT AND THERE ARE TWO OCCUPANTS IN EACH FOR A TOTAL OCCUPANCY OF 17. SO AS I SAID THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE OCCUPANCY OF THIS GROUP LIVING ACCOMMODATION FROM 8 TO 13

WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER ALLOWED UNDER THE ORDINANCE AND IT ADDRESSES THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF 13. IN ORDER TO REQUIRE THE

MINIMUM AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE THE EXISTING WINDOW WOULD BE

REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A DOOR AND NEW INTERIOR WALL WOULD

CREATE A HALLWAY TO ALLOW RESIDENTS TO ACCESS THE ROOF DECK

PORTION AND THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WOULD BE REPLACED WITH A USABLE OPEN SPACE AREA CONTAINING PLANTERS. THE FINDINGS IN

ORDER TO APPROVE THE PROJECT FIRST THE ZAB MUST FIND THE PROJECT

IS NON-DETRIMENTAL AND THE BOARD WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE R3 DISTRICT PROVIDING AN INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN

HOUSING APPROXIMATE TO THE BERKELEY AREA AND INCREASING THE

USABLE AMOUNT OF SPACE AND WOULD RESTORE THE ORIGINAL ROOF DECK

CREATING NEW SIGHT LINES TOWARDS ADJACENT DWELLINGS AND STAFF

BELIEVES IT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL BELOW THE DISTRICT HEIGHT

LIMIT AND VIEWS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF EXISTING BUILDING AND VIEWS TO THE EAST WOULD BE TOWARDS THE REAR YARD AT 2626 ELNA

487
WITH A SEPARATION OF APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET WITH SEVERAL TREES AND VEGETATION TO SCREEN. THE PROJECT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GOA HOUSING AND COMPLIES WITH TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE.

SECOND, THE ZAB MUST FIND THE ACCESSORY BUILDING IS PERMISSIBLE

AND MEETS THE HEIGHT AND STANDARDS AND WOULD BE USED AS A DWELLING UNITS. GIVEN THERE'S NO FACADES TO THE NORTH AND EAST

IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THE BUILDING WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL AND

CREATES SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO PRIVACY AND BECAUSE OF THE

PROJECT'S CONSISTENCY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND GENERAL PLAN

AND MINIMUM IMPACT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES STAFF IS

RECOMMENDING THEY APPROVE THE PROJECT WITH FINDINGS ON
ATTACHMENT 1. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANKS FOR THE STAFF REPORT. RIGHT NOW I'D LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD IF THERE'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'M NOT SEEING ANY QUESTION FOR STAFF. I'LL MOVE ON HOWEVER, I SHALL BE HERE, MICHAEL DO YOU KNOW HOW TO PUSH THE RAISED HAND BUTTON. >> EVERY BUTTON BY THAT ONE.
>> I SEE YOUR ACTUAL HAND.
>> TO CLARIFY THERE'S 13 OCCUPANTS THERE NOW?
>> THERE'S 17 NOW.
>> AND THIS WOULD ALLOW 13.
>> AND THE PERMIT WAS FOR 8.

488
>> SO IF THIS WAS APPROVED WOULD THE 17 BEING REDUCED TO 13? OR WOULD 17 STILL BE THERE EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONLY ALLOWING 13? >> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE COMPLYING WITH ALL THE REGULATIONS

AND TENANT PROTECTIONS UNDER THE RENT STABLE PROTECTION AND TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE S SO CONDITION OF APPROVAL 32, 33 AND 34 ADDRESS THAT FACT. SO THE PLANNING DIVISION COULD BUT AS NATURAL [INDISCERNIBLE] OCCURS THE ROOMS THAT ARE DOUBLE OCCUPANCY WOULD GO DOWN TO SINGLE OCCUPANCY.
>> THANK YOU. IT DOES SAY THAT. I'M LOOKING AT IT NOW. THANK YOU.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> CARRIE. QUESTION FOR STAFF?
>> DURING YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU SOMETIMES USE THE WORD YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THIS, "OCCUPANTS" AND USE THE WORD
"BEDROOMS" AND YOU'VE MADE ME THOROUGHLY CONFUSED AND AFTER IF 32 YEARS OF THIS THERE'S NOT EASY AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL

CLEAR TO US AND EVERYONE LISTENING, FROM WHAT I READ WAS APPROVED WAS EIGHT OCCUPANTS. THEY WENT TO 17 WITH APPARENTLY NO ONE PAYING ATTENTION. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

489
>> BECAUSE HONESTLY, A LOT OF WHAT WE DO ONCE WE APPROVE SOMETHING IS WE TRUST. WE TRUST THE CITY. WE TRUST THE PROPERTY

OWNER, WE TRUST THAT WHAT WE'VE APPROVED IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN SO NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE 13 UNITS IN A BUILDING THAT ALREADY HAS 17 PEOPLE, FOUR OF WHICH WILL HAVE TO FIND HOUSING

SOMEWHERE PLUS THERE'S THE CONSTRUCTION WORK THAT WILL, I GUESS, GO ON DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR -- A CRAZY SCHOOL YEAR. SO DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M COMING FROM? I NEED TO HAVE YOUR ASSURANCE THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ISN'T JUST 13 BEDROOMS BUT 13 OCCUPANTS. SINGLE PEOPLE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THERE ARE 13 GLA ROOMS CURRENTLY SOME HAVE DOUBLE OCCUPANCY NOT ALL AND HOW WE GET TO 17 OCCUPANTS. THERE'S MORE OCCUPANTS THAN BEDROOMS BUT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT IS 13 SO THAT MEANS THERE'S A MAXIMUM OF ONE OCCUPANT PER ROOM SO ONE TO ONE IS 13 ROOMS AND 13 PEOPLE.
>> SO HOW DO WE KNOW -- HOW WILL THERE BE A FOLLOW-UP TO ENSURE THAT WHAT WE APPROVE TONIGHT WILL BE WHAT THERE IS?
>> SO IT WOULD RELY ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SO THE OWNER

SUBMITS INFORMATION TO PLANNING STAFF AND THERE'S NATURAL ATTRITION. THIS WOULD NOT EVICT ANY TENANT BUT NATURAL ATTRITION

WOULD OCCUR BUT THE DOUBLE OCCUPANCY ROOMS WOULD BE RENTED AS SINGLE OCCUPANCY ROOMS IN THE FUTURE.

490
>> SO NOW THAT YOU'VE SAID THAT TO WHICHEVER ONE OF US MAKES THE

MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ASSUMING THIS IS WHERE IT'S HEADED,

PLEASE INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE SO THAT STAFF WILL BE OBLIGATED TO

FOLLOW-UP TO MAKE SURE THAT AS ATTRITION HAPPENS, SO THERE WON'T BE 13 ONCE THIS PROJECT IS COMPLETE, BUT THERE SHOULD BE 13 AND MAYBE WE CAN GIVE A TIME LINE? ONE YEAR, TWO YEARS. BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO REGULATE. I THINK WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO IS AS DIFFICULT AS I'VE EVER SEEN. I JUST WANTED TO ASK. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE A NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS AND NEXT IS IGOR. >> THANK YOU. I WILL NOT GET INTO THE DETAILS NOW BUT I WILL GO

ON THE RECORD LATER HOW WE ACTUALLY CAN'T REQUIRE ATTRITION AT A CERTAIN TIME. THAT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH CONDITION 34. MY

QUESTION FOR STAFF GIVEN THE COMMENT THAT CAME IN IN A
SUPPLEMENTAL REGARDING NOISE AND HELP REFRESH MY MEMORY. IN THE

PAST I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOMETIMES REQUIRED A MANAGEMENT PLAN TO TAKE PLACE. CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION OF IF WE CHOSE TO DO SO

HERE, COULD WE REQUIRE A MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING PLAN TO BE REACH OUT TO STAFF AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
>> AND THE PROJECT WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOISE ORDINANCE.

I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT YOU

MENTIONED BUT THE OWNER SHOULD NOTIFY US OR THE RENT BOARD WHEN

491

THERE'S A CHANGE IN TENANT SO WE KNOW SOMEONE ELSE DOESN'T COME IN WITH TWO PEOPLE INSTEAD OF ONE. THERE'S NO WAY THE PLANNING STAFF CAN TRACK THAT. THE OWNER SHOULD NOT JUST NOT NOTIFY THE

TENANTS WHERE THEY LEAVE ONLY ONE CAN COME BACK IN BUT I THINK

THE OWNER NEEDS TO NOTIFY PLANNING STAFF AND/OR THE REPRESENT CONTROL BOARD WHEN ONE OF THOSE UNITS BECOMES VACANT. AND THE REASON WHEN I WAS THERE IN 2003 YOU HAD AN ILLEGAL UNIT AND REMAINED OCCUPIED. NO ONE TO MY KNOWLEDGE EVER WENT BACK AND

CHECKED TO SEE IF WHEN THE UNITS BECAME VACANT THAT THEY WERE THEN BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING. SO WE DON'T WANT TO

PUT ANYONE ON THE STREET BUT WE NEED SOME WAY TO KNOW THAT WHEN

THERE IS A CHANGE OF TENANCY, THE NEW TENANT IS ONE PERSON AND NOT TWO IN CONDITION OF APPROVAL I THINK 23 WHEN THE OWNER WILL NOTIFY THE TENANTS OF. WE CAN'T HAVE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR

THE RENT CONTROL BOARD BUT WE NEED SOME WAY TO DO THIS THAT

EITHER THE RENT CONTROL BOARD OR THE OWNER NOTIFIES THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO WE CAN KEEP TRACK OF THIS. SO THAT'S ONE SUGGESTION. ALSO IN RESPONSE TO IGOR'S COMMENTS WHEN WE USED TO

DOUGH -- TO DO THE ORDINANCE WE HAD THE MINI ORDINANCE AND THEY WERE REQUIRED TO REGISTER SO THEY'RE ON RECORD. I'M NOT SURE WE NEED TO -- IT'S VERY HARD TO ENFORCE ANY WAY. NOW THE NEIGHBORS

KNOW IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM THEY FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OF THE MINI DORM ORDINANCE. I DON'T FEEL SO STRONGLY OF DOING WHAT WE

492

USED TO DO WHICH IS TO MAKE ALL KINDS OF CONVOLUTED PLANS ABOUT NOISE AND ALL OF THAT.
>> I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE THESE ARE JUST QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I DID ALLOW IT SO IT FELT RELEVANT BUT I WANT TO BRING US BACK TO WHAT WE'RE DOING.
>> I'M SORRY.
>> I'M SORRY.
>> IT'S OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, DEBRA, WHILE YOU'RE RECOGNIZED?
>> NO.
>> OKAY. GREAT. YOU'RE NEXT.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL HOLD MY COMMENTS BACK. MY QUESTION IS

OBVIOUSLY IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US AND THIS COULD OR SHOULD BE

ABOUT BEDROOMS BECAUSE IT'S SOMEBODY IN A BED WE CANNOT REGULATE

WHETHER THEY INVITE SOMEONE TO COME LIVE IN THEIR BED WITH THEM

AND CANNOT MANDATE THAT AND HERE'S THE QUESTION, DO WE HAVE

ANYWHERE IN THE PAST OR IN THE CODE NOW THAT TRIES TO ADDRESS OR TRACK THAT? IT SEEMS THE MOST REASONABLE EFFORT IS JUST ABOUT A BED COUNT. WHAT I DID IS IT'S A PLAN WITH ONE BEDROOM IN IT. IS THAT RIGHT?

493
>> ANOTHER GI PRODUCTS YOU MIGHT SEE ONE BEDROOM WITH TWO SETS

OF BUNCH BETS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THAT'S WHERE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GLA ROOM AND OCCUPANT ARE MORE CLEAR IN 13 GLA ROOMS AND 26 OCCUPANTS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THERE'S ONE ROOM AND ONE BED AND 13 GLA OCCUPANTS OR PEOPLE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE TO APPLICANT STATEMENT? SEEING NONE, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. I'LL STOP SHARING THE SCREEN. IS AUSTIN THE APPLICANT?
>> YEAH. AUSTIN IS THE ONLY APPLICANT TO PRESENT?
>> YES.
>> AUSTIN, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THE

WHOLE FIVE MINUTES BUT THAT'S THE MAXIMUM AND WE'LL HAVE A TIMER FOR YOU. WE'LL WE DON'T SEE A TIMER BUT JUST THE PLANS. >> I'LL PUT THE PLANS ON THE BACKGROUND.
>> GO FOR IT. I'LL SET MY WATCH.
>> HI, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS AUSTIN SPRINGER AND AN ARCHITECT AND THE PROJECT LEAD FOR THE USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR 2521 COLLEGE AVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION AND I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF. WE'RE PROPOSING TO UPDATE THE EXISTING USE PERMIT FOR EIGHT RESIDENTS TO 13 AND

494

SINCE THIS WAS THE DISCUSSION WE'RE BRINGING THE OCCUPANTS AND BEDROOMS AND HUMANS ALL INTO ALIGNMENT. IN THE PAST THERE'S BEEN

SOME DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF HUMANS AND RENT BOARD BEDROOMS. OUR CLIENT IS TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING ABOVE BOARD.

WE'RE BRINGING IT FROM EIGHT RESIDENTS HOWEVER, YOU INTERPRETED IN THE PAST TO 13 HUMANS, 13 BEDROOMS, 13 GLA OCCUPANTS AND

THERE'S NO EVICTION AND WITH COVID OCCUPANCY WENT DOWN AND NOBODY WILL BE KICKING KICKED OUT OF THEIR ROOM IN A TOUGH YEAR.

ONE FINAL NOTE, THERE'S ALMOST NO CONSTRUCTION. WE ARE CHANGING

THE STATUS OF ROOMS IN THE EXISTING HOME TO WHAT IT USED TO BE LIKE LIVING ROOMS OR OTHER BEDROOMS AND JUST MAKING THEM LEGAL.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING A BUNCH OF CONSTRUCTION INSIDE THE BUILDING. THERE'S ONLY ONE WALL THAT WE'RE PROPOSING

CONSTRUCTING IN THE BUILDING AND THAT'S JUST TO PROVIDE ACCESS

TO ALL THE TENANTS TO THE NEW ROOF DECK WHICH ALSO WILL BE RELATIVELY MINOR CONSTRUCTION. IN ADDITION, THE WHOLE PROJECT IS

GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE DENSITY GUIDELINES

AND IN ADDITION TO THE NEW BEDROOMS WE'RE BEAUTIFYING THE LOT

AND UPDATING THE STREETSCAPE AND PLANTING AND MAKING A USABLE ROOFTOP DECK THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED IN THE BACKYARD. FINALLY

WE'RE SEEKING AN AMP FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN THE REAR OF

THE PROPERTY AND IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE GLS STANDARDS OF THE ZONE AND MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. I'D LIKE

TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD EARLIER THIS WEEK

495
BY THE NEIGHBOR TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, MR. DESQUALI AND HIS CONCERNS WERE THREE FOLD. FIRST HE SAID HE'S AGAINST THE

DENSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE STAFF DETAILED HOW THE

ADDITIONAL OF BEDS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF CREATING

HOUSING IN HIGH AND MEDIUM DENSITY ZONES WITH SORORITY AND

DORMITORY AND THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND AND THE OTHER ADJACENT OBJECTED TO THE WINDOWS PLACED AT THE REAR OF THE APPROVED ADU.

IT'S APPROVED, UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND MOST THE WAY THROUGH CONSTRUCTION NOW FACING THEIR PROPERTIES. AS ASHLEY MENTIONED

AGAIN, THAT PROJECT IS NOT ON THIS PARCEL AND NOT PART OF THIS PERMIT APPLICATION. THAT BEING SAID, IT IS THE SAME OWNER AND

WE'D LIKE TO GO ON RECORD AND SAY THAT OUR OWNER HAS AGREED TO

TO WORK WITH THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORS TO ADD SOME TRANSLUCENT

SCREENING TO THE WINDOWS WHERE APPROPRIATE TO ASSURE THERE'S NO PRIVACY CONCERNS BETWEEN THE TWO. FINALLY, MR. PASQUALI EXPRESSED NOISE CONCERNS AND WE HAVE A SOLUTION. THOUGH THE GLA IS FOR MORE THAN 13 BEDS AND OUR OWNER WILL PROVIDE A MANAGER

AND A RESPONSIBLE RESIDENTS OWNER TO CALL AND WE'RE PREPARED TO

ACCEPT THE ON-SITE RESPONSIBLE RESIDENT AND PROPERTY MANAGER ON

CALL AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IN THE INTEREST OF GETTING APPROVAL AND EASING THE NEIGHBORS CONCERN. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT? IGOR.

496
>> THANK YOU. FIRST, CAN YOU RESTATE THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU ARE VOLUNTARILY WILLING TO ACCEPT TONIGHT? I'M JUST TRYING TO CAPTURE THEM.
>> SURE, IN THIS ZONE THE GLA ORDINANCE OR WHATEVER SAYS IF YOU HAVE 15 OR MORE OCCUPANTS YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A PROPERTY MANAGER WHO'S ON CALL. WHERE THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT IS JUST TO

HAVE A RESPONSIBLE RESIDENT IN HOUSE DISTRIBUTE THE PHONE NUMBER SO NEIGHBORS CAN CALL IF THERE'S AN ISSUE. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS

WE'RE WILLING TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND AND WILL PROVIDE BOTH OF

THOSE THINGS, BOTH A RESPONSIBLE RESIDENT AND A PROPERTY MANAGER THAT WAY WE CAN DOUBLE THE BASES. THERE'S AN ADULT AND A YOUNGER ADULT WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER CALLS.
>> THANK YOU. I WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I THINK I GOT MYSELF MIXED UP THAT PARAGRAPH OF MR. DEPASQUALI. SO THE FIVE WINDOWS

AT ISSUE BEING PROPOSED TO BE FROSTED ON ALL ON THE ADU THAT'S NOT THE SUBJECT OF OUR APPLICATION BEFORE TONIGHT, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT BUT WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM AND TRYING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GREAT. CARRIE.
>> A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. ONE, ONLINE SOMEBODY POSTED

PICTURES OF THESE UNITS WHICH IS ALWAYS HELPFUL FOR US TO

497
ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. THEY ARE BUNK BEDS CURRENTLY

AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE ARE PLANS TO TAKE THOSE BUNK BEDS OUT TO MAKE SURE IT'S A SINGLE PERSON? I GET IT PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE FRIENDS STAY. THEY CAN HAVE A SOFA BED.
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE OWNER'S FURNISHING PLANS AND DON'T WANT

TO COMMIT THEM TO BUYING NEW BEDS FOR THE ROOMS BUT THE PLAN IS TO BRING EVERYTHING IN ACCORDANCE. TO MY MIND THE EASY WAY TO

CONFIRM THAT -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY TO CHECK THE

RENT BOARD BUT THE PLAN IS TO HAVE THE RENT BOARD GET THE SAME INFORMATION YOU'RE GETTING. IT WILL BE 13 OCCUPANTS. AS COUNCIL

MEMBER DUFFY WAS SAYING, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO IF THEY WANT

TO INVITE A FRIEND OVER TO CRASH FOR THE EVENING BUT THERE'LL BE RENTAL DREAMS WITH 13 INDIVIDUALS AND 13 GLA OCCUPANTS. >> THERE'S ONE UNIT UPSTAIRS THAT SAYS IT'S 77 SQUARE FEET. THAT AN EXISTING UNIT NOW.
>> IT'S ESSENTIALLY AT THE END OF THE HALLWAY THAT LEADS TO WHERE THE DECK IS. SO WE'RE MAKING THAT ROOM SMALLER THAT WAY WE CAN PROVIDE INTERIOR ACCESS TO ALL THE TENANTS TO THAT DECK. >> IT'S ACTUALLY NOT THAT UNIT. IT'S ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE DOOR OUT TO THE DECK. ABOUT HALFWAY ALONG.
>> IT MEETS ALL THE DIMENSION.

498
>> IN MY 17 YEARS IN DESIGN REVIEW, THAT WOULD HAVE NEVER PASSED, NEVER EVER. THAT'S REALLY VERY TIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF

IT'S ALREADY EXISTING I GUESS PEOPLE ARE OKAY BUT --
>> IT'S EXISTING AND OCCUPIED. I COULDN'T SAY AT THIS SECOND BUT WHEN I TOURED THE SITE THERE WAS SOMEBODY THERE. THAT ROOM DOES HAVE A FULL WIDTH CLOSET WHICH IS NICE.
>> OKAY.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, NOW WE'RE GOING TO TURN TO NO PUBLIC. WE HAVE ONE HAND UP ALREADY. IF YOU

WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS RAISE YOUR HAND NOW OR SUPPRESS STAR

9. I'LL RECOGNIZED SUSAN. SUSAN, I'M GOING TO ENABLE TALKING.

SUSAN, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. IT WILL START ONCE WE CAN HEAR YOUR VOICE.
>> HELLO.
>> YOU CAN HEAR ME?
>> WE CAN.
>> THANK YOU. I'M THE NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE ADUS THAT ARE BEING CONSTRUCTED ARE 2519 THE AJACE

PROPERTY BEHIND OUR HOUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND

IT'S TWO ADUS WITH NINE PEOPLE AND THREE FEET FROM OUR ORDER

499
LINE. IT'S A HUGE IMPACT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT AUSTIN

SAID WORKING WITH US BUT FACING TOWARDS OUR BEDROOMS, I APPRECIATE THAT. I HADN'T HEARD THAT YET FROM TED BARTLETT THE OWNER SO I'LL HOLD HIM TO THAT STATEMENT. BUT GOING FORWARD ON THE 2521 COLLEGE, BASICALLY THEY'VE BEEN OUT OF COMPLIANCE SINCE 1997 AND THIS IS TRYING TO BRING SOMETHING INTO COMPLIANCE. I CAN SUPPORT THAT. THE CHANGING OF THE GARAGE IN THE BACK TO A DWELLING UNIT AND RECOGNIZING THAT AND THAT'S FINE. THE GARAGE HAS BEEN THERE AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER. WHAT I OPPOSE IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DECK. IT'S 14 FEET HIGH AND TALLER THAN THE

GARAGE THAT WILL BE TURNED INTO A LIVING UNIT AND THAT SOUND WILL CARRY DIRECTLY OVER TO OUR BEDROOMS AND ALSO FOR MR. DE PASQUALI HIS CHILDREN 6 AND 4 THE BEDROOM IS AT THE BACK OF THE

HOUSE AND CONSTANTLY HAVING TO GO OVER AND TELL THE FOLKS TO BE

QUIET IT IS AN IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NOISE IS THE MAIN ISSUE. THE DECK WILL JUST INVITE A PARTY AT 14 FEET WHERE THE NOISE CAN CARRY DIRECTLY OVER TO THE HOMES ON EDNA STREET. I WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT THERE. I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE PHONE

NUMBERS DISTRIBUTED TO ALL NEIGHBORS WITH A RESPONSIBLE RESIDENT

AND PROPERTY MANAGER AND HOPEFULLY THEY CAN TAKE CARE OF NOISE COMPLAINTS WHEN THEY HAPPEN. IN FEBRUARY, THIS IS BEFORE THE

PANDEMIC BEFORE EVERYBODY HAD SHOTS YET, THERE WAS A LOUD PARTY ON A TUESDAY NIGHT THAT WENT ON TO 1:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING AND THAT'S A CONSTANT THING. IF YOU JUST THINK ABOUT 13 PEOPLE

500

LIVING THERE AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEXT DOOR AT 2019, ALL THOSE PEOPLE GET

TOGETHER IT'S A VERY LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVING A PARTY AND

THAT HAPPENS ON A REGULAR BASIS AT THESE PROPERTIES MAKING IT UNTENABLE FOR THE NEIGHBORS. THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IN MAKING THIS CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? AFTER THIS I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. APPLICANT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? EITHER RESPONSE TO WHAT WAS JUST SAID OR ADD ANYTHING? YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO GET YOUR LAST WORD IN.
>> YEAH, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. WE APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND THE FEEDBACK. IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO KNOW WHAT THE NEIGHBORS REALLY THINK. IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THIS DECK WAS EXISTING WHEN OUR CLIENT BROUGHT THE PROPERTY. WE'RE RESTORING IT BACK TO WHAT IT SHOULD BE TO BUILDING STANDARDS. PERMITS WEREN'T THERE WHEN IT GOT REMOVED. AS THE STAFF REPORT NOTES ABOUT 120 FEET AWAY FROM THE

ADJACENT BUILDING AND THERE'S VEGETATION TO WHICH WE'RE PLANNING ON ADDING. WE'RE ADDING GREENERY IN THE BACKYARD AND MAKING IT A

NICE AREA THAT SHOULD ABSORB MORE OF THE NOISE IF THERE IS ANY BECAUSE THERE'S A REQUIREMENT 40% OF OUR NEW LAND ESCAPED AREA IS VEGETATED. THERE'S BE MORE VEGETATION ON SITE TO SOAK UP THE

501

NOISE AND AS ALWAYS, IF THERE ARE NOISE PROBLEMS, AS WE POINTED

OUT, WE'VE MADE THE PHONE NUMBERS AVAILABLE BOTH THE RESPONSIBLE

RESIDENT AND THE PROPERTY MANAGER TO TRY TO COME TO A NEIGHBOR SOLUTION. I THINK THAT'S IT.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. WITH THAT UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, ARE THERE ANY FOR THE BOARD. IGOR.
>> I WAS READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> JUMPED THE GUN. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

THEREFORE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN UP THE FOR A MOTION.
>> IN THE INTEREST OF TIME I WON'T OPINE ON THIS AND WOULD LIKE

TO THANK THE NEIGHBORS FOR COMING AND THE APPLICANT FOR WORKING TO RESOLVE OUTSTANDING ISSUES IN GOOD FAITH. I'D LIKE TO MOVE

THAT WE APPROVE THIS PERMIT WITH THE ADDITION OF TWO CONDITIONS

REQUIRING AN ONSITE RESPONSIBLE RESIDENT AND A SECOND CONDITION

OR COULD BE PART OF THE SAME ONE AN ON-CALL PROPERTY MANAGER WITH THE PHONE NUMBERS READILY AVAILABLE TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

STAFF, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IN THOSE TWO CONDITIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. HAPPY TO ADD. AND THEN QUICKLY

TO COMMISSIONER SANDERSON'S SUGGESTION, WHICH I AGREE ABSOLUTE

WITH SPIRIT ABOUT -- I SUPPORT ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO FURTHER DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE RENT BOARD AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I'M SURPRISING MYSELF A LITTLE BIT. IT MAY BE THE FIRST TIME ON ZAB

502

WHERE I'M ARGUING AGAINST A NEW CONDITION INVOLVING THE RENT BOARD. I THINK BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY ALREADY IS SUBJECT TO OR

THE UNITS ON THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT THEY HAVE TO REGISTER THEIR

UNITS WITH THE RENT BOARD AND HAVE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE RENT BOARD ANYTIME THERE'S A CHANGE OR REDUCTION IN OCCUPANCY. I

THINK I WOULD INVITE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO REACH OUT TO THE

RENT BOARD AND ASK THEM TO NOTIFY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHEN

REDUCTIONS IN OCCUPANCY TAKE PLACE BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE

PERHAPS DUPLICATIVE AND SLIGHTLY UNFAIR TO THE APPLICANTS TO

REQUIRE THEY ALSO NOTIFY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND I PRESENT THE APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF THE SUGGESTION. WE HAVE A MOTION. >> I'LL SAY AS WE WERE TAUGHT ABOUT THE COMMENT MADE AT THE

BEGINNING, WE HAVE A RENT BOARD THAT'S WHAT THEY DO AND THEY HAVE A PLANNING DEPARTMENT. IT DOESN'T TRACK HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE THERE AND SHOULD BE STARTING IN IT. I THINK IT'S BETTER OFF

TO LET THE RENT BOARD DO THEIR JOB AND REGULATE THE NUMBER OF

ROOMS BUT CAN'T GET INVOLVES IN WHETHER THEY'RE OCCUPIED OR UNOCCUPIED AND HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THEM. I AGREE WITH YOU, IGOR AND SECOND THE MOTION.
>> THAT'S GREAT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION OR ANYTHING ELSE? SEEING NONE, SHALL WE VOTE? STAFF, DO WE HAVE -- IGOR SUGGESTED OR STAFF IF FURTHER

503
CLARIFICATION WAS NECESSARY. I WANT TO CONFIRM YOU'RE
COMFORTABLE WITH THE MOTION.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED?
>> TO APPROVE 2521 COLLEGE AVENUE. THIS IS FOR THE ON SITE

RESIDENT AND PERSON AND NUMBERS TO BE PROVIDED TO NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES. BOARD MEMBER SANDERSON.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER KIM.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER GAFFNEY. YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON.
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER OLSON.
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'M INCLINED TO VOTE NO BUT I'LL SAY YES. I DON'T HAVE ANY FAITH. I DON'T.
>> AND CHAIR KAHN IS NOT --
>> YES.
>> YOU FORGOT DUFFY.
>> IT DIDN'T GO WELL. OKAY. YOU'RE DOING GREAT. SO THAT WAS APPROVED. IT'S AVAILABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL, OF COURSE, AS

504
ALWAYS. ENJOY THAT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON AND BEFORE WE MOVE ON, LET'S BRING CHARLES BACK. I WANT TO SAY AS SOON AS HE'S BACK

AND CHAIR OF THE MEETING I'M GOING TO TURN MY CAMERA OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES TO EAT THIS AMAZING PASTA THAT WAS BROUGHT TO ME. I

DIDN'T WANT TO EAT WHILE I WAS CHAIRING SO I'LL TURN MY CAMERA

OFF AND I'M STILL PRESENT AND ENGAGED AND TURN IT BACK ON WHEN I'M DONE.
>> ENJOY THE PASTA, SHOSHANA. THANK YOU FOR COVERING. WE NOW

LOOK FORWARD TO THE ITEMS WHICH WERE SCHEDULED FOR THE ACTION CALENDAR BY STAFF. STARTING WITH 1151 GRIZZLY PEAK BOULEVARD AND WE COULD CHANGE THE SEQUENCE. THIS IS THE HEARING FOR 1151 GRIZZLY PEAK BOULEVARD. WHO IS REPRESENTING THIS FOR THE CITY? >> THIS IS LIAL. I DIDN'T SEE YOU EARLIER. WELCOME.
>> HELLO. GIVE US AN OUTLINE OF THE PROJECT THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> GOOD EVENING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN HEAR ME. THE ITEM IS TO LEGALIZE THE ACCESSORY DWELLING. IT'S WITHIN THE R1H ZONING DISTRICT. THAT IS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH HILLSIDE

OVERLAY AND CONFORMS TO THE DISTRICT WITH DENSITY, HEIGHT, LOT COVERAGE AND OPEN SPACE. I WANT TO CLARIFY AND MAKE SURE IT'S

NOT COMING TO ZAB DUE TO NON-CONFORMITIES BUT DUE TO THE ORIGIN

AS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE AND STAFF DECIDED TO BRING THIS TO YOU GUYS. I KNOW IN THE PAST YOU ARE USED TO SEEING PROJECTS THAT ORIGINATE AS AN A.P. DUE TO NON CONFORMITY WHETHER DENSITY

505
OR LOT BECOME PERMITS. THIS IS ON GRIZZLY PEAK BOULEVARD. THIS IS A SITE PLAN. FOR BACKGROUND IN MAY OF 2021 THE APPLICANTS

INVOLVED TWO PRE-FAB CUSTOM BUILD ACCESSORY BUILDING CONSISTENT OF WHAT IS ACCESSORY BUILDING -- EXCUSE ME? I HEARD SOMETHING.

NEVER MIND. THEY CONSISTENT OF ACCESSORY BUILDING NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS 120 SQUARE FOOT IN AREA AND USED AS A CERAMICS STUDIO IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY. THAT IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. AND ACCESSORY BUILDING TWO, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 103 SQUARE FEET AND USED AS A HOME OFFICE AND

EXERCISE SPACE ON LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE REAR YARD. THE APPLICANTS INSTALLED PREFAB BUILDINGS FOLLOWING THE CLOSURE OF THEIR GYM AND WORK OUT SPACE DUE TO THE PANDEMIC. THE

DEFINITIONS UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN

ACCESSORY BUILDING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BASED ON THE USE OF

THE STRUCTURE AND WHETHER IT'S CONSIDERED HABITABLE OR NON- HABITABLE SPACE. IN RESEARCHING THE PROJECT, LAND USE STAFF

FOUND THE APPLICANTS HAD REQUESTED INFORMATION FROM THE ZONING COUNTER IN AUGUST 2020 REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BUT SINCE

IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHAT THE INTENTION WAS TO INSTALL HABITABLE

STRUCTURE PER THE ACCESSORY BUILDING OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THE APPLICANTS WERE NOT INFORMED AN AUP WAS REQUIRED. THE ORDINANCE

STATES ACCESSORY BUILDING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU HAVE

STANDARDS OF SIZE, LOCATION, HEIGHT REQUIRES ZONING APPROVAL

THROUGH AN AUP PROFESSION WHILE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED

506
BY RIGHT. I'M HIGHLIGHTING THE DIFFERENCE VERSUS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. I SHOULD SAY WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE EVEN I MIX UP TWO SOMETIMES. PER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I BELIEVE TABLE 4 IN THE STAFF RECORDS THE ACCESSORY BUILDING

WOULD MEET STANDARDS GOVERNING ACCESSIBLE STRUCTURES INCLUDING HEIGHT LIMITS AND MINIMUM STEP OUTS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? NOTHING SEEING ANY WE'LL GO TO THE APPLICANT. IGOR DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> OF COURSE I DO. ONE THING THAT MAYBE WOULD HELP BEING I'M LOOKING AT TABLE 4 ON PAGE 5 OF THE STAFF REPORT. THERE ARE SOME

ELEMENTS THAT CONFORM WITH PARTS OF THE BUILDING SETBACKS

DEPENDING ON WHAT THE REQUIRED SETBACK IS BUT I WAS A LITTLE BIT UNCLEAR WHAT THE ZERO TO FOUR FEET MINIMUM IS. AT WHAT POINT IS IT ZERO AND AT WHAT POINT IS IT FOUR AND IN BETWEEN.
>> THE WAY THE ZONE ORDINANCE SECTION IS WRITTEN WITHIN ZERO TO FOUR FEET OF THE SETBACK YOU CAN HAVE A LIMIT OF 10 FEET.

HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
>> I THINK SO.
>> IF IT WAS TALLER THAN 10 FEET IT'D HAVE TO BE SET BACK AT LEAST FOUR FEET.

507
>> THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE MORE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME FOR STAFF. SO LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICANT STATEMENT.
>> APPLICANTS ARE GINA AND MATT AND BELIEVE THEY'RE ALREADY ON YOUR SCREEN AT LEAST THEY'RE ON MINE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. I'M MATT JACOBS OWNER OF 1151

GRIZZLY PEAK BOULEVARD AND DUE IT CHANGES IN COVID MY WIFE AND I

DECIDED ON ACQUIRING TWO ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES FOR OUR PROPERTY

AFTER MUCH RESEARCH AND FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS WE DECIDED TO PURCHASE TWO PRE-FABRICATED STRUCTURES. WE RESEARCHED BERKELEY

BUILDING CODES, MADE CONTACT WITH THE CITY AND FROM THAT

INFORMATION DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION BOTH DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF OUR UNITS. WHEN LOOKING AT THE PLACEMENT OF THE UNITS WE TOOK THE NEIGHBORS INTO CONSIDERATION.

WE COULD HAVE PLACED THEM CLOSER TO OUR SHARED PROPERTY LINES AND CHOSE NOT TO. I'D LIKE THE BOARD TO KNOW WE CONSIDERED OTHER

VARIABLE OPTION TO CREATE HABITABLE SPACES TO MEET OUR NEEDS FOR WORK, EXERCISE AND GINA'S ART STUDIO DUE TO COVID CLOSURES.

FIRST WE CONSIDERED BUILDING THE STRUCTURES OURSELVES CREATING MONTHS OF NOISE AND DUST -- HELLO ARE YOU STILL THERE?
>> GO AHEAD.
>> I'M JUST SHARE MY SCREEN. AND ON THE WEEKENDS WE COULD USE THE MOST TIME TO WORK AND BUILD. AND SECOND OPTION WAS TO BUILD

508

A STORY CREATING MORE OF A DISTURBANCE AND GREATER LENGTH OF

TIME AND WE NEEDED THE FASTEST TURN AROUND TIME TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF OUR HOME. CONSIDERATIONS RESOLVED OUR NEIGHBOR AT 25

STODDARD WAY IN BUILDING THE UNIT AS OUTLINED IN OUR APPLICATION STATEMENT. DESIGN AND CONSIDERATIONS WERE SUCH THEY DELAYS

DELIVERY OF BOTH UNITS BY MONTHS DUE TO THE DESIRES TO CHANGE THE SIZE AND HEIGHT OF UNIT TWO IN RELATION TO 25 STODDARD WAY

IT BECAME A CUSTOM BUILD AND WE REDUCED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND REMOVED LIGHTING AND REDUCED THE ROOF HEIGHT AND PITCH. INSIDE I CAN TOUCH THE CEILING WHEN I'M STANDING. THE DESIGN IS

ULTIMATELY REFLECTION ON OUR DESIRE TO NEGATE SHADOWS AND ALLOW A GREATER AMOUNT OF LIGHT INTO 25 STODDARD WAY. IN FURTHER

DISCUSSION OF LIGHT, THERE ARE SEVERAL TREES BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND THERE'S STUDIES OF THE PROPERTIES. ALL THE LARGEST TREES IN THAT AREA ARE ON 25 STODDARD WAY AND CREATE SHADOWS ACROSS ADJACENT PROPERTY. IN PREPPING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE

UNITS WE REMOVED FROM OUR PROPERTY TWO LARGE, NON DECIDUOUS TREES. THE TREES RANGED IN HEIGHT FROM 16 TO 23 FEET AND OVER ALL WE LOWERED THE SHADOW CASTING PROPERTIES. UNIT 1 DESIGN

CHOICE WE REMOVED THE STANDARD DROP STRUCTURE FEATURE TO HAVE

THE BACK WALL MADE OF GLASS AS THAT COULD POSE PRIVACY ISSUES WE

DECIDED TO REDUCE THE OF AMBIENT LIGHT IN THE UNIT AND MAKE THAT BACK WALL COMPLETELY SOLID. WE PUT A THIN WINDOW AT THE BACK OF THE UNIT TO ALLOW SOME LIGHT IN THE REAR OF THE SPACE.

509
>> WE HAVE DROP STRUCTURES TO MAKE SURE THEY BUILT UNITS TO ADHERE TO CONSIDERATION.
>> YOU'RE OUT OF TIME. YOU HAVE UP TO TWO MINUTES IN REBUTTAL.

ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS MYSELF, MATT. ONE OF THEM IS THE DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY

BUILDING OR STRUCTURE AS ARCHITECT I FIND IT ODD THAT REGULATION WHAT THEY ARE AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE MANDATED TO ENFORCE. YOU'RE HERE TONIGHT. I TEND TO THINK OF THE BUILDING AS SOMETHING WITH

THE FOUNDATION TO IT APPARENTLY STRUCTURE OR FOUNDATION IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEFINITION.
>> YOU CAN DO GRANITE OR GRAVEL OR LAY IT STRAIGHT ON THE GROUND. I FELT BECAUSE -- I FELT LIKE IT WAS BETTER TO GIVE THE GROUND SOMETHING MORE STUDY TO WORK WITH. SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE

POURED A ONE-FOOT WIDE BY WHATEVER THE LENGTH OF THE UNIT WAS

TRENCH FOOT DEEP WITH GRAVEL IN THERE AND CONCRETE AND REBAR IN

THERE SO THOSE UNITS HAD A WAY TO SIT NICELY ON THOSE PADS AND BE MORE LEVEL AND I THINK ACTUALLY MORE SECURE.
>> AND ELECTRICAL?
>> THE WAY THE ELECTRICAL WORKS IN THE UNITS, THERE'S A PLUG ON

THE BACK AND WE HAVE AN EXTENSION CORD RUNNING TO THE BACK OF THE UNITS. WE DID GET 12 GAUGE EXTENSION CORDS AND UPON APPROVAL

I'D LIKE TO RUN A STANDARD ELECTRICAL WITH A DEDICATED CIRCUIT TO THEM. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE LONG-TERM CHOICE. I THINK

510
IT'S A GOOD CHOICE. SO YEAH, RIGHT NOW IT'S AN EXTENSION CORD THAT RUNS TO THEM.
>> THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING. JUST TO BE

CLEAR, I APPRECIATE YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBOR AND THE LIGHT AND SO FORTH. THESE CONCESSIONS YOU MADE

WERE THOSE MADE IN COLLABORATION WITH THE NEIGHBOR OR
CONSIDERATION OF THE NEIGHBORS?
>> MY COMPUTER SHOWED ON MUTE. I HAVE QUESTIONS. ARE THERE PLANS FOR PLUMBING IN EITHER UNIT?
>> NO, MA'AM. THERE'S NOT.
>> HOW DO YOU PLAN TO HEAT THEM?
>> THERE'S A SMALL HEATER THAT CAN BE PLUGGED IN. THE AFTERNOON SUN ACTUALLY KEEPS THEM QUITE WARM.
>> I'M SORRY, ONCE THE FOG HITS, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WILL BE ADEQUATE. DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TO ADD SKYLIGHTS ON EITHER UNIT OR SOLAR PANELS?
>> NO.
>> DID YOU GIVE ANY CONSIDERATION TO PLACING THE UNITS CLOSER TO YOUR HOME RATHER THAN TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOME?

511
>> WE TOOK CONSIDERATION INTO WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE BEST LAYOUT. WE TRIED TO CREATE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE UNITS AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
>> DO YOU KNOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BACK OF YOUR HOUSE AND THE UNITS?
>> THAT'S REPRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENT. THERE'S 11 FEET AND BETWEEN THE OTHER HOMES, ONE HOME 1157 GRIZZLY PEAK IS CADDY CORNER AND THAT MEASUREMENT I'LL ROUGH AT 10 FEET AS WELL AND THEN 11 FEET OR A HOME VERY CLOSE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
>> WAS THERE A PHYSICAL IMPEDIMENT? 11 FEET ON ONE SIDE AND 41 FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE? WAS THERE A PHYSICAL -- BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE SITE. THERE'S A STAIRCASE GOING UP. -- STAIRCASE GOING UP.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL.
>> IN YOUR STATEMENT YOU SPOKE FOR A WHILE HOW MUCH

CONSIDERATION AS TO THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBOR YOU TOOK IN YOUR

DESIGN AND I APPRECIATE THAT BUT I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE THE

NEIGHBOR IS REPRESENTED AND YOU JUST REPRESENTED EARLIER YOU

DIDN'T DISCUSS THIS PROJECT WITH THE NEIGHBOR BEFORE GOING FORWARD. HOW DID YOU ASSESS THE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBOR WITHOUT SPEAKING TO THEM?

512
>> WHEN WE START THE PROJECT WE THOUGHT THE UNITS WERE
STRUCTURES.
>> LET'S TALK TO THE BUILDERS. WE HAD MANY MEETINGS WITH THEM.

AT POINTS THEY WERE GETTING THE DESIGNS WRONG. I WAS LIKE NO, YOU NEED TO BRING IT DOWN AND LOWER THE ROOF.
>> I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO KNOW BECAUSE WE CONSIDERED THE BACK NEIGHBOR AT 25 STODDARD WE ACTUALLY INCURRED MORE COSTS IN MAKING A CUSTOM BUILT.
>> YOU'VE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT THAT AND I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING.

I'M CONFUSED AND MAYBE THERE IS NO ANSWER TO LIKE WHY WOULD YOU

TAKE ON THIS COST AND GO THROUGH ALL THIS TROUBLE AND THEN NOT CHECK WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO SEE WHAT THEIR NEEDS WERE? IT'S

CONFUSING FOR ME AND MAYBE WE CAN LEAVE IT AT THAT AND YOU CAN RESPONSE BRIEFLY.
>> ULTIMATELY I WOULD THINK WE FELT LIKE THE DECISION STAYED WITH US.
>> THAT'S FAIR. MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHICH IS IS IT POSSIBLE TO

TELL ME HOW YOU WENT ABOUT IT HIT
>> IT WAYS A COUPLE THOUSAND POUNDS. I CAN'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SHOSHANA. IGOR YOU'RE NEXT.

513
>> SO JUST A SIMPLE QUESTION. IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL WE RECEIVED THERE WAS A REFERENCE BY A PROPOSED COMPROMISE. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS.
>> THE COMPROMISE LETTER AND THIS WOULD TAKE IT FROM 11 FOOT TO 6'2" AND IF YOU WERE CONSIDER THE THICKNESS OF THE ROOF JOYCE SO THE INTERIOR WOULD BE 5'8" THAT WASN'T SOMETHING I THOUGHT WAS A REASONABLE REQUEST.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THERE'S SEVERAL LONG TREES LONG 25 STODDARD WAY THAT ARE THE

BIGGEST IMPEDIMENT TO THAT PROPERTY'S ABILITY TO HAVE ANY LIGHT ON THAT PROPERTY.
>> THE ANSWER THE QUESTION AND THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSE. >> I'LL SAVE IT FOR COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IN THAT CASE WE'LL PROCEED WITH NEIGHBORS COMMENTS AND THIS

IS AN OPPORTUNITY IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AN ATTENDEE RAISE YOUR HAND AND I SEE ONE HAND RAISED.
>> SHE SAID SOMETHING TO PUT ON HER SCREEN BEFORE WE START HER TIME IF YOU CAN ALLOW ME TO SHARE MY SCREEN. MY SHARE SCREEN BUTTON HAS DISAPPEARED.

514
>> BOTH JOANIE AND I WILL BE SHARING A COMPUTER SO WE CAN ALL RAISE ONE HAND. IF YOU COULD CALL HER AFTER ME OR EVEN LET HER GO FIRST, THERE'S TWO PEOPLE ON THE SAME COMPUTER.
>> I ONLY HAVE PATRICIA WITH YOUR HAND RAISED.
>> SHE'S WITH ME JUST ON MY COMPUTER.
>> OH. IN THAT CASE, IF WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE ON THE SAME CALL, YOU WOULD EACH GET A COUPLE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
>> OKAY. SAMANTHA WOULD YOU MIND PUTTING UP THE DOCUMENTS FOR JONAH FIRST.
>> I AM UNABLE TO NAVIGATE STAIRS THE ONLY COMMUNICATION

REGARDING THE ART STUDIO WAS A SCRAP OF PAPER IN MY MAILBOX

SAYING THERE WERE COMING THE NEXT WEEK AND THE CITY OF BERKELEY APPROVED THEM. .
>> THEN, YOU ENTER THE LIVING ROOM. BOOM. A DARK STRUCTURE FILLS

THE WINDOWS BLOCKING LIGHT, SPACE AND THEN, LOOKING OUT OF THE DOORWAY, BOOM. AGAIN. ART STUDIO. INTO THE KITCHEN, DINING AREA, FACING PATIO. A DIFFERENT ROOF. WORKOUT STUDIO, GRABS LIGHT, SPACE AND HORIZON TO THE SOUTHWEST. I CAN'T GET AWAY FROM THESE

BUT LOST SIGNIFICANT LIGHT, SPACE AND AIR, CAUSING SIGNIFICANT

DISSIDENT TO ENVIRONMENT, AND PEACE OF MIND AS IF THERE ARE DARK CURTAINS AROUND THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. FACING THAT YARD, FROM I HAD LIGHT, HORIZON AND AIRY FEELING. I REALLY NEED YOUR HELP

515
ZONING BOARD MEMBERS. I DID MAKE AN OFFER OF COMPROMISE, THEY THREW IT AT ME. I LIKE THESE STRUCTURES TO NOT BE APPROVED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND HAD THE APPLICANT SAT DOWN WITH JOAN BEFORE THEY DID THIS, BUT THEY DIDN'T. THE ZONING IS AS IF THE APPLICANT SAT

DOWN AND THESE ARE TWO STRUCTURES AND ONLY WINDOW IS IN THE MAIN ROOM OF HER HOUSE. THE ROOF PERMIT CRITERIA IS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD ON PURPOSE. IT ASKS YOU TO LOOK AT IT FROM EACH CASE AND FACTS OF EACH CASE. IN THIS CASE, THE DETRIMENT TO JOAN IS UNMISTAKABLE. IT'S THIS HER FACE IN EVERY ROOM. AND CONTRARY SOCIAL PURPOSE [ AUDIO INDISCERNIBLE ]. FOR EXAMPLE, HOUSING.

NOW. NEW BUILDINGS ARE AN ART STUDIO AND EXERCISE ROOM. UNDER

THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DON'T SEE HOW STAFF CAN DO ANYTHING BUT

MAKE A COMPROMISE TO BE CLEAR WOULD BE ASK APPLICANT TO REMOVE FIVE FEET A PIECE ADDED TO THE ROOF. OTHER OFFER OF COMPROMISE

IS TO ASK IF THEY REMOVE EXTRA TWO FEET OF HEIGHT AND OVERHANGS ON THE SECOND BUILDING. IN APPLICANT STATEMENT, THEY SHOW YOU -- .
>> PLEASE WRAP UP.

516
>> I ASK TO YOU COMPARE APPLICANT STATEMENT IN MY DOCUMENT THAT

SHOWS WITH APPLICANTS HAVE A PICTURE OF THE ART STUDIO THE WAY IT ARRIVED. IT ISN'T A PICTURE OF THE ART STUDIO AS IT NOW

EXISTS AN THE FORE FRONT YOU SEE SHOWS WHERE THE BUILDINGS ARE AND WHERE EACH ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE. THEY'RE REALLY -- NO OTHER WAY TO DESCRIBE THESE WORN PATHWAYS. THEY SAT DOWN TO DO THAT INTENTIONALLY. AND THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE ALSO, PATRICIA THIS, IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY AS PROMISED TO SPEAK.
>> OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES I'LL BE BRIEF. MY NAME IS PATRICIA LA COAT AT 1173

WOODLEY AVENUE AND I'M A GOOD FRIEND OF JOAN'S, AND HAD A NICE INTERACTION WITH MATT AND GENA AND THEIR DOG, SLOPPO. IT'S SAD

TO ME THIS HAPPENING BUT I WANT TO SUPPORT JOAN IN WHAT SHE'S GOING THROUGH WITH THIS. I ARE BEEN TO HER HOUSE MANY TIMES. AND

WHEN I WENT TO HER HOUSE AFTER THE STRUCTURES WERE PUT UP I

IMMEDIATELY NOTICED A SENSE OF YOU KNOW, LESS SPACE, LESSENS OF -- YOU SAW IT IN THE PHOTOS. AND JOAN IS VERY REASONABLE. I

THINK IF MATT AND YOU KNOW, GINA REALLY HAD, THEY DID A LOT OF WORK. YOU GUYS DID A LOT OF WORK IN CONSIDERING. I THINK IF YOU SAT DOWN AND TALKED. THAT IS WHAT FACE-TO-FACE STUFF DOESN'T HAPPEN ANYMORE. IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF IT NEEDING TO HAPPEN. SO

ANYWAY, I CAN ATTEST TO THE FACT MUCH OF HER VIEW BLOCKED AND

517

THE FEELING I GET IN THE HOUSE IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT JOAN IS

SUFFERING FROM WHERE WITH THESE STRUCTURES SO I HOPE THERE CAN

BE SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE AND I HOPE I SHARE IN GOOD TERMS WITH

MATT AND GINA BECAUSE MY DOG ANNIE DOESN'T GET ALONG WITH ALL DOGS BUT GETS ALONG WITH THEIR DOG, SLOPPO.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING TONIGHT. WE HAVE DAVID SCOTT NEXT. NEXT UP. DAVID. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
>> HELLO.
>> YES. WE CAN HEAR.
>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE TIME. MY NAME DAVID SCOTT. MY

FAMILY AND ARE NEIGHBORS AND SHARE LINES WITH MATT AND GINA TO WEST NORTHWEST. WE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS SINCE 2017 AND HERE TO SPEAK FROM THE APPLICATION. MATT AND GINA KEPT US WELL INFORMED

AND TOOK CONSIDERATION OF SURROUNDING HOMES AND ABILITY TO PLACE

THE UNITS AND THEY COORDINATED WITH US AND OTHER NEIGHBORS ON THE WORKMEN ARRIVED TO CONSULT AND SO FORTH. INSTALLATION

PROCESS ITSELF CONSTRUCTION WITH VARIOUS MOVING IN MY OPINION HE

DID WHAT THEY SAID THEY'RE GOING TO DO AND THE RESULTING

STRUCTURES, WE THINK ARE WELL CONSTRUCTED AND AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. I HAVE A CLEAR VIEW OF THEM. THE PEAKED ROOF IS

AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND WELL DESIGNED STRUCTURE THAT WE THINK

ADDS VALUE TO SURROUNDING HOMES AND IN MY BEEN THEY DON'T OBSTRUCT ANYTHING. I CAN UNDERSTAND JOAN'S POINT OF VIEW FROM

518
HER WINDOWS. WE DON'T HAVE THAT ANGLE. BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE

THESE DARK STRUCTURES THAT REALLY DETRACT FROM THE SURROUNDINGS IN ANY WAY. IN TERMS OF USE, WE'VE NOTICED NO NOISE OR
DISRUPTIONS FROM MATT AND GINA. YOU KNOW. SO THAT NOT BEEN AN ISSUE. AND I HAVE HAD NEIGHBORS HERE, AND FRIENDS HERE TO SEE

THE STRUCTURES AND FEEL THEY'RE, AGAIN, VERY AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND ADD VALUE TO SURROUNDING HOMES. SO I THINK TO WRAP

UP, AS DIRECT NEIGHBORS WE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THE STRUCTURE AND SUPPORT MATT AND GINA'S APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL.
>> DAVID. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR STATEMENT?
>> I'M SORRY?
>> IF THAT CONCLUDES YOUR STATEMENT, I JUST WANT TO --. >> YES. PLEASE.
>> AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THE COMMISSION EARLIER, THERE MAY BE A

DISCUSSION LATER ABOUT POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF ONE OR BOTH OF THESE STRUCTURES. AMONG THOSE OPTIONS WOULD BE RELOCATING THE STRUCTURE ONE IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. A COUPLE FEET CLOSER TO YOUR PROPERTY. IS THAT SOMETHING WOULD YOU OBJECT TO?
>> I DON'T THINK SO. RIGHT NOW, I THINK IT'S RIGHT UP AGAINST

OUR FENCE AS IT S IF I SEE AN EXTRA COUPLE INCHES IN PERSPECTIVE IT'S NOT GOING TO BOTHER ME. I HAVE A CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND AS

519
WELL. I GUESS IT'S FOR ANOTHER DISCUSSION BUT I KNOW
DIFFICULTIES MOVING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TOO.
>> THANK YOU DAVID. I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND, LET'S SEE WE DO HAVE KAREN MEADOWS AND SUZIE BAILEY COMING UP. BUT ERIN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> HI. THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> GREAT. ON HERE IS MY HUSBAND ANTHONY. WE LIVE AT 1148 WRIGLEY PEAK ACROSS THE ROAD. SO WE CAN'T, WE'RE NOT IMPACTED AT ALL BY THE ADU. WE JUST WANT TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF MATT AND GINA. AND BASICALLY, YOU KNOW AGREE WITH WHAT DAVID HAD BEEN SAYING.

THEY'RE EXTREMELY CONSCIENTIOUS NEIGHBORS AND WE'VE KNOWN THEM

SEVERAL YEARS, THEY'VE BEAUTIFIED THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THEIR

GARDEN AND WORK HARD ON THEIR PROPERTY WITH THAT PATIO THEY'VE BUILT. SO I DO FEEL FOR JOAN. I APPRECIATE WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY.

I, THERE WAS A PANDEMIC GOING ON THAT LENT TO THE LACK OF

COMMUNICATION, BUT I KNOW THAT MATT AND GINA AS THEY FACED IN

THEIR REMARKS WERE REALLY TRYING TO BE AS CONSCIENTIOUS AS THEY COULD AND WENT ABOUT THIS DEVELOPING THIS PROJECT. SO WE JUST WANT TO SUPPORT THEM. WE HOPE AWE PROVE.
>> THANK YOU.