Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, May 10, 2022 (part 4 of 5)

Page 479 ends

Surveillance Use Policy – Automatic License Plate Readers 1302.1 PURPOSE
This Surveillance Use Policy is legally-enforceable pursuant to BMC 2.99.

The policy of the Berkeley Police Department is to utilize ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images for Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public.
1302.2 DEFINITIONS
“Alleged Parking Violation” means an alleged violation of time limits in parking areas designated by state and local law, or a violation of time limits and/or non-permit parking in the City’s RPP zones.
“ALPR Read Image” means images of license plates, vehicles, wheels or any other incidentally captured image.
“ALPR Read” means computer-readable data captured by an ALPR Reader, including ALPR Read Image and associated ALPR Read Metadata. ALPR Reads are transient means to create potential government records, to include Parking Occupancy Analysis data and Enforced Citations, and therefore shall not be considered a government record itself pursuant to Government Code § 34090.6.
“ALPR Hit” means an Alleged Parking Violation or State Stolen or Wanted System alert resulting from computer generated analysis of ALPR Reads by the Genetec ALPR System resulting in an apparent:
(1) match between an ALPR Read and ALPR Read Metadata stored in the Genetec ALPR System, to include the State Stolen or Wanted System; or (2) incongruence between an ALPR Read and permit information stored in the Passport Parking Management System.
“ALPR Read Metadata” means any image-based or other metadata, including but not limited to, global positioning system coordinates, block face information, tire position information, digitized license plates in alphanumeric characters, and timestamps. “Automated License Plate Reader” or “ALPR” means one or more Genetec AutoVu mobile cameras affixed to Parking Enforcement Scooters and combined with computer software and algorithms to read and convert images of license plates, the characters they contain, and associated ALPR Read Metadata related to Parking Enforcement Operations or Parking Occupancy Analysis into computer-readable data. “Deploy” or “Deployment” means any operation or use of ALPR Readers affixed to Parking Enforcement Scooters.

Page 18 of 56 ends

Page 480 ends

“Enforced ALPR Hit” means an Alleged Parking Violation confirmed by a Parking Enforcement Officer that results in the transmission of associated ALPR Read Image and ALPR Read Metadata to the Passport Parking Management System for storage in a database as a government record for the purpose of citation processing. “Genetec ALPR System” means the computerized Genetec server and database that stores and pushes ALPR Read Metadata generated by ALPR Readers. “Residential Parking Permits” or “RPP” means an annual, visitor, merchant or in-home care parking permit, typically represented by a vehicle’s license plate, and associated with the City’s Residential Parking Permit program across designated zones. “Parking Enforcement Scooter” means the GO-4 three-wheeled parking enforcement vehicle.
“Parking Enforcement Officers” means employees of the City who work weekly rotations on Parking Enforcement Operations beats throughout the City and are properly trained to operate ALPRs and access the Genetec ALPR System.
“Parking Enforcement Operations” means Parking Enforcement Officer enforcement of parking regulations associated with local ordinances, the California Vehicle Code, and State Stolen or Wanted System enforcement through Parking Enforcement Scooter- based automated (ALPR) and non-automated means.
“Personally Identifiable Information” or “PII” means information:
(1) that directly identifies an individual (e.g., name, address, vehicle registration number, or other identifying number or code, telephone number, email address, etc.) or (2) by which the City or other agency intends to identify specific individuals in conjunction with other data elements, i.e., indirect identification. “Parking Occupancy Analysis” means ongoing computational or algorithmic analyses performed by Passport Parking Management System or the City of Berkeley on ALPR Read Metadata regarding the occupancy of total parking spaces across commercial districts as part of goBerkeley, the City's data-driven, demand-responsive parking management program. ALPR Read Metadata data associated with Parking Occupancy Analysis shall not include any license plate or other PII information. “Parking Permit Application” means an application submitted to the City for RPP or other permit that may include but is not limited to PII such as names, address, photo identification, vehicle registration (license plate and vehicle identification number), phone number and email address.
“Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System” means the server and database whereby the Passport Parking Management System vendor, on behalf of the City, downloads, stores and transfers Parking Occupancy Analysis ALPR Read

Page 19 of 56 ends

Page 481 ends

Metadata stripped of any and all PII before being transferred to the goBerkeley program.
“Passport Parking Management System” means the servers and databases maintained by Passport Labs Incorporated, containing the database of the license plate numbers and other PII associated with Parking Permit Applications and Residential Parking Permits, and including historic parking citation data, to include Enforced Hits. “PocketPEO” means a mobile device providing handheld ticket issuance and ALPR data reference capabilities.
“State Stolen or Wanted System” means information from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System's (CLETS) Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Stolen Vehicle System (SVS) database providing data regarding stolen vehicles., and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database of and wanted vehicles.
1302.3 AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED USES
Use of an ALPR is restricted to the purposes outlined below.

All data and images gathered by the ALPR are for official use by the Berkeley Police Department for Parking Enforcement Operations and may be retroactively queried in limited circumstances only as specified by this policy.

In addition, ALPR data may be used by the Finance, Information Technology (IT), Customer Service, and Public Works Departments only as specified herein this policy, and consistent with Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis.

Since such data may contain confidential information, it is notData that is considered confidential under recent state Supreme Court rulings is not open to public review, except as specified.

Berkeley Police Department members or other Departments shall not use, or allow others to use the equipment or database records for any unauthorized purpose (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).

Anyone who engages in an impermissible use of the Genetec ALPR system or associated scan files or hot lists may be subject to administrative sanctions, up to and including termination, pursuant to and consistent with the relevant collective bargaining agreements and Department policies.
(a) An ALPR shall only be Deployed and used for Parking Enforcement Operations, and Parking Occupancy Analysis.
(b) ALPR data strictly obtained from Parking Enforcement Operations retained pursuant to this use policy, including data and metadata associated with ALPR Reads and Hits, may be used to support a specific criminal investigation only pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant.

Page 20 of 56 ends

Page 482 ends

Except when done pursuant to a court order, subpoena, or a search warrant, iIt is a violation of this Policy to utilize the ALPR to record license plates except those of vehicles that are exposed to public view (e.g., vehicles on a public road or street, or that are on private property but whose license plate(s) are visible from a public road, street, or a place to which members of the public have access, such as the parking lot of a shop or other business establishment).
(2) Harassment or Intimidation
It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR system to harass and/or intimidate any individual or group.
(3) Use Based on a Protected Characteristic.

It is a violation of this Policy to use the ALPRs or associated scan files or hot lists solely because of a person's, or group's race, gender, religion, political affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification protected by state and federal law.
(4) Personal Use

It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR System or associated ALPR Read data or the State Stolen or Wanted System hot lists for any personal purpose. (5) First Amendment Rights

It is a violation of this Policy to use ALPRs or associated scan files or hot lists for the purpose or known effect of infringing upon First Amendment rights. (6) Criminal Enforcement
It is a violation of this Policy to use or Deploy ALPRs to scan or canvass license plates in connection with any crime scene, patrol operation, or investigation. (7) Use of Hot Lists
It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR System in conjunction with any hot list other than the State Stolen or Wanted System.
1302.4 DATA COLLECTION AND RETENTION
The Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, is responsible for ensuring proper collection and retention of ALPR data. Technical support and assistance shall be provided by the City of Berkeley's IT department and associated Genetec ALPR system providers/vendors as identified below.

Page 21 of 56 ends

Page 483 ends

IT's role will be limited to providing initial infrastructure set-up and accessing or viewing individual records or reports (potentially including PII or CLETS information as authorized by the Chief of Police), limited to the purposes of testing the accuracy of the equipment. Genetec ALPR System data provided to Parking Control Officers may also contain confidential CLETS information and is not open to public review.

ALPR information gathered and retained by the Berkeley Police Department may only be used and shared with prosecutors or other law enforcement agencies pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant and as limited by this policy. (a) ALPR Read Images
ALPR Read Images and Metadata resulting from ALPR Reads stored locally on Parking Control Officer Vehicle laptops and PocketPEO shall be purged at least nightly.

In no case shall ALPR Read Images resulting from ALPR Reads be transmitted to or stored in the Genetec ALPR System.
(b) ALPR Reads Not Resulting in ALPR Hits
All ALPR Read Metadata from ALPR Reads transmitted and stored in the Genetec ALPR System shall be purged within five (5) days consistent with the City’s 72- Hour Rule (BMC Section 14.36.050).

In no case shall ALPR Read Metadata in the form of license plate data or other PII be transmitted to or stored in the Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System. (c) ALPR Hits
All ALPR Read Images, Metadata, and Hits resulting from ALPR Reads stored locally on Parking Control Officer Vehicle laptops and PocketPEO shall be purged at least nightly.

In no case shall data associated with ALPR Hits be transmitted to or stored in the Genetec ALPR System, nor shall license plate data or other PII included as part of ALPR Read Metadata be transmitted to or stored by the City for Parking Occupancy Analysis (goBerkeley), to include the Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System or as City Department records.
(d) Unenforced ALPR Hits
All erroneous and unenforced ALPR Hit data and Read Metadata shall be purged locally at least nightly.
(e) Enforced ALPR Hits
Only ALPR Read Images and Metadata associated with Enforced ALPR Hits shall be downloaded to the Passport Parking Management servers with a minimum retention period of one year (Government Code § 34090.6) and in accordance with the established records retention schedule. Thereafter, ALPR data should be purged unless

Page 22 of 56 ends

Page 484 ends

it has become, or it is reasonable to believe it will become, evidence in a criminal action pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant or civil action or is subject to a lawful action to produce records. In those circumstances the applicable data should be downloaded from the server onto portable media and booked into evidence. 1302.5 DATA ACCESS
(a) Only properly trained Parking Control Officers and information technology personnel are allowed access to the Genetec ALPR system or to collect ALPR information. (b) No member of this department shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing department-approved training, which shall include complying with this use policy.
(c) No ALPR operator may access California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) data unless otherwise authorized to do so. (cd) If a Sworn officer is called to verify a stolen vehicle, iIf practicable, the officer should verify an ALPR response through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) before taking enforcement action that is based solely on an ALPR Hit. (e) Police will not take any police action that restricts the freedom of any individual based solely on an ALPR Hit unless it has been validated as described above in (d). (1) Police need to have reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to make an enforcement stop of any vehicle. For example, if a vehicle is entered into the system because of its association with a wanted individual, Officers should attempt to visually match the driver to the description of the wanted subject prior to making the stop or should have another legal basis for making the stop.
(2) Prior to initiation of a stop of a vehicle or other intervention based on an ALPR Hit, Department members shall undertake the following:
(i) Verification of status on State Stolen or Wanted System.

An officer must receive confirmation from a Police Department Communications Dispatcher or other department computer device, that the license plate is still stolen, wanted, or otherwise of interest before proceeding (absent exigent circumstances). (ii) Visual verification of license plate number.

(d) Sworn Officers shall visually verify that the license plate of interest matches identically with the ALPR Read Image of the license plate number captured (ALPR Read) by the ALPR, including both the alphanumeric characters of the license plate, state of issue, and vehicle descriptors before proceeding. Department members alerted to the fact that an observed motor vehicle's license plate is entered as an ALPR Hit in a specific State Stolen or Wanted System list are required to make a reasonable effort to

Page 23 of 56 ends

Page 485 ends

confirm that a wanted person is actually in the vehicle and/or that a reasonable basis exists before a Department member would have a lawful basis to stop the vehicle. 1302.6 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTION:

The Berkeley Police Department is dedicated to the most efficient utilization of its resources and services in its public safety endeavors. The Berkeley Police Department recognizes the need to protect its ownership and control over shared information and to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public, in accordance with federal and state law. The procedures described within this policy (Data Access, Data Protection, Data Retention, Public Access and Third- Party Data Sharing) protect against the unauthorized use of ALPR data. These policies ensure the data is not used in a way that would violate or infringe upon anyone's civil rights and/or liberties, including but not limited to impacts that may violate the First and Fourth Amendments and other potentially disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups.

The Berkeley Police Department does not permit the sharing of ALPR data gathered by the City or its contractors/subcontractors for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement, pursuant to the California Values Act (Government Code § 7282.5; Government Code § 7284.2 et seq) – these federal immigration agencies include Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CPB).

1302.7 PUBLIC ACCESS
Non-law enforcement requests for information regarding a specific vehicle's license plate may be honored when the requester is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, and when providing such information will not invade the privacy of a third party. The requester in such cases must provide acceptable proof of his or her identity and of ownership of the vehicle in question.
1302.8 THIRD-PARTY DATA-SHARING
(a) Non-law enforcement requests for access to stored ALPR data related to parking management shall be processed according to this policy, and the Records Maintenance and Release Policy in accordance with applicable law.
(b) The ALPR data may be shared only with other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for official law enforcement purposes or as permitted by this policy and under no circumstances. ALPR data is subject to the provisions of BPD Policy 415, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials.

Requests for ALPR data by non-law enforcement or non-prosecutorial agencies will be processed as provided by this policy and in the Records Maintenance and Release Policy (Civil Code § 1798.90.55).

Aggregated ALPR data not related to specific criminal investigations authorized by a court order, subpoena, or search warrant shall not be released to any local, state or

Page 24 of 56 ends

Page 486 ends

federal agency or entity without the express written consent of the City Manager and only in accordance with this Use Policy.

Third-party data-sharing shall be subject to non-privileged and non-confidential City Council notification pursuant to BMC 2.99.020 (2) (a).
1302.9 TRAINING AND ALPR ADMINISTRATOR
Training for the operation of ALPR technology shall be provided by BPD personnel. All BPD employees who utilize ALPR technology shall be provided a copy of this Surveillance Use Policy.
(1) The Investigations Division Captain shall be responsible for compliance with the requirements of Civil Code § 1798.90.5 et seq. This includes, but is not limited to (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53):
(i) A description of the job title or other designation of the members and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the Genetec ALPR system or to collect ALPR information.

(ii) Ensuring that training requirements are completed for authorized users. The Administrator shall ensure that members receive department-approved training for those authorized to use or access ALPRs (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).

(iii) A description of how the Genetec ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws.

(iv) Procedures for system operators to maintain records of access in compliance with Civil Code§ 1798.90.52 and this Use Policy.
(v) The title and name of the current designee in overseeing the ALPR operation. (vi) Ensuring this policy and related procedures are conspicuously posted on the City's website.
1302.10 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
Genetec ALPR System audits will be conducted by the Professional Standards Bureau's (PSD) Audit and Inspections Sergeant pursuant to Municipal Code SectionBMC

2.99.020 4. k. on a regular basis, at least biannually. (1) Any unauthorized access or data breach shall be reported immediately to the City Manager.
(2) The audit shall be documented in the form of an internal department memorandum to the Chief of Police. The memorandum shall include any data errors found so that such errors can be corrected. After review by the Chief of Police, the memorandum and

Page 25 of 56 ends

Page 487 ends

any associated documentation shall be placed into the annual report filed with the City Council pursuant to BMC Section 2.99.020 2. d. , published on the City of Berkeley website in an appropriate location, and retained by PSD. 1302.11 MAINTENANCE
Any installation and maintenance of ALPR equipment, as well as ALPR data retention and access, shall be managed by the Investigations Division Captain. The Investigations Division Captain will assign members under their command to administer the day-to-day operation of the ALPR equipment and data.

Page 26 of 56 ends

Page 488 ends

Kate Harrison
Councilmember District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

REVISED AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 1

Meeting Date: November 30, 2021

Item Number: 27

Item Description: Resolution Accepting the Surveillance Technology Report for Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, Body Worn Cameras, and the Street Level Imagery Project Pursuant to Chapter 2.99 of the Berkeley Municipal Code

Submitted by: Councilmembers Harrison and Hahn

Amends Resolution to adopt a Surveillance Technology Use Policy for Automatic License Plate Readers as required by the Surveillance Technology Ordinance.

To date, Council deferred adoption of a Surveillance Use Policy pursuant to Sections

2.99.020 and 2.99.050 of the Ordinance for Automatic License Plate Readers, including in order to draft a policy with enhanced civil liberties protections. Berkeley Police Department Administrative Order #001-2016, prepared in 2016 before adoption of the Surveillance Ordinance, has served as a de facto ALPR policy, however Administrative Order #001-2016 is out of date and does not satisfy the specific requirements of the Surveillance Ordinance. Adoption of an earlier proposed update to the use policy for ALPRs was deferred by Council as it did not contain sufficient information about data retention and sharing and protection of civil liberties.

The attached Use Policy supersedes Administrative Order #001-2016 and satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance, including providing a legally-enforceable Surveillance Use Policy and enhanced civil liberties protections.

Use Policy Overview:

• Provides key definitions.
• Authorizes ALPR for Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis.
• Enumerates specifically prohibited uses of ALPR that may impact civil liberties.
• Incorporates key provisions from BPD’s previously proposed Policy 1302.

Page 27 of 56 ends

Page 489 ends

• Addresses the Police Review Commission’s concerns, as expressed in their September 11, 2019 letter to Council pursuant to Section 2.99.030, about the previously proposed Use Policy 1302.
• Specifies appropriate data retention periods for ALPR reads and hits. • Specifies that personally identifiable ALPR data will not be sent to goBerkeley (as confirmed by Transportation Division staff) as part of Parking Occupancy Analysis.
• Specifies that ALPR data obtained from Parking Enforcement Operations, including data and metadata associated with ALPR Reads and Hits, may be used to support a specific criminal investigation only pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant.
• Restates the City’s policy of not sharing of ALPR data gathered by the City or its contractors/subcontractors for purpose of federal immigration enforcement. • Specifies that third-party data-sharing shall be subject to non-privileged and non-confidential City Council notification pursuant to BMC 2.99.020.

Page 28 of 56 ends

Page 490 ends

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

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY

REPORT FOR AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS, GPS TRACKERS, BODY

WORN CAMERAS, AND THE STREET LEVEL IMAGERY PROJECT AND ADOPTING

A SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY USE POLICY FOR AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE

READERS

WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance 7,592-N.S., which is known as the Surveillance Technology Use and Community Safety Ordinance (“Ordinance”); and

WHEREAS, Section 2.99.070 of the Ordinance requires that the City Manager must submit to the City Council a Surveillance Technology Report as defined by Section

2.99.020(2) of the Ordinance at the first regular City Council meeting in November; and

WHEREAS, the Surveillance Technology Reports satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance.; and

WHEREAS, Council deferred adoption of a Surveillance Use Policy pursuant to Sections 2.99.020 and 2.99.050 of the Ordinance for Automatic License Plate Readers in order to draft a policy with enhanced civil liberties protections, and heretofore Berkeley Police Department Administrative Order #001-2016, prepared in 2016 before passage of the Surveillance Ordinance, has served as a de facto ALPR policy; and

WHEREAS, the attached Use Policy supersedes Administrative Order #001-2016 and satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance, including providing a legally-enforceable Surveillance Use Policy and enhanced civil liberties protections.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council hereby accepts the Surveillance Technology Reports for Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, Body Worn Cameras, and the Street Level Imagery Project and adopts a Surveillance Technology Use Policy for Automatic License Plate Readers.

Attachment

1. Surveillance Use Policy – Automatic License Plate Readers

Page 29 of 56 ends

Page 491 ends

Surveillance Use Policy – Automatic License Plate Readers 1302.1 PURPOSE
This Surveillance Use Policy is legally-enforceable pursuant to BMC 2.99.

Page 30 of 56 ends

Page 492 ends

Page 31 of 56 ends

Page 493 ends

Metadata stripped of any and all PII before being transferred to the goBerkeley program.
“Passport Parking Management System” means the servers and databases maintained by Passport Labs Incorporated, containing the database of the license plate numbers and other PII associated with Parking Permit Applications and Residential Parking Permits, and including historic parking citation data, to include Enforced Hits. “PocketPEO” means a mobile device providing handheld ticket issuance and ALPR data reference capabilities.
“State Stolen or Wanted System” means information from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System's (CLETS) Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Stolen Vehicle System (SVS) database providing data regarding stolen vehicles, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database of wanted vehicles.
1302.3 AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED USES
Use of an ALPR is restricted to the purposes outlined below.

In addition, ALPR data may be used by the Finance, Information Technology (IT), Customer Service, and Public Works Departments as specified herein and consistent with Parking Enforcement Operations and Parking Occupancy Analysis. Since such data may contain confidential information, it is not open to public review, except as specified.

Anyone who engages in an impermissible use of the Genetec ALPR system or associated scan files or hot lists may be subject to administrative sanctions, up to and including termination, pursuant to and consistent with the relevant collective bargaining agreements and Department policies.
(a) An ALPR shall only be Deployed and used for Parking Enforcement Operations, and Parking Occupancy Analysis.
(b) ALPR data strictly obtained from Parking Enforcement Operations, including data and metadata associated with ALPR Reads and Hits, may be used to support a specific criminal investigation only pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant.
(c) The following uses of the Genetec ALPR System are specifically prohibited:

Page 32 of 56 ends

Page 494 ends

(1) Invasion of Privacy

Except when done pursuant to a court order, subpoena, or a search warrant, it is a violation of this Policy to utilize the ALPR to record license plates except those of vehicles that are exposed to public view (e.g., vehicles on a public road or street, or that are on private property but whose license plate(s) are visible from a public road, street, or a place to which members of the public have access, such as the parking lot of a shop or other business establishment).
(2) Harassment or Intimidation
It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR system to harass and/or intimidate any individual or group.
(3) Use Based on a Protected Characteristic.

It is a violation of this Policy to use the Genetec ALPR System or associated ALPR Read data or State Stolen or Wanted System lists for any personal purpose. (5) First Amendment Rights

IT staff will not have the ability to access or view individual records or reports, as they may contain PII information they are not authorized to receive. Genetec ALPR System

Page 33 of 56 ends

Page 495 ends

data provided to Parking Control Officers may also contain confidential CLETS information and is not open to public review. IT's role will be limited to providing initial infrastructure set-up, unless particular IT staff members have been cleared by DOJ background checks and authorized by the Chief of Police to receive PII or CLETS information.

ALPR information gathered and retained by the Berkeley Police Department may only be used and shared with prosecutors or other law enforcement agencies pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant and as limited by this policy. (a) ALPR Reads
ALPR Read Images and Metadata resulting from ALPR Reads stored locally on Parking Control Officer Vehicle laptops and PocketPEO shall be purged at least nightly.

In no case shall data associated with ALPR Hits be transmitted to or stored in the Genetec ALPR System, or license plate data or other PII included as part of ALPR Read Metadata be transmitted to or stored by the City for Parking Occupancy Analysis, to include the Passport Automatic Occupancy Data Collection System or as City Department records.
(d) Unenforced ALPR Hits
All erroneous and unenforced ALPR Hit data and Read Metadata shall be purged locally at least nightly.
(e) Enforced ALPR Hits
Only ALPR Read Images and Metadata associated with Enforced ALPR Hits shall be downloaded to the Passport Parking Management servers with a minimum retention period of one year (Government Code § 34090.6) and in accordance with the established records retention schedule. Thereafter, ALPR data should be purged unless

Page 34 of 56 ends

Page 496 ends

it has become, or it is reasonable to believe it will become, evidence in a criminal action pursuant to a valid court order, subpoena, or a search warrant or civil action or is subject to a lawful action to produce records. In those circumstances the applicable data should be downloaded from the server onto portable media and booked into evidence. 1302.5 DATA ACCESS
(a) Only properly trained parking control officers and information technology personnel are allowed access to the Genetec ALPR system or to collect ALPR information. (b) No member of this department shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing department-approved training.
(c) No ALPR operator may access California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) data unless otherwise authorized to do so. (d) If practicable, the officer should verify an ALPR response through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) before taking enforcement action that is based solely on an ALPR Hit.
(e) Police will not take any police action that restricts the freedom of any individual based solely on an ALPR Hit unless it has been validated. (1) Police need to have reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to make an enforcement stop of any vehicle. For example, if a vehicle is entered into the system because of its association with a wanted individual, Officers should attempt to visually match the driver to the description of the wanted subject prior to making the stop or should have another legal basis for making the stop.
(2) Prior to initiation of a stop of a vehicle or other intervention based on an ALPR Hit, Department members shall undertake the following:
(i) Verification of status on State Stolen or Wanted System.

Officers shall visually verify that the license plate of interest matches identically with the ALPR Read Image of the license plate number captured (ALPR Read) by the ALPR, including both the alphanumeric characters of the license plate, state of issue, and vehicle descriptors before proceeding. Department members alerted to the fact that an observed motor vehicle's license plate is entered as an ALPR Hit in a specific State Stolen or Wanted System list are required to make a reasonable effort to confirm that a wanted person is actually in the vehicle and/or that a reasonable basis exists before a Department member would have a lawful basis to stop the vehicle.

Page 35 of 56 ends

Page 497 ends

1302.6 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTION:

The Berkeley Police Department is dedicated to the most efficient utilization of its resources and services in its public safety endeavors. The Berkeley Police Department recognizes the need to protect its ownership and control over shared information and to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public, in accordance with federal and state law. The procedures described within this policy (Data Access, Data Protection, Data Retention, Public Access and Third Party Data Sharing) protect against the unauthorized use of ALPR data. These policies ensure the data is not used in a way that would violate or infringe upon anyone's civil rights and/or liberties, including but not limited to impacts that may violate the First and Fourth Amendments and other potentially disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups.

The Berkeley Police Department does not permit the sharing of ALPR data gathered by the City or its contractors/subcontractors for purpose of federal immigration enforcement, pursuant to the California Values Act (Government Code § 7282.5; Government Code § 7284.2 et seq) – these federal immigration agencies include Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CPB).

1302.7 PUBLIC ACCESS
(a) Non-law enforcement requests for access to stored ALPR data shall be processed according to the Records Maintenance and Release Policy in accordance with applicable law.
(b) Non-law enforcement requests for information regarding a specific vehicle's license plate may be honored when the requester is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, and when providing such information will not invade the privacy of a third party. The requester in such cases must provide acceptable proof of his or her identity and of ownership of the vehicle in question.
1302.8 THIRD-PARTY DATA-SHARING
The ALPR data may be shared only with other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for official law enforcement purposes or as permitted by this policy. ALPR data is subject to the provisions of BPD Policy 415, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials.

Requests for ALPR data by non-law enforcement or non-prosecutorial agencies will be processed as provided in the Records Maintenance and Release Policy (Civil Code § 1798.90.55).

Aggregated ALPR data not related to specific criminal investigations authorized by a court order, subpoena, or search warrant shall not be released to any local, state or federal agency or entity without the express written consent of the City Manager.

Page 36 of 56 ends

Page 498 ends

(iii) A description of how the Genetec ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws.

(iv) Procedures for system operators to maintain records of access in compliance with Civil Code§ 1798.90.52.
(v) The title and name of the current designee in overseeing the ALPR operation. (vi) Ensuring this policy and related procedures are conspicuously posted on the City's website.
1302.10 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
Genetec ALPR System audits will be conducted by the Professional Standards Bureau's Audit and Inspections Sergeant pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.99 on a regular basis, at least biannually.
(1) Any unauthorized access or data breach shall be reported immediately to the City Manager.
(2) The audit shall be documented in the form of an internal department memorandum to the Chief of Police. The memorandum shall include any data errors found so that such errors can be corrected. After review by the Chief of Police, the memorandum and any associated documentation shall be placed into the annual report filed with the City Council pursuant to Section 2.99, published on the City of Berkeley website in an appropriate location, and retained by PSD.

Page 37 of 56 ends

Page 499 ends

1302.11 MAINTENANCE
Any installation and maintenance of ALPR equipment, as well as ALPR data retention and access, shall be managed by the Investigations Division Captain. The Investigations Division Captain will assign members under their command to administer the day-to-day operation of the ALPR equipment and data.

Page 38 of 56 ends

Page 500 ends

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

ACTION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
(Continued from April 26, 2022)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police
LaTanya Bellow, Interim Deputy City Manager
Subject: Resolution Accepting the Surveillance Technology Report for Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, Body Worn Cameras, and the Street Level Imagery Project Pursuant to Chapter 2.99 of the Berkeley Municipal Code

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution accepting the Surveillance Technology Report for Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, Body Worn Cameras, and the Street Level Imagery Project Pursuant to Chapter 2.99 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are no fiscal impacts associated with adopting the attached resolution.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On March 27, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance 7,592-N.S., adding Chapter 2.99 to the Berkeley Municipal Code, which is also known as the Surveillance Technology Use and Community Safety Ordinance (“Ordinance”). The purpose of the Ordinance is to provide transparency surrounding the use of surveillance technology, as defined by Section 2.99.020 in the Ordinance, and to ensure that decisions surrounding the acquisition and use of surveillance technology consider the impacts that such technology may have on civil rights and civil liberties. Further, the Ordinance requires that the City evaluate all costs associated with the acquisition of surveillance technology and regularly report on their use.

The Ordinance imposes various reporting requirements on the City Manager and staff.

The purpose of this staff report and attached resolution is to satisfy the annual reporting requirement as outlined in Section 2.99.070.

One of the reporting categories of the surveillance technology use is whether complaints have been received by the community about the various technologies. To date Berkeley Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) has not received any

Page 39 of 56 ends

Page 501 ends

Resolution Accepting the Surveillance Technology Report ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022
external personnel complaints surrounding the use of Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, or Body Worn Cameras. External complaints from community members can be made in writing, via email, in person or via telephone. Complaints can be received with direct communication to Internal Affairs from the complainant and/or be received by any member of the Department and then forwarded through the chain of command. If a community member initiates a complaint against a subject employee and during the investigation it is determined the subject employee violated policy regarding the misuse of technology, an additional complaint is initiated by the Chief of Police.

Community members also have the right to initiate complaints against employees of BPD by reporting directly to the Police Accountability Board (PAB). The Director of Police Accountability notifies the Chief of Police when an investigation into a complaint is initiated by the PAB, which would prompt a parallel IAB investigation.

Attached to this staff report are Surveillance Technology Reports for Automatic License Plater Readers, GPS Trackers, Body Worn Cameras, and the Street Level Imagery Project.

BACKGROUND
On March 27, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance 7,592-N.S., adding Chapter 2.99 to the Berkeley Municipal Code, which is also known as the Surveillance Technology Use and Community Safety Ordinance. Section 2.99.070 of the Ordinance requires that the City Manager must submit to the City Council a Surveillance Technology Report as defined by Section 2.99.020(2) of the Ordinance at the first regular City Council meeting in November.

For each of the four technologies, the Surveillance Technology Reports were prepared to satisfy the specific, section-by-section requirements of the Ordinance, and are attached to this report.

The Surveillance Technology Use Policy for ALPR technology is still outstanding due Council questions about policy language, scheduling and directed focus during COVID-

19. This item will be returned to the Council agenda in early 2022.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
City Council is being requested to adopt the attached resolution for the City to be in compliance with the Ordinance.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED

Page 40 of 56 ends

Page 502 ends

Resolution Accepting the Surveillance Technology Report ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022
City Council could decide not to adopt the resolution.

CONTACT PERSON
LaTanya Bellow, Interim Director of Information Technology (510) 981-6541 Jennifer Louis, Acting Chief of Police, (510) 981-5700
LaTanya Bellow, Interim Deputy City Manager, (510) 981-7012

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Body Worn Cameras
a) Surveillance Technology Report: Body Worn Cameras
b) Retention Schedule

3. Global Positioning System (GPS) Tracking Devices
Surveillance Technology Report

4. Automated License Plate Readers
Surveillance Technology Report: Automated License Plate Readers

5. Street Level Imagery Project
Surveillance Technology Report: Street Level Imagery Project

Page 41 of 56 ends

Page 503 ends

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

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY REPORT FOR

AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS, GPS TRACKERS, BODY WORN

CAMERAS, AND THE STREET LEVEL IMAGERY PROJECT
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance 7,592-N.S., which is known as the Surveillance Technology Use and Community Safety Ordinance (“Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, Section 2.99.070 of the Ordinance requires that the City Manager must submit to the City Council a Surveillance Technology Report as defined by Section

2.99.020(2) of the Ordinance at the first regular City Council meeting in November; and WHEREAS, the Surveillance Technology Reports satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance.

Page 42 of 56 ends

Page 504 ends

Surveillance Technology Report: Body Worn Cameras
October 1, 2020 – Sept. 30, 2021
Description A description of all non-privileged and non-confidential information about use of the Surveillance Technology, including but not limited to the quantity of data gathered and sharing of data, if any, with outside entities. If sharing has occurred, the report shall include general, non-privileged and non-confidential information about recipient entities, including the names of the entities and purposes for such sharing.

Body Worn Cameras are used to capture video recordings of contacts between department personnel and the public, to provide an objective record of these events.

These recording are used in support of criminal prosecutions, to limit civil liability, increase transparency and enhance professionalism and accountability in the delivery of police services to the community. Body Worn Camera (BWC) files are shared with the Alameda County District Attorney’s office in support of prosecution for crime, and may be shared with other law enforcement agencies to support criminal investigations.

Policy regarding activation of the Body Worn Camera BPD Policy 425.7 Members shall activate the BWC as required by this policy in (a)-(f) below, and may activate the BWC at any time the member believes it would be appropriate or valuable to record an incident within the limits of privacy described herein.

The BWC shall be activated in any of the following situations:
(a) All in-person enforcement and investigative contacts including pedestrian stops and field interview (FI) situations.
(b) Traffic stops including, but not limited to, traffic violations, stranded motorist assistance and all crime interdiction stops.
(c) Self-initiated field contacts in which a member would normally notify the Communications Center.
(d) Any search activity, including the service of search or arrest warrants; probation, parole, or consent searches where the member is seeking evidence of an offense, or conducting a safety sweep or community caretaking sweep of the premises. Once a location has been secured and the member is not interacting with detainees or arrestees, the member may mute their BWC when conducting a search for evidence.
(e) Any other contact that the member determines has become adversarial after the initial contact in a situation where the member would not otherwise activate BWC recording.
(f) Transporting any detained or arrested person and where a member facilitates entry into or out of a vehicle, or any time the member expects to have physical contact with that person.

What data is captured by this technology:

BWC use is limited to enforcement and investigative activities involving members of the public. The BWC recordings will capture video and audio evidence for use in criminal investigations, administrative reviews, training, civil litigation, and other proceedings protected by confidentiality laws and department policy. Improper use or release of BWC

Page 43 of 56 ends

Page 505 ends

recordings may compromise ongoing criminal and administrative investigations or violate the privacy rights of those recorded and is prohibited.

How the data is stored:

BWC videos are stored on a secure server. All BWC data will be uploaded and stored on Axon Cloud Services, Evidence.com. Axon complies with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework as set forth by the U.S.

Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and retention of personal information transferred from the European Union and Switzerland to the United States (collectively, “Privacy Shield”). Axon has certified to the U.S. Department of Commerce that it adheres to the Privacy Shield Principles.

Retention period of data:

See attached retention schedule.

Summary of Body Worn Camera Videos Uploaded Oct. 1, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2021:

Total Number of Videos 62,283
Total Hours of Videos 16,310
Total GB of BWC Videos 29,017
Summary of Digital Evidence Uploaded, Oct. 1, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2021:

Type File Count Size (GBs)
Audio 1,150 11.72
Document 737 2.38
Image 67,672 331.36
Other 1,292 157.71
Video* 67,865 30,086.75
Total 138,716 30,589.92
* Includes all uploaded BWC videos and all other videos booked into the evidence management system. Other videos include iPhone videos uploaded, security camera video, copies of BWC videos (for redaction, etc.), and any other videos.

Geographic
Deployment
Where applicable, non-privileged and non-confidential information about where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically.

Body Worn Cameras are worn by all BPD uniformed officers city-wide at all times; BWCs are not deployed based on geographic considerations.

Complaints A summary of each complaint, if any, received by the City about the Surveillance Technology.

There have been no complaints about the deployment and use of Body Worn Cameras.

Audits and
Violations
The results of any non-privileged internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.

Page 44 of 56 ends

Page 506 ends

File meta-data are routinely reviewed by our BWC manager, to ensure required metadata fields are completed. There have been no complaints with regards to violations of the Surveillance Use Policy.

Data Breaches Non-privileged and non-confidential information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response.

There have been no known data breaches or other unauthorized access to BWC data.

Effectiveness Information that helps the community assess whether the Surveillance Technology has been effective in achieving its identified outcomes.

Body Worn Cameras have proven effective in supporting criminal prosecutions, as video footage is available for all criminal prosecutions. Body Worn Cameras have been effective for training purposes, as footage can be reviewed in incident de-briefs. Body Worn Cameras have been extremely effective in support of Internal Affairs investigations and Use of Force Review.

Costs Total annual costs for the Surveillance Technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs.

The annual cost for the Body Worn Cameras, including cameras, replacement cameras, software, and Axon’s secure digital evidence management system is approximately $204,000 per year over a five-year, $1,218,000 contract. There is one full-time employee assigned to the BWC program, an Applications Programmer Analyst II, at a cost of $168,940 per year, including benefits.

Page 45 of 56 ends

Page 507 ends

Page 46 of 56 ends

Page 508 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 1 ends

Surveillance Technology Report: Global Positioning System Tracking Devices October 1, 2019 – Sept. 30, 2020
Description A description of all non-privileged and non-confidential information about use of the Surveillance Technology, including but not limited to the quantity of data gathered and sharing of data, if any, with outside entities. If sharing has occurred, the report shall include general, non-privileged and non-confidential information about recipient entities, including the names of the entities and purposes for such sharing.

Global Positioning System Trackers are used to track the movements of vehicles, bicycles, other items, and/or individuals.

What data is captured by this technology:

A GPS Tracker data record consists of date, time, latitude, longitude, map address, and tracker identification label. The data does not contain any images, names of subjects, vehicle information or other identifying information on individuals.

How the data is stored:

The data from the GPS tracker is encrypted by the vendor. The data is only accessible through a secure website to BPD personnel who have been granted security access.

Retention period of data:

Tracker data received from the vendor shall be kept in accordance with applicable laws, BPD policies that do not conflict with applicable law or court order, and/or as specified in a search warrant.

For the date range of 10-01-19 through 09-30-20 the Global Positioning System (GPS) “Electronic Stake Out” (ESO) devices were deployed on “bait” bicycles 52 times, resulting in 34 arrests, 4 eluded capture, 1 person was detained and not arrested, and in 13 deployments the bicycle was not stolen. This program was suspended in mid-March due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

GPS “Slap-N-Track” (SNT) devices were used in three separate investigations during this reporting period:
(1) An investigation of an individual for Sexual Exploitation, Child Pornography, and Distribution of Child Pornography. This suspect currently has a Federal warrant.
(2) An investigation of a serial kidnap rape suspect. The suspect was arrested and charged.
(3) An investigation into multiple suspects involved in a “Rolex” robbery series that involved the cities of Berkeley, Piedmont, and Orinda. Two devices were used on two different suspect vehicles during this investigation. Four suspects from the above cases were arrested and charged for their involvement in these robberies.

Page 47 of 56 ends

Page 509 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2 ends

Data may be shared with the District Attorney’s Office for use as evidence to aid in prosecution, in accordance with laws governing evidence; other law enforcement personnel as a part of an active criminal investigation; and other third parties, pursuant to a court order.

Geographic
Deployment
Where applicable, non-privileged and non-confidential information about where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically.

GPS ESO-equipped bikes were deployed primarily in commercial districts across the city where bikes are frequently stolen.

GPS SNT devices are deployed with judicial pre-approval, based on suspect location, rather than geographical consideration.

Complaints A summary of each complaint, if any, received by the City about the Surveillance Technology.

There were no complaints made regarding GPS Trackers.

Audits and
Violations
The results of any non-privileged internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.

There were no audits and no known violations relating to GPS Trackers.

Data
Breaches
Non-privileged and non-confidential information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response.

There were no known data breaches relating to GPS Trackers.

Effectiveness Information that helps the community assess whether the Surveillance Technology has been effective in achieving its identified outcomes.

GPS Trackers continue to be very effective in apprehending bicycle thieves, many of whom are repeat offenders who’ve committed not only bike thefts, but other crimes as well, such as burglaries, auto burglaries, and vehicle thefts. SNT trackers are effective in that they provide invaluable information on suspect vehicle location during the investigation of complex cases where suspects may be moving around the Bay Area and beyond.

GPS Trackers greatly reduce costs associated with surveillance operations. A bike may be left for days. Surveillance operations generally involve four or more officers for the entire duration of an operation. A moving surveillance is extremely resource-intensive, requiring multiple officers in multiple vehicles for extended periods of time. Using both types of GPS trackers eliminates the need for officers’ immediate presence until officers are ready to apprehend the suspect(s).

The program was suspended in mid-March due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This program will likely resume once the pre-COVID bail schedule is re-established.

Costs Total annual costs for the Surveillance Technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs.

Page 48 of 56 ends

Page 510 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 3 ends

The annual cost for the GPS Trackers’ data service is $1,920. Further information regarding costs is contained in Policy 1301a, the Surveillance Acquisition Report.

There are staff time costs associated with preparing and placing SNT trackers. The investigator must prepare a search warrant and obtain a judge’s approval, and a small number of officers must place the tracker on the suspect’s car. The total number of hours is a fraction of the time it would take to do a full surveillance operation involving numerous officers.

There are staff time costs associated with preparing ESO trackers and placing ESO tracker-equipped bikes for bait bike operations. These are on the order of two-four hours per operation. The total number of hours is extremely small, given the large number of operations, and resulting arrests.

Page 49 of 56 ends

Page 511 ends

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 1 ends

Surveillance Technology Report: Automated License Plate Readers October 1, 2019 – Sept. 30, 2020
Description A description of all non-privileged and non-confidential information about use of the Surveillance Technology, including but not limited to the quantity of data gathered and sharing of data, if any, with outside entities. If sharing has occurred, the report shall include general, non-privileged and non-confidential information about recipient entities, including the names of the entities and purposes for such sharing.

Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are used by Parking Enforcement Bureau vehicles for time zone parking and scofflaw enforcement. The City’s Transportation Division uses anonymized information for purposes of supporting the City’s Go Berkeley parking management program. ALPR use replaced the practice of physically “chalking” tires, which is no longer allowed by the courts.

What data is captured by this technology:

ALPR technology functions by automatically capturing an image of a vehicle's license plate, transforming that image into alphanumeric characters using optical character recognition software, and storing that information, along with relevant metadata (e.g. geo-location and temporal information, as well as data about the ALPR).

How the data is stored:

The data is stored on a secure server by the vendor.

Retention period of data:

Collected images and metadata of hits are stored no more than 365 days. Metadata of reads are not stored more than 30 days.

Summary of ALPR Time Zone Enforcement Data
Read Data
There was an average of 12,059 “Reads” per working day
(Based on one month’s data: 9/1/20/-9/30/20)
Hit Data
There were 44,068 “Hits”
14, 945 “Enforced Hits” resulted in citation issuance.
2,569 “Not Enforced” valid, enforceable hits resulted in no citation issued, based on PEO discretion.
26,554 Hits were not acted upon for a variety to reasons including but not limited to:
1) Customer comes out to move a vehicle. PEO’s are directed not to issue that citation.
2) Officer gets to the dashboard and sees a permit not visible from a previous location.
3) Officer does a vehicle evaluation and confirms that the vehicle moved from the hit location (e.g. across the street within GPS range). 4) Stolen car.
5) Similar Plates.
6) 600-700 GIG cars- 100 revel scooters.

Page 50 of 56 ends

Page 512 ends

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2 ends

7) Officers leave their LPR “on” collecting time zone enforcement data, but leave the area being enforced to drive to another location on another assignment, such as a traffic post at a collision scene. These hits are not enforced.

Genetec is the vendor for the ALPR Time Zone enforcement system. A “read” indicates the ALPR system successfully read a license plate. The information that is generated when a plate is viewed by the ALPR camera is the license plate number, state and geographical (GPS) location it was viewed. A “hit” indicates the ALPR system detected a possible violation, which prompts the Parking Enforcement Officer to further assess the vehicle. At “hit” is when the “read” information is recognized as a license plate that matches, or does not match an entry in a list such as permit list or the stolen vehicle “hot list”. In many cases, hits are “rejected” or “not enforced”, meaning no enforcement action is taken, because the Parking Enforcement Officer determines the vehicle has an appropriate placard or permit, or there is other information or assignment which precludes citation.

Summary of ALPR Booting Scofflaw Enforcement Data
0 vehicles booted from 10/1/19-9/23/20.

The Berkeley Police Department no longer maintains the ALPR Booting Scofflaw Enforcement Program. The contract to provide this service became cost prohibitive and the city opted not to renew the contract with the vendor. The city returned to having each PEO working a beat again become responsible for recognizing when a license plate has accumulated five or more unpaid parking tickets.

All BPD ALPR data may only be shared with other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for official law enforcement purposes, or as otherwise permitted by law. All ALPR data is subject to the provisions of BPD Policy 415 - Immigration Law, and therefore may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials.

Geographic
Deployment
Where applicable, non-privileged and non-confidential information about where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically.

Only Parking Enforcement Vehicles are equipped with ALPRs. ALPRs are deployed based on areas where there are parking time restrictions. ALPRs are not deployed based on geographic considerations not related to parking and scofflaw enforcement.

Complaints A summary of each complaint, if any, received by the City about the Surveillance Technology.

There have been no complaints about to the deployment and use of Automated License Plate Readers.

Audits and
Violations
The results of any non-privileged internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.

There have been no complaints of violations of the ALPR Surveillance Use Policy.

Page 51 of 56 ends

Page 513 ends

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 3 ends

Data
Breaches
Non-privileged and non-confidential information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response.

There have been no known data breaches or other unauthorized access to Automated License Plate Reader data.

Effectiveness Information that helps the community assess whether the Surveillance Technology has been effective in achieving its identified outcomes.

ALPRs have proven effective in parking enforcement for time zone enforcement; the prior utilization of manually chalking car tires for time zone enforcement has been disallowed by court decision.

ALPRs have proven effective in supporting enforcement upon vehicles which have five or more unpaid citations. The ALPR’s ability to read and check license plates while being driven greatly increases efficiency, allowing an operator to cover larger areas more quickly without having to stop except to confirm a hit.

Costs Total annual costs for the Surveillance Technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs.

The annual system maintenance cost for Genetec is $47,000. This cost is borne by the Transportation Division, which also purchased the ALPR units used in Time Zone Enforcement.

Two new Genetec ALPR units were purchased during the period covered by this report.

The two new units were purchased in order to equip the final two parking vehicles that did not have ALPR units attached to them.

Genetec ALPR units are installed on 23 Parking Enforcement vehicles. Parking Enforcement personnel perform a variety of parking enforcement activities, and are not limited solely to time zone enforcement. Therefore, personnel costs specifically attributable to time zone enforcement are not tracked.

Page 52 of 56 ends

Page 514 ends

ATTACHMENT 5

Page 1 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

Surveillance Technology Report:

Street Level Imagery Project
Description
A description of all non-privileged and non-confidential information about the use of the Surveillance Technology, including but not limited to the quantity of data gathered and sharing of data, if any, with outside entities. If sharing has occurred, the report will include general, non-privileged and non-confidential information about recipient entities, including the names of the entities and purposes for such sharing.

Street level imagery will be utilized exclusively by authorized City staff for infrastructure asset management and planning activities. The street level imagery of City infrastructure assets in the Public Right of Way that is provided to the City will not consist of information that is capable of being associated with any individual or group.

Geographic
Deployment
Where applicable, non-privileged and non-confidential information about where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically.

Street level imagery was collected by driving through the entire community over a three week period. It is accessible to the City through a proprietary third-party application, Street SmartTM.

Complaints
A summary of each complaint, if any, received by the City about the Surveillance Technology.

There have been no complaints about the deployment and use of Street SmartTM.

Audits and
Violations
The results of any non-privileged internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response.

There have been no complaints with regards to violations of the Surveillance Use Policy.

Data
Breaches
Non-privileged and non-confidential information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response.

There have been no known data breaches or other unauthorized access to Cyclomedia Street Level Imagery data.

Page 53 of 56 ends

Page 515 ends

ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 54 of 56 ends

Page 516 ends

ATTACHMENT 5

Page 3 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

Effectiveness
Information that helps the community assess whether the Surveillance Technology has been effective in achieving its identified outcomes.

Staff considered hiring contractors to use GPS in the field to create and update the infrastructure asset GIS data. This method is costly and time consuming.

Cyclomedia’s unique and patented processing techniques allow positionally- accurate GIS data to be collected in a cost-effective way and over a shorter period of time than a “boots on the ground” GPS field survey.

The Imagery is being used to extract the following Citywide Infrastructure assets to create accurate and current Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data inventories:
• Bus pads / stops • Pavement marking • Maintenance Access Holes • Storm drains • Pavement Striping • Signs • Curb paint color • Street trees • Parking meters • Traffic lights • Pedestrian Signal
The street level imagery captured is also being used to:

Create a street sign GIS layer with condition assessment to support compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Code and provide an accurate inventory of City signs. The existing sign inventory is contained in a spreadsheet that does not have accurate location data.

Create a curb color layer with condition assessment to indicate where there are red, yellow, blue, white and green colors. This is critical to support Public Safety.

Create pavement striping and paint symbol layers to support Transportation Planning and Vision Zero.

Benefits Projected:

The data from the street level imagery is being integrated into the City’s work order and asset management system for planning activities and to document repair and maintenance.

Planners can use the street level imagery provided to the City to take measurements remotely, such as sidewalk width and public right of way impacts at proposed development locations.

City staff can use the street level imagery to plan the location of road markings for pedestrian crossings, bike lanes or other striping.

Page 55 of 56 ends

Page 517 ends

ATTACHMENT 5

Page 4 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

City staff can remotely take accurate measurements of infrastructure assets to adequately plan for repair and replacement.

City staff can use the street level imagery to enhance community engagement.

The street level imagery can be used to identify and depict the impact of development such as an intersection restriping plan in order to article before and after conditions.

Costs
Total annual costs for the Surveillance Technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs.

The total cost of the system is $232,401 and is itemized below.

Year
No. Description Cost Notes
1 Licenses $48,000 Resolution No: 69,482-N.S. 30JUN20
1 Professional Services
for asset extraction $139,401 Resolution No: 69,482-N.S. 30JUN20 2 Licenses and Support –
One-Time $45,000
Pending Council approval after imagery
and data extraction work is completed
Licensing Costs included in IT Cost
allocation
3 License and Support –
Ongoing Annual Costs $3,000
Pending Council approval after imagery
and data extraction work is completed
Licensing Costs included in IT Cost
allocation
Total Year 1-3 $235,401

Page 56 of 56 ends

Page 518 ends

ACTION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
(Continued from April 26, 2022)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the conceptual design for the Hopkins Corridor Project on Hopkins Street between Sutter Street and Gilman Street, and directing the City Manager to proceed with the detailed engineering design of the project.

SUMMARY
The Hopkins Corridor design concept addresses pedestrian and bicyclist safety on Hopkins Street between Sutter and Gilman Streets. Features include a physically protected bikeway, a segment of Class II bicycle lane, bus boarding islands, and intersection safety treatments such as corner sidewalk extensions, a raised crosswalk, and high-visibility pavement markings. Another key design feature is increased public space through the provision of sidewalk bulbouts at the Hopkins/ California Street/ Monterey Avenue intersection. The proposed design concept was developed through a robust public and stakeholder engagement process that included four rounds of public meetings over a period of one and a half years.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation has no fiscal impacts.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The proposed design concept was developed through the Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study which was initiated as the result of a budget referral by Councilmember Sophie Hahn, dated January 23, 2018. The budget referral allocated funding for a traffic and placemaking study including Hopkins Street from Sutter Street to Gilman Street. It called for the study to use “a ’complete streets’ approach to identify improvements to be integrated into the paving and bicycle infrastructure work already scheduled for this area…with an emphasis on pedestrian safety, bike and vehicle safety and flow.” Complete Streets are streets that are designed and operated to accommodate the needs of all road users. Preceding this referral, the Berkeley Bicycle Plan, adopted by City Council in 2017, calls for evaluation of two-way cycle tracks (protected bike lanes) on Hopkins Street as low-stress biking facilities. More recently,

Page 1 of 20 ends

Page 519 ends

Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

Hopkins Street was identified as a high-injury street for severe and fatal traffic crashes in the Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan adopted by City Council in 2020.

Project Goals
The goals developed through and for the Hopkins Corridor Traffic and Placemaking Study are as follows:
 Improving the safety of walking along and crossing Hopkins Street,  Improving bicycle and vehicular transportation safety and flow along and crossing Hopkins Street,
 Transforming Hopkins Street between Sacramento Street and McGee Avenue into a community gathering place,
 Managing parking to meet the needs of residents and local businesses,  Supporting local businesses by creating a streetscape that attracts customers,  Installing green infrastructure to protect the Bay while also providing visual enjoyment, and
 Improving aesthetics all along Hopkins Street, employing a design palette consistent with its historic character.

Recommended Design Concept
An iterative design process was implemented due to extensive input from community members and institutions along the corridor. The resulting near-term design recommendations are compromises intended to meet the project’s goals while also minimizing trade-offs and accommodating needs such as on-street parking, curbside access, and bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Broadly, the project would allow for the implementation of the following features.  Dedicated bicycle facilities along the corridor, ranging from a two-way protected bikeway to Class II bicycle lanes
 Bus boarding islands to facilitate public transportation along the corridor  Intersection treatments to improve pedestrian safety and comfort, such as sidewalk extensions (bulbouts), center median islands, pavement markings, and a raised crosswalk. Sidewalk extensions provide additional public space and opportunities for landscaping.

Page 2 of 20 ends

Page 520 ends

Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Page 3 ends

Sutter Street to The Alameda
The south side of the street would feature a parking-protected bicycle lane with a striped buffer zone between the bicycle lane and parked vehicles. On the north side, a Class II bicycle lane (between on-street parking and the traffic lane) would be installed with a striped buffer on each side – one next to parked vehicles and the other separating cyclists from moving vehicles. On-street parking would be retained on both sides of the street.

Modifications at the intersection with The Alameda would be made to address community input, including adjustments to north- and southbound vehicle alignment and the provision of more clearly defined aprons around the existing raised islands in the intersection, which would have beveled curbs in order to be more forgiving of driver error. Proposed modifications would be designed to aesthetically complement the surrounding area. The intersection islands would have rose coloring and landscaping that harmonize with the existing rose colored sidewalk and vegetation in front of the North Branch Library.

The Alameda to McGee Avenue
A two-way protected bikeway would be constructed on the south side of the street. A buffer zone would provide separation from parked vehicles as well as loading space.

Most on-street parking would be retained on both sides of the street.

At the Hopkins Street intersection with Josephine Street, two sidewalk corner bulbouts are proposed for the southern leg of the intersection to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians. The bulbouts would realign Josephine to intersect with Hopkins at an angle closer to 90 degrees, reducing vehicle turning speeds. A new raised crosswalk would be placed across Hopkins Street, perpendicular to the roadway, to meet the new bulbout on the southwest corner of the intersection, increasing the visibility of pedestrians while shortening the crossing distance and reducing vehicular speeds.

McGee Avenue to Gilman Street
The bi-directional protected bikeway would continue from McGee Avenue to Gilman Street. From McGee to Monterey Avenue, the bikeway would be protected by parked vehicles separating it from the vehicle travel lanes. All on-street parking with the exception of one stall would be retained along the south side of the street in this commercial block. Between Monterey Avenue and Gilman Street, the bi-directional bikeway along the south side of the street would be protected from the travel lanes with a raised concrete median. All parking would be removed on both sides of the street on these blocks in order to provide enough space for the protected bike lanes.

The project would result in safety improvements at the Hopkins Street / Monterey Avenue / California Street Intersection. A bulbout into California Street on the southwest corner would shorten the pedestrian crossing distance while expanding the sidewalk space at this currently very constrained corner. The crosswalk on the north side of the intersection across Monterey Avenue, which was the location of a pedestrian fatality, will be raised to slow vehicle speeds to and from this street onto Hopkins. Further, a

Page 3 of 20 ends

Page 521 ends

Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Page 4 ends

raised median would be constructed on the northeast corner to narrow this wide crossing and reduce pedestrian exposure to traffic.

The proposed modifications to the roadway would necessitate changes to the Hopkins Street / Sacramento Street intersection. Specifically, the space for the protected bike lanes would be provided by converting the existing westbound informal left turn / through lane configuration into a single lane that accommodates both through- movements and left turns. These movements would be made more efficient than existing conditions by having a dedicated signal phase for both movements, freeing up time in the signal cycle for a dedicated pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase on the south side of the intersection.

BACKGROUND
Public Engagement
A total of four sets of virtual workshops were held to get public feedback throughout the project. Each of the four workshops included over 100 attendees. The first workshop was held on October 22, 2020. The purpose of this workshop was to introduce the project as well as the concept of “complete streets” and to present an overview of existing conditions along the corridor. The workshop also included small group discussions where participants provided feedback on the draft project goals and completed a prioritization exercise for improvements that may be considered along the corridor.

Workshop #2, held on March 20, 2021, shared initial proposed corridor-wide design improvements; reviewed options for placemaking opportunities; and solicited feedback from the public on proposed measures through facilitated break-out room exercises.

About 800 comments were received during the public comment period following this meeting.

Workshop #3 was held on October 28, 2021. During this workshop, options for placemaking were reviewed and specific near- and long-term complete street corridor design options were presented. This workshop included a facilitated discussion in virtual break-out rooms where participants could provide their feedback on both the placemaking and complete streets options. A virtual crowd-sourcing platform, called Social Pinpoint, was used to solicit specific public comment on the proposed near- and long-term design options and placemaking opportunities. The public was invited to participate in the Social Pinpoint exercise for approximately five weeks after the workshop. Over 700 individual comments were recorded from the Social Pinpoint exercise over the 5-week period.

Finally, a series of three webinars was held on March 1, 7, and 14, 2022. Each of the webinars included a presentation of the City’s recommended short-term design concepts that would be implemented as part of the 2023 paving project for each of the three segments of the corridor. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions about these designs during the webinar that were addressed by staff after the presentation.

Page 4 of 20 ends

Page 522 ends

Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Page 5 ends

This public engagement was supplemented by direct conversations held between staff and key stakeholders in the community, including business-owners, residents, and representatives of the numerous institutions along the corridor, such as the schools, pre-schools, churches and the library, among others. This engagement resulted in a greater understanding of the needs of these stakeholders and resulted in adjustments to the design plans to accommodate these needs.

Options Previously Considered
During the course of the study, a range of options were considered, including the following.
 Retain existing on-street parking along both sides of Hopkins Street for the entire length from Sutter to Gilman. This option required that bicyclists ride in the general purpose vehicular traffic lanes between McGee and Gilman, not meeting the project goal of improving bicycle transportation safety and flow.  Retain existing on-street parking along both sides of Hopkins Street from Sutter to Josephine, and on the south side of Hopkins between Josephine and McGee, but eliminate all on-street parking along both sides of Hopkins from Josephine to Gilman. This option provided space for either a protected bicycle lane or Class II bicycle lane on each side of Hopkins Street for the entire length, but impacted public access to the recreational facilities between Josephine and McGee and to the shops between McGee and California Street.

After much public engagement and analysis, a hybrid design was developed that retained nearly all of the on-street parking as far west as the California/Monterey intersection. This was accomplished by providing a two-way cycle track on one side of Hopkins Street (the south side), requiring space for only one buffer or median between the bikeway and parking lane or vehicular traffic lane.

Project Timeline
 Conceptual Design, Preliminary Engineering,
Public Outreach, and Environmental Review
August 2020 to April 2022
 Detailed Engineering Design April-December 2022
 Advertise project & award construction
contract
December 2022
 Construction Summer-Fall 2023

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Installation of protected bikeways and improved pedestrian crossings is anticipated to increase walking and biking, which is consistent with the 2009 Berkeley Climate Action Plan Policy that calls for expanding and improving Berkeley’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The 2009 Berkeley Climate Action Plan sets targets of reducing

Page 5 of 20 ends

Page 523 ends

Hopkins Corridor Project Conceptual Design ACTION CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Page 6 ends

transportation emissions 33% below year 2000 levels by 2020, and 80% below year 2000 levels by 2050. The Plan further states that transportation modes such as public transit, walking, and bicycling must become the primary means of fulfilling the City’s mobility needs in order to meet these targets.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the conceptual designs will keep the project on schedule for detailed engineering design in 2022, allowing the City to award the construction contract in time to receive responsive bids and start construction in 2023.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council could opt not to approve the conceptual designs for the project or could opt to approve the proposed design concept for only a subset of project segments.

CONTACT PERSON
Farid Javandel, Deputy Director of Public Works for Transportation (510) 981-7061 Beth Thomas, Principal Planner, Public Works (510) 981-7068 Ryan P. Murray, Associate Planner, Public Works (510) 981-7056 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Hopkins Corridor Design Concept

Page 6 of 20 ends

Page 524 ends

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

HOPKINS CORRIDOR PROJECT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
WHEREAS, the project corridor includes Hopkins Street from Sutter Street to Gilman Street; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan has documented severe and fatal crashes on Hopkins Street; gaps in the low-stress protected bikeway network on Hopkins Street result in connectivity problems that discourage bicycling for transportation; and the Berkeley Bicycle Plan has recommended evaluating cycle tracks for providing a low-stress bikeway on Hopkins Street; and WHEREAS, to address these needs, the project delivers on the City’s Vision Zero, Complete Streets, and Climate Action Plan policies; and WHEREAS, with the support of an engineering and design consultant team, City staff have identified conceptual design options for the Project corridor; sought public input on and analyzed those conceptual design options; and have selected a recommended conceptual design for consideration by the Berkeley City Council; and WHEREAS, the recommended design includes physically protected bicycle lanes on the south side of Hopkins Street between Sutter and Gilman and a Class II bicycle lane on the north side of Hopkins Street between Sutter and The Alameda, in addition to pedestrian safety features, as shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, approval of the Hopkins Corridor Project recommended conceptual design will keep the project on schedule for detailed engineering design in 2022.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to proceed with the detailed engineering design of the Hopkins Corridor Project, based on the preliminary engineering of the recommended conceptual design.

Page 7 of 20 ends

Page 525 ends

Page 8 of 20 ends

Page 526 ends

Page 9 of 20 ends

Page 527 ends

Page 10 of 20 ends

Page 528 ends

Page 11 of 20 ends

Page 529 ends

Page 12 of 20 ends

Page 530 ends

Page 13 of 20 ends

Page 531 ends

Page 14 of 20 ends

Page 532 ends

Page 15 of 20 ends

Page 533 ends

Page 16 of 20 ends

Page 534 ends

Page 17 of 20 ends

Page 535 ends

Page 18 of 20 ends

Page 536 ends

Page 19 of 20 ends

Page 537 ends

Page 20 of 20 ends

Page 538 ends

INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager
Subject: Fiscal Year 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update and presents actual General Fund and Special Fund expenditures incurred from July 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. It also presents projected General Fund revenues and expenditures for FY 2022 and projected expenditures for All Funds by department.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley is currently in Fiscal Year 2022 (FY 2022). On June 29, 2021, the City Council adopted the FY 2022 budget, which included the General Fund being balanced through the use of American Rescue Plan Funds. FY 2022 runs from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

As depicted in the table below, as of December 31, 2021, while General Fund revenues are on track to exceed initial estimates, General Fund expenses are also somewhat higher than anticipated but are projected to finish FY 2022 with a savings of $5.3 million.

Given these trends and the fiscal uncertainty attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, Staff will carefully monitor revenues and expenses in the second half of FY 2022.

Table 1: FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget at a Glance
$’s in Millions
FY 2022
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2022
Mid-Year
Actuals
Percentage of
Revenue Received/
Expensed and
Encumbered
Revenues $236.0 $128.2 54%
Expenditures ($259.8) ($118.3) 53%
Carryover and Excess
Equity
$25.0
Balance $1.2

Page 1 of 17 ends

Page 539 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

The carryover and excess equity are carried forward from FY 2021. Additional information on the carryovers and excess equity allocation is discussed later in this report under the General Fund Expenditures section.

FY 2021 Mid-Year Summary
On December 14, 2021, Council was provided the FY 2021 Year-End Results and FY 2022 First Quarter Budget Update report. At the time, both the General Fund revenues and the General Fund expenditures were tracking within budget.

The chart below shows FY 2022 General Fund Revenues through the first six months of the current fiscal year and compares the year-to-date revenues received to the first six months of FY 2021.

General Fund Revenues (Adopted and Year to Date Actual thru December 31) The mid-year review generally focuses primarily on the major revenue fluctuations and changes that have occurred that might result in significant changes in future projections.

Page 2 of 17 ends

Page 540 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 3 ends

Typically, Staff waits until the mid-year to identify General Fund revenue projections that should be revised.

During the first half of FY 2022, General Fund revenues and transfers increased by $26,052651 or 25.50%, from $102,186,405 in the first half of FY 2021, to $128,239,056 in the first half of FY 2022, primarily due to the following increases (decreases):
 Secured Property Taxes $ 1,617,586
 Property Transfer Taxes 11,044,106
 Measure P 4,372,622
 Sales Taxes 1,463,763
 Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) 1,386,350  Business License Taxes 1,003,507
 Parking Fines 895,662  Transfers In (840,890)  Other Income (2,339,677)
Secured Property Tax ($1,617,586 more than FY 2021 Actual) During the first half of FY 2022, Secured Property Tax revenues totaled $36,349,204, which was $1,617,586 or 4.66% more than the $34,731,618 received for the same period in FY 2021. The FY 2022 Adopted Budget assumes a 4.72% increase for the year, while the County’s Certification of Assessed Valuation reflects growth of 4.48%.

Unsecured Property Tax ($53,035 more than FY 2021 Actual) During the first half of FY 2022, Unsecured Property Tax revenues totaled $3,048,386, which was $53,035 or 1.77% more than the $2,995,351 in the same period in FY 2021.

The FY 2022 Adopted Budget reflected a decline of 31.4%, while the County’s Certification of Assessed Valuation growth reflected growth of 1.96% for FY 2022. Staff will be increasing the FY 2022 Unsecured Property Tax revenue projection to $3,516,000.

Property Transfer Tax ($11,044,106 more than FY 2021 Actual) During the first half of FY 2022, Property Transfer Tax totaled $21,710,019, which was $11,044,106 or 103.5% more than the $10,665,913 received for the first half of FY 2021. However, $3,384,375, or 15.6%, of that increase resulted from the late payment by the County of the May 2021 Property Transfer Taxes, which should have been received in FY 2021. A payment of $4,630,461 was received by the County in January 2022. Assuming no growth over the total received in the last five months of FY 2021 ($13,097,203), the FY 2022 total would be $39,437,743 (including the May 2021 payment of $3,384,375 received in FY 2022). Staff is increasing the FY 2022 projection of $21,000,000 to $39,437,743.

Page 3 of 17 ends

Page 541 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 4 ends

The primary reasons for the remaining $7,659,731 ($11,044,106-$3,384,375) increase in Property Transfer Tax were (1) The dollar value of property sales increased by $559 million or 81.9% during the first half of FY 2022, as illustrated in Table 2 below; (2) The number of property sales transactions increased by 141 or 29.9% during the first half of FY 2022, as illustrated in Table 3 below; and (3) Seismic rebates increased from $365,976 in the first half of FY 2021 to $515,478 for the same period in FY 2022.

Table 2: FY 2022 and FY 2021 6 Month Comparison of Property Sales Property
Sales
(In Million $)
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
Property
Sales $
FY 2022 $179.7 $194.3 $209.9 $204.5 $252.9 $200.2 $1,241.5 FY 2021 74.0 115.0 106.4 129.7 139.0 118.4 682.5 Change 105.7 79.3 103.5 74.8 113.9 81.8 559.0 % Change 142.7% 69.0% 97.3% 57.7% 81.9% 69.1% 81.9% Table 3: FY 2022 and FY 2021 6 Month Comparison of Property Transfer Transactions
Measure P-Property Transfer Tax ($4,372,622 more than FY 2021 Actual) In addition, $8,626,946 in Measure P taxes (a tax which took effect on December 21, 2018) were collected during the first half of FY 2022, which was $4,372,622 or 102.8% more than the $4,254,324 collected during the first half of FY 2021. The increase was a result of (1) 103.2% increase in the property sales amount in FY 2022 versus those for the same period in FY 2021, as reflected in the Table 4 below; (2) As reflected in Table 5, there was an 87.4% increase in the number of property sales transactions with a value of $1.5 million or more; and (3) there were 10 property sales transactions with a value of $10 million or more (average of $19.7 million) in FY 2022 versus one such transaction in FY 2021 ($12 million).

A payment of $2,347,440 was received by the County in January 2022. Assuming no growth over the total received in the last five months of FY 2021 ($6,095,724), the FY 2022 total would be $17,070,110. Staff is increasing the FY 2022 projection of $8,500,000 to $17,070,110.

Property
Transfer
Transactions
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2022 114 84 74 104 120 116 612
FY 2021 50 82 73 86 93 87 471
Change 64 2 1 18 27 29 141
% Change 128.0% 2.4% 1.4% 20.9% 29.0% 33.3% 29.9%

Page 4 of 17 ends

Page 542 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 5 ends

Table 4: FY 2022 and FY 2021 6 Month Comparison-Property Sales of $1.5 Million or More
Table 5: FY 2022 and FY 2021 6 Month Comparison of Measure P Transactions Sales Tax ($1,463,763 more than FY 2021 Actual)
For the first half of FY 2022, Sales Tax revenue totaled $9,533,614, which was $1,463,763 or 18.1% more than the $8,069,851 received for the first half of FY 2021.

The increase was consistent with the following projection made by the City’s Sales Tax Consultant in Table 6 below:

Table 6: Sales Tax Categories and FY 22 Revenue Projection Sales Tax Category Revenue Projection
General Retail $ 3,582,787
Food Products 5,573,760
Transportation 2,482,737
Construction 1,227,280
Business-to-business 1,782,010
Miscellaneous 786,424
Subtotal 15,434,998
County pool 3,956,336
State pool 9,966
County sharing (970,065)1
1 The cities in Alameda County share 5% of their Bradley Burns sales taxes with the County; and, Property
Sales
$1.5 million+
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2022 $117.7 $128.5 $147.9 $145.5 $190.7 $134.0 $864.3 FY 2021 39.3 61.0 58.6 67.8 82.9 115.8 425.4 Change 78.4 65.8 89.3 77.7 107.8 18.2 438.9 % Change 199.8% 107.9% 152.4% 114.6% 130.0% 15.7% 103.2% Measure P
Transactions
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2022 53 42 49 44 59 51 298
FY 2021 10 26 27 30 38 28 159
Change 43 16 22 14 21 23 139
% Change 430.0% 61.5% 81.5% 46.7% 55.3% 82.1% 87.4%

Page 5 of 17 ends

Page 543 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 6 ends

CDTFA admin. fee (144,019)2
Total $18,287,216
Utility Users Taxes ($229,670 more than FY 2021 Actual) Utility Users Tax (UUT) revenue for the first half of FY 2022 totaled $6,534,425, which was $229,670 or 3.6% more than the $6,304,755 received for the same period in FY 2021. This increase of $229,670 is shown in Table 7 below:

Table 7: FY 2022 and FY 2021 6 Month Comparison of UUT Revenues Utility FY2022 FY 2021 $ Change % Change
Telephone $ 584,334 $ 626,608 $ -42,274 -6.75% Cable 515,651 487,938 27,713 5.68%
Cellular 848,280 669,829 178,451 26.64% Electric 3,551,297 3,655,820 -104,523 -2.86%
Gas 1,034,863 864,560 170,303 19.70%
Total $6,534,425 $6,304,755 $ 229,670 3.64%
Staff is increasing the FY 2022 UUT projection from $13,000,000 to $13,800,000.

Transient Occupancy Tax ($1,386,350 more than FY 2021 Actual) Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue for the first half of FY 2022 totaled $2,471,311, which was $1,386,350 or 127.78% more than the $1,084,961 received for the first half of FY 2021. The increase in FY 2022 was primarily attributable to an increase of 138.2% at the five largest hotels in Berkeley during the first half of the year (155.8% in the first quarter and 134.1% in the second quarter). Staff is increasing the FY 2022 TOT projection from $2,173,000 to $3,800,000 to accommodate the new downtown hotel that came online during the second quarter of the fiscal year.

Short-Term Rentals ($367,979 more than FY 2021 Actual)
Short-Term Rentals revenue for the first half of FY 2022 totaled $586,569, which was $367,979 or 168.3% more than the $218,590 received for the first half of FY 2021.

Based on the mid-year results, staff is increasing the FY 2022 projection to $900,000.

Business License Taxes ($1,003,507 more than FY 2021 Actual) Business license Taxes (BLT) revenue for the first half of FY 2022 totaled $1,393,760, which was $1,003,507 or 257.1% more than the $390,253 received for the first half of FY 2021. BLT are not due yet, so it is too soon to gauge the FY 2022 trend. However, the increase so far is partly due to the following: (1) Business license applications, which generated $21,400 in additional revenue; (2) More than 200 more business license renewals were received, due to the delinquent notices sent out in September 2021; and (3) The business license revenue for retail and rental classifications 2 The CDTFA administrative fees are a percentage of taxes CDTFA charges to administer the sales tax program.

Page 6 of 17 ends

Page 544 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 7 ends

increased in FY 2022 by $31,000 and $165,000, respectively. Based on the mid-year results, staff is increasing the FY 2022 projection to $19,000,000.

Recreational Cannabis ($245,129 more than FY 2021 Actual) Recreational Cannabis revenue for the first half of FY 2022 totaled $600,770, which was $245,129 or 68.9% more than the $355,641 received in the first half of FY 2021.

Recreational Cannabis taxes are not due yet, so it is too soon to gauge the trend in FY 2022 revenue.

Vehicle In Lieu Taxes ($312,775 more than FY 2021 Actual) Vehicle in Lieu Taxes (VLF) for the first half of FY 2022 totaled $7,503,002, which was $312,775 or 4.35% more than the $7,190,227 received in the first half of FY 2021. This increase is consistent with the County’s Certification of Assessed Valuation, which reflects growth of 4.48%. Changes in VLF revenues are based on the growth in assessed values.

Parking Fines ($736,465 more than FY 2021 Actual)
Parking Fines revenue for the first half of FY 2022 totaled $2,451,293, which was $736,465 or 42.95% more than the $1,714,828 received for the first half of FY 2021.

The primary reasons for the increase was a significant increase in ticket writing and a higher collection rate on outstanding citations.

During the first half, ticket writing increased from 55,734 or 10.5% in the first half of FY 2021 to 61,603 in the first half of FY 2022, as shown in Table 8 below:

Table 8: FY 2022 and FY 2021 6 Month Comparison of Parking Tickets Written Tickets July August Sept. Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2022 9,231 9,362 11,401 11,021 10,434 10,154 61,603 FY 2021 6,810 7,654 9,093 12,519 10,357 9,301 55,734 Difference +2,421 +1,708 +2,308 -1,498 77 853 +5,869 % Difference +35.6% +22.3% +25.4% -12.0% -0.7% 9.2% +10.5% Staff has increased the Parking Fines projection from $3,726,450 to $4,326,450.

Ambulance Fees ($301,433 more than FY 2021 Actual)
Ambulance Fees revenue for FY 2022 totaled $1,715,639, which was $301,433 or

21.3% more than the $1,414,206 received for the same period during FY 2021. This increase was primarily due to an increase in the number of transports in FY 2022. The City’s Ambulance Fees vendor projects that the total number of transports for FY 2022 will be 4,500, an increase of 400 over the 4,100 transports in FY 2021.

Interest Income ($480,425 more than FY 2021 Actual)
For the first half of FY 2022, interest income totaled $3,107,784, which was $480,425 or

18.29% more than the total of $2,627,359 received for the same period in FY 2021. This

Page 7 of 17 ends

Page 545 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 8 ends

increase was primarily attributable to an increase in the proportion of the portfolio that was invested in long-term (i.e., one year or more) securities than in short-term securities (i.e., less than one year, which paid rates ranging from .01%-.25%), despite the decline in average interest rates. The City moved a significant portion of its short-term funds from its Fidelity money market fund, that paid a rate of .01% into other short-term alternatives, like Commercial Paper.

This increase of $480,425 occurred despite the Fed’s actions to keep short-term rates near zero, and the net interest rate earned by the City dropped from a range of 1.13%-

1.17% during the first half of FY 2021, to a range of .96%-1.08% during the first half of FY 2022, as follows:

Table 9: FY 2022 and FY 2021 6 Month Comparison of Monthly Net Interest Rate Earned
Interest July August Sept Oct Nov Dec
FY 2022 .91% 1.03% 1.06% 1.08% 1.02% .96%
FY 2021 1.17% 1.13% 1.14% 1.12% 1.16% 1.14%
Transfers ($4,812,181 more than FY 2021 Actual)
Transfers from other funds for the first quarter of FY 2022 totaled $13,677,462 which was $4,812,181 or 54.28% more than the $8,865,281 received for the same period in FY 2021. This was primarily attributable to the Transfer of $11,484,678 from the American Rescue Plan Fund in the first half of FY 2022, to recover from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to the Transfer of $3,450,000 from the Stabilization Reserve Fund and the $2,250,000 from the Catastrophic Reserve Fund during the FY 2021 first half, to mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19. In addition, there was a one-time Shelter Plus Care County grant of $1,600,000 received during the first half of FY 2021.

Other Revenues ($2,355,215 less than FY 2021 Actual)
Other Revenues consists of licenses and permits; grants; preferential parking fees; general government charges for services; public safety charges for services; health charges for services; culture and recreation charges for services; rents and royalties; and other miscellaneous revenues that are not considered major.

Other Revenues for the first half of FY 2022 totaled $3,275,856 which was $2,355,215 or 41.8% less than the $5,631,071 received for the first half of FY 2021. This decrease resulted primarily from the FY 2021 receipt of $1,500,000 from the COVID Relief Program, and $704,000 from the East Bay Community Foundation for the Berkeley Relief Fund, to finance grant payments to assist businesses and nonprofit organizations impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Page 8 of 17 ends

Page 546 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 9 ends

General Fund Revenue Projections (FY 2022 to FY 2026)
The following chart shows projected General Fund revenues for FY 2022 and the current projections for FY 2023 through FY 2026.

FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
Undesignated Revenues
Secured Property Taxes 71,382,000 75,308,010 79,449,951 83,819,698 88,429,781 Supplemental Taxes 2,000,000 2,110,000 2,226,050 2,348,483 2,477,649 Unsecured Property Taxes 3,516,000 3,709,380 3,913,396 4,128,633 4,355,707 Property Transfer Taxes 12,500,000 12,500,000 12,500,000 12,500,000 12,500,000 Property Transfer Tax - Measure P 17,070,110 11,810,614 12,283,038 12,774,360 13,285,334 Sales Taxes 18,287,215 19,827,678 20,660,832 21,528,995 22,433,638 Soda Tax 990,210 1,010,014 1,030,214 1,050,819 1,071,835 Utility Users Taxes 13,800,000 14,076,000 14,357,520 14,644,670 14,937,564 Transient Occupancy Taxes(TOT) 4,300,000 4,515,000 4,740,750 4,977,788 5,226,677 Short-term Rentals 900,000 945,000 992,250 1,041,863 1,093,956 Business License Taxes 19,000,000 19,950,000 20,947,500 21,994,875 23,094,619 Recreational Cannabis 1,800,000 1,836,000 1,872,720 1,910,174 1,948,378 Measure U1 5,120,350 5,222,757 5,327,212 5,433,756 5,542,432 Other Taxes 2,631,441 2,684,070 2,737,751 2,792,506 2,848,356 Vehicle In Lieu Taxes 15,024,697 15,851,055 16,722,863 17,642,621 18,612,965 Parking Fines - Regular Collections 4,326,450 4,542,773 4,769,911 5,008,407 5,258,827 Parking Fines - Booting Collections - - - - -
Moving Violations 132,600 135,252 137,957 140,716 143,531 Ambulance Fees 3,268,275 3,333,641 3,400,313 3,468,320 3,537,686 Interest Income 4,462,320 4,411,120 4,411,120 4,411,120 4,411,120 Franchise Fees 1,613,283 1,645,549 1,678,460 1,712,029 1,746,269 Other Revenues 6,729,977 6,200,000 6,200,000 6,200,000 6,200,000 Indirect cost reimbursements 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000 5,490,000 Transfers 27,354,923 4,966,745 4,966,745 4,966,745 4,966,745 Total Undesignated Revenues 241,699,851 222,080,657 230,816,554 239,986,576 249,613,069 Designated Revenues
Prop. Transfer Taxes for capital improvements 26,937,743 10,721,903 11,650,779 12,616,811 13,621,483 Total Designated Revenues 26,937,743 10,721,903 11,650,779 12,616,811 13,621,483 TOTAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS 268,637,594 232,802,560 242,467,334 252,603,387 263,234,552 5 YEARS PROJECTED GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Projected General Fund Revenue
*Property Transfer Tax Revenues are set at a baseline amount of $12.5 million. The Council Fiscal Policies require any excess property transfer tax revenues over the baseline to be allocated to capital improvements.

Council may waive this policy as needed to balance the budget or prioritize these funds for other critical needs

Page 9 of 17 ends

Page 547 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 10 ends

Property Taxes
Given the continued high collection rate, and the resilience of property values in the City, as well as a large volume of recent property sales (which bring assessed values to market value), we are projecting that annual growth will be approximately 5.5% over the next several years. The persistence of strong growth of property valuations in recent years, as well as the spike in current year sales (which bring properties assessed valuations to market value), have caused staff to increase the projected growth rate from the 3.5% that we have used in prior long-term projections.

Sales Taxes
We project that the immense effects of COVID-19 on sales tax revenue in FY 2021 to be largely reversed in FY 2022, with revenue levels almost back to FY 2019 levels, and project growth to then level off to approximately 4% in FY 2024. There is still some potential risk that an overall slowdown in underlying economic recovery will be reflected in reduced growth in consumer spending and sales tax collections.

Business License Taxes
We are projecting a 5% growth in Business License Tax revenue from heavily impacted FY 2021 levels, as economic activity recovers from the recession caused by the pandemic. Long-term projections will be adjusted as the post-pandemic economic environment becomes clearer. 2022 business license returns (for 2021 gross receipts) are just now being received, so we will know more about how revenues are trending once they are processed over the next month or so.

Transient Occupancy Tax (“TOT”)
With recovery of business at the City’s hotels expected to lag behind general economic recovery, and relying on industry guidance regarding predicted occupancy levels, we are currently projecting only 5% annual growth from current revenue levels. Even after taking into consideration the new downtown hotel, we will continue to monitor the major hotels’ projections of future occupancies and will adjust long-term projections as necessary.

Utility Users Tax
We expect UUT revenue to rise marginally from FY 2022 through FY 2024, after increasing slightly in the current year due to rate increases approved by the Public Utilities Commission. Revenues are expected to remain flat after FY 2024 and beyond after all the rate increases have been actualized.

Transfer Tax
Given the continued strength in property values and in sales activity, we expect Transfer Tax revenues to increase 4% per year from FY 2023 – FY 2026, calculated based on FY 2021 revenue. The spike in revenue being seen in FY 2022 is likely due to sales triggered by looming interest rate increases that have been signaled by the Federal Reserve, as well as some pent-up demand from mildly depressed sales during the

Page 10 of 17 ends

Page 548 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 11 ends

pandemic. Over the 5 years prior to the pandemic, transfer tax revenues grew 6% per year on average, but interest rate increases will probably negatively impact sales prices and volumes somewhat in the next few years. We similarly expect revenues from Measure P supplemental tax on high value property transfers to increase at the 4% rate.

Conclusion
The FY 2022 Revised Projections are, as the name implies, projections. It assumes the economic performance experienced thus far in the first half of the fiscal year will continue until the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2022. At this point in time, only certain revenues (unsecured property tax, preparty transfer tax, Measure P and TOT) totaling approximately $1.6 million have already exceeded the adopted revenue targets.

However, there is a great deal of uncertainty that lays ahead as explained in more detail below. Accordingly, the revised projections are not a guarantee that additional revenue will be received by the City. The actual revenues will be known after the completion of the FY 2022 financial audit in the latter part of calendar year 2022. .

Projecting revenues many years into the future is inherently difficult to do with accuracy, as shifts in the macroeconomic climate can cause asset valuations and economic output to fluctuate in ways not able to be anticipated at the time projections are made.

Staff use the best assumptions available, based on historic trends, observation of leading economic indicators, and known changes in the regulatory environment. The current environment, however, presents heightened uncertainty due to several macroeconomic factors that could impact future City revenues.

First, while the health emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic is finally receding, and while many of the restrictions that had constrained economic activity have been or soon will be lifted, there is a possibility that the local economy has been reshaped in ways that will not return to a pre-pandemic “normal.” The increase in telecommuting that occurred in the past couple of years may not fully recede. This could have effects on spending activities of residents and employees of City businesses and institutions, as well as the desirability of certain locations for home purchases. These trends will have to be studied and analyzed and adjustments made as more data comes in.

Second, after being kept at manageable levels for many years, there are signs that inflationary pressure is driving prices higher. It is not yet clear if this is the temporary effect of disrupted supply chains caused by COVID-19 or a more long-lasting phenomenon. The Federal Reserve Board has indicated and the markets are adjusting to the fact that interest rates will be raised as the Fed’s start to tighten monetary policy to combat inflation. This will have immediate effects on economic activities in all sectors of the economy.

Third, the outbreak of war in Europe between Ukraine and Russia has the potential to dramatically reshape global markets, especially if Russian oil and natural gas are cut off

Page 11 of 17 ends

Page 549 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 12 ends

from the rest of the world. This would drive fuel and transportation prices higher, with downstream effects on the prices of most goods.

Any one or a combination of these factors could necessitate further revision of the projections presented here. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues we actually receive and changes in the economic environment, so that we may update or revise our projections if changes in our forecasts are warranted.

General Fund Expenditures
On December 14, 2021, the City Council approved General Fund recommended rollovers, carryovers, and adjustments totaling $25 million in the Amendment to the FY
2022 Annual Appropriations Ordinance 3(AAO).

On July 29, 2021, Council adopted the FY 2022 Budget, which authorized General Fund expenditures of $234.8 million. Subsequently, Council authorized adjustments to the adopted budget through the Annual Appropriations Ordinance as shown in the table below:

Table 11: FY 2022 General Fund Revised Budget
FY 2022
Adopted
Budget
Encumbered
Recommended
Unencumbered
Recommended
Other
Adjustments
FY 2022
Revised
Budget
$234,754,491 $8,451,781 $4,405,774 $12,151,842 $259,763,888 The encumbered rollovers of $8.5 million reflect contractual obligations entered into in FY 2021, which had not been paid as of June 30, 2021. Unencumbered carryovers of $4.4 million are approved by Council for specific purposes that had not been completed by the end of FY 2021. Funding for these commitments is brought forward into the current fiscal year to provide for payment of these obligations. Adjustments are new allocations for projects and Council priorities as detailed in the AAO.

Included in the other adjustments of $12.2 million are Council authorized allocations for the following items:

1. $5,069,609 for the Mayor's Proposed Supplemental Recommendations for the Allocation of General Fund Excess Equity

2. $3,775,783 for FY 2022 General Fund Cost of Living Adjustments

3. $339,008 for FY 2022 General Fund PEPRA Ramp Down

4. $439,420 for the off-street safe parking program for Recreational Vehicles at 742 Grayson Street and other shelter operational costs
3 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/12_Dec/Documents/2021-12- 14_Supp_3_Reports_Item_45_Rev_CMO_pdf.aspx

Page 12 of 17 ends

Page 550 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 13 ends

5. $179,551 in Health, Housing & Community Services for COLA's, CalPERS, and bonuses that cannot be absorbed by grant funds in FY 2022 for labor contracts approved by Council
General Fund expenditures incurred by department as of December 31, 2021 are shown in the chart below along with projections regarding the expenditures likely to be incurred through June 30, 2022. The projected savings/ deficit column in the chat below is an estimate of whether the department will likely be under or over the adopted budget and their respective appropriation limit based upon the first six months of the year. The General Fund is currently projected to finish FY 2022 with a balance of $5.4 million.

However, there is some fluidity in the projection as currently most of the savings are based upon vacant positions. Projected expenditures will fluctuate as departments either (1) fill vacant positions throughout the course of the fiscal year; (2) increase overtime spending to provide services despite vacancies and/or (3) spend more on consultants and other professional services (“non-personnel costs”) to mitigate vacant staff positions.

DEPARTMENT FY 2022

ADOPTED
FY 2022
REVISED*

YEAR-TO-
DATE

EXPENDED

YEAR-TO-DATE

ENCUMBRANCES

AVAILABLE
BUDGET
(YEAR-TO-DATE
LESS

ENCUMBRANCES)

PERCENT
OF

PERSONNEL
BUDGET
SPENT

PERCENT

OF NON-

PERSONNEL
BUDGET
SPENT
FY 2022

PROJECTED

EXPENDITURES

PROJECTED

BALANCE/(DEFICIT)
MAYOR & COUNCIL 3,096,559 3,828,949 1,563,198 49,091 2,216,660 42% 46% 3,828,949 (0) CITY AUDITOR 2,705,379 2,712,758 1,216,853 7,230 1,488,675 45% 50% 2,503,615 209,143 POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 1,114,235 1,149,235 382,012 33,712 733,511 36% 38% 883,925 265,310 CITY MANAGER 10,912,354 12,811,793 6,119,195 718,409 5,974,189 45% 70% 12,344,803 466,990 CITY ATTORNEY 3,434,164 3,711,854 1,185,801 25,752 2,500,301 33% 30% 2,502,657 1,209,197 CITY CLERK 2,396,737 2,762,298 1,224,689 200,851 1,336,759 45% 60% 2,653,075 109,223 FINANCE 7,041,962 8,908,286 3,228,885 1,164,527 4,514,874 42% 63% 8,226,859 681,427 HUMAN RESOURCES 2,407,724 2,594,692 1,116,086 99,283 1,379,324 46% 51% 2,466,850 127,842 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1,526,760 2,362,181 877,061 793,040 692,080 0% 71% 2,361,061 1,120

HEALTH HOUSING &

COMMUNITY SERVICES
23,455,690 32,345,797 10,898,278 7,182,622 14,264,898 38% 68% 28,540,438 3,805,359

PARKS RECREATON &

WATERFRONT
7,675,564 10,059,050 3,887,713 767,195 5,404,142 44%
49% 10,059,050 0
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 2,325,367 2,950,953 1,238,880 60,009 1,652,064 45% 42% 2,950,953 0 PUBLIC WORKS 4,742,625 10,296,492 2,781,682 1,239,766 6,050,044 37% 42% 8,438,147 1,858,345 POLICE 73,228,172 74,257,431 37,451,561 1,060,381 35,745,489 52% 55% 75,587,892 (1,330,461) FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES 37,021,939 42,244,587 20,756,846 4,886,856 16,600,885 54% 80% 44,294,587 (2,050,000) NON-DEPARTMENTAL 51,669,260 38,018,841 21,022,210 194,772 16,801,858 41% 56% 38,018,841 - GRAND TOTAL 234,754,491 251,015,198 114,950,950 18,483,496 117,355,753 49% 60% 245,661,702 5,353,496 *FY 2022 Revised does not reflect as of December 31, 2021 all Council approved allocations included in the FY 2021 AAO #1.

FY 2022 MID-YEAR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2021) With 50 percent of the fiscal year elapsed, most departments are tracking under 50 percent spent in personnel due to vacant positions. Conversely, there is an increased spending in non-personnel for some departments related to the use of professional

Page 13 of 17 ends

Page 551 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 14 ends

services to provide services despite vacancies. Some departments that are over 50 percent in non-personnel expenditures is related to encumbrances, meaning that departments have set aside funds to meet contractual obligations entered into in FY 2022, for services that may not be completed rendered by June 30, 2022.

Explanations for significant projected savings and overages are as follows:
 City Attorney ($1,209,197): Projected savings resulting from several vacant positions that have occurred during the year and that may not be fully filled by the end of the fiscal year.
 Health, Housing & Community Services ($3,805,359): Projected savings due to vacancies and staff redeployed to COVID-19 activities, which are funded by grants and other revenues rather than the General Fund.  Public Works ($1,858,345): Projected savings is tied to General Fund project funds that will not be fully spent by the end of FY 2022. These funds will be carried over to FY 2023.
 Police (-$1,330,461): The projected overage in the Police Department is due several factors, including the use of overtime to address staffing shortages.  Fire (-$2,050,000): Fire is projected to finish FY 2022 over budget by $2 million. The department has incurred COVID-19 impacts on staffing levels. In addition, the Department is still recovering from the nine deferred positions that were part of the hiring freeze and has experienced challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified firefighter/paramedics.
 In addition, the City Auditor, the Office of the Director of Police Accountability, the City Manager’s Office, the City Clerk, the Finance Department, and Human Resources are expected to finish the year under budget, largely due to savings attributed to vacant positions. The project surplus for these departments combined is $1,859,935.

Projected General Fund Budget Summary
Based on the General Fund revenue and expenditure projections that have been provided above, the following chart provides a projected FY 2022 ending fund balance for the General Fund:

Page 14 of 17 ends

Page 552 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 15 ends

FY 2022 Beginning General Fund Balance $ 36,838,797 Adopted Actual YTD
Revised
Projections
Revenues
Property Taxes and Vehicle In-Lieu 91,798,278 47,924,601 92,754,138 Real Estate Transfer Taxes 29,500,000 30,336,965 56,507,853 Sales Taxes 19,277,425 10,053,313 19,277,425
Utility Users Taxes and Franchise Fees 14,613,283 6,884,510 15,413,283 Hotel and STR Taxes 2,803,000 3,057,880 5,200,000
Business License Taxes 25,262,235 2,147,773 25,920,350
Fines and Fees 7,013,052 4,250,465 7,727,325
Interest and Other Revenue 18,444,011 9,906,087 18,482,297 Transfers from Other Funds 27,354,923 13,677,462 27,354,923 Total Revenues 236,066,207$ 128,239,056$ 268,637,594$ Expenditures
Total Personnel Costs 148,035,070 73,355,772 149,898,761 Total Non-Personnel Costs 86,719,421 40,626,797 95,762,940 Total Expenditures 234,754,491$ 113,982,570$ 245,661,701$ Net Change 1,311,716$ 14,256,486$ 22,975,893$ Projected FY 2022 Ending General Fund Balance 59,814,690$ FY 2022 Revenues and Expenditures
It is important to emphasis two things in the above table: (1) that the Transfers from other funds of $27,354,923 includes $11,484,678 that was transferred from the American Rescue Plan Fund and (2) that the revenue and expenditure projections provided are the best estimates staff has at this time for how the General Fund is projected to end FY 2022. Between now and the end of the year, a number of assumptions could change that will impact these projections.

Staff is carefully monitoring the FY 2022 General Fund budget to make sure the City stays within budget and is also reviewing and analyzing data to make sure that savings realized as part of the adopted budget deferrals for FY 2022 are met by the end of the year.

Staff is also in the process of developing a new 5 Year Forecast that combines both the revenue and expenditure projections that will easily summarize the General Fund

Page 15 of 17 ends

Page 553 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 16 ends

budget status for the upcoming FY 2023 & FY 2024 Biennial Budget and the following FY 2025 & FY 2026 Biennial Budget.

All Funds Expenditures
The General Fund comprises 30.5 percent of the total adjusted budget. The rest of the budget consists of various Special Funds. Special Funds are collected for a specific purpose; therefore, the projected balances are not considered to be discretionary and available to be re-allocated toward other programs, projects and services. Only costs associated with the Special Fund activity may be charged to a Special Fund.

Included in the FY 2022 Mid-Year All Fund Expenditures by Department chart below are both the General Fund expenditures to date and the Special Funds expenditures to date. On an All Funds basis, the City is tracking under budget as of December 31, 2021 as can be seen in the following chart:

DEPARTMENT FY 2022

ADOPTED
FY 2022
REVISED*
YTD

EXPENDED

ENCUMBRANCESAVAILABLE
BUDGET

PERCENT OF
BUDGET

SPENT TO
DATE
FY 2022

PROJECTED

EXPENDITURES

PROJECTED

BALANCE/(DEFICIT)
MAYOR & COUNCIL 3,096,559 3,836,449 1,563,198 49,091 2,224,160 42% 3,836,449 0 CITY AUDITOR 2,805,883 2,813,262 1,230,151 7,230 1,575,881 44% 2,530,891 282,371 RENT BOARD 6,825,535 7,502,298 2,520,539 1,214,837 3,766,922 50% 7,502,298 0 POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 1,114,235 1,149,235 382,012 33,712 733,511 36% 883,925 265,310 CITY MANAGER 13,852,717 19,653,847 8,047,478 1,311,152 10,295,216 48% 18,900,613 753,234 LIBRARY 25,566,341 25,680,866 8,589,625 2,177,725 14,913,515 42% 20,325,974 5,354,892 CITY ATTORNEY 7,278,096 7,924,642 2,520,476 537,108 4,867,058 39% 6,643,110 1,281,532 CITY CLERK 2,901,739 3,267,300 1,269,182 200,851 1,797,268 45% 3,160,302 106,998 FINANCE 9,431,102 11,319,338 4,101,165 1,234,332 5,983,841 47% 10,495,041 824,297 HUMAN RESOURCES 4,438,053 4,651,435 1,797,375 125,697 2,728,363 41% 4,030,855 620,580 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 20,423,888 25,758,933 7,533,395 5,153,106 13,072,432 49% 24,438,828 1,320,105

HEALTH HOUSING &

COMMUNITY SERVICES
84,514,926 129,182,820 37,250,059 31,234,274 60,698,488 53% 110,457,573 18,725,247

PARKS RECREATON &

WATERFRONT
52,979,556 88,900,408 30,323,588 24,547,087 34,029,734 62% 83,434,951 5,465,457
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 25,252,729 27,774,725 10,647,422 1,247,297 15,880,006 43% 27,774,725 0 PUBLIC WORKS 147,438,656 229,036,144 60,612,570 52,028,114 114,444,862 49% 194,459,479 34,576,665 POLICE 77,807,443 80,581,579 39,464,967 1,713,694 39,402,918 51% 81,827,004 -1,245,425 FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES 60,351,430 66,013,514 26,260,403 8,261,635 31,491,476 52% 61,847,423 4,166,091 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 127,522,399 109,912,191 56,631,533 737,440 52,772,418 52% 109,912,191 0 GRAND TOTAL 673,601,287 844,958,987 300,745,138 131,814,381 410,678,071 51% 772,461,632 72,497,356 *FY 2022 Revised does not reflect as of December 31, 2021 all Council approved allocations included in the FY 2021 AAO #1.

FY 2022 MID-YEAR ALL FUNDS EXPENDITURES (AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2021) On All Funds basis, the City is projected to finish FY 2022 with a balance of $72.5 million.

Health, Housing, & Community Services, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront, and Public Works are expected to finish FY 2022 with significant balances that are tied to both vacancies and projects and grants started in FY 2021 that are not expected to be

Page 16 of 17 ends

Page 554 ends

FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022

Page 17 ends

finished by the end of the fiscal year. These departments also appropriated new grant funds that support programs and services as well as special funds for capital improvements.

Details of these carryover requests can be found in the December 14, 2021, (AAO)4 discussed earlier in this report.

Next Steps:

Staff is currently in the process of preparing the FY 2023 & FY 2024 Budget, which will be presented to Council on May 10, 2022. We are also in the process of developing a new 5 Year Forecast that will summarize the General Fund budget status for the upcoming FY 2023 & FY 2024 Biennial Budget and the following FY 2025 & FY 2026 Biennial Budget.

Final FY 2022 year-end General Fund revenues and expenditures information will be included in the “FY 2022 Year-End Report and FY 2023 First Quarter Update” that will be presented to Council in November 2022.

The FY 2022 Mid-Year Budget Update is a Strategic Plan Priority, advancing our goal to provide an efficient and financially-healthy City government.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Actions included in the budget will be developed and implemented in a manner that is consistent with the City’s environmental sustainability goals and requirements.

CONTACT PERSON
Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000 Rama Murty, Senior Management Analyst, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000 Henry Oyekanmi, Finance Director, Department of Finance, 981-7300 4 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/12_Dec/Documents/2021-12- 14_Supp_3_Reports_Item_45_Rev_CMO_pdf.aspx

Page 17 of 17 ends

Page 555 ends

Page 556 ends

INFORMATION CALENDAR
May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Alene Pearson, Acting Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: LPO NOD: 1940 Hearst Avenue/#LMIN2021-0003

INTRODUCTION
The attached Notice of Decision (NOD) for the Landmarks Designation is presented to the Mayor and City Council pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code/Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (BMC/LPO) Section 3.24.160, which requires that “a copy of the Notice of Decision shall be filed with the City Clerk and the City Clerk shall present said copy to the City Council at its next regular meeting.”

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC/Commission) has designated the subject property as a City of Berkeley Landmark. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period, which began on April 25, 2022.

BACKGROUND
BMC/LPO Section 3.24.190 allows the Council to review any action of the Commission in granting or denying Landmark, Structure of Merit or Historic District status. In order for Council to review the decision on its merits, Council must appeal the NOD. To do so, a Councilmember must move this Information Item to Action and then move to “certify” the decision. Such action must be taken within 15 days from the mailing of the NOD or by May 10, 2022. Such certification to Council shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal.

If the Council chooses to appeal the action of the Commission, then a public hearing will be set within 25 days pursuant to BMC/LPO Section 3.24.300. The Council must then rule on the designation within 30 days from the date that the public hearing is opened or the decision of the Commission is automatically deemed affirmed.

Unless the Council wishes to review the determination of the Commission and make its own decision, the attached NOD is deemed received and filed.

Page 1 of 70 ends

Page 557 ends

LPO NOD: 1940 Hearst Avenue/#LMIN2021-0003 INFORMATION CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

their removal, achieves construction and demolition waste diversion, and promotes investment in existing urban centers.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Council may choose to certify or appeal the decision to grant designation status, setting the matter for public hearing at a future date.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no known fiscal impacts associated with this designation action.

CONTACT PERSON
Fatema Crane, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7410 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMIN2021-0003, 1940 Hearst Avenue

Page 2 of 70 ends

Page 558 ends

ATTACHMENT 1 , part 1

L A N D M A R K S

P R E S E R V A T I O N

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: March 3, 2022
DATE NOTICE MAILED: April 25, 2022
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: May 10, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE OF PERMIT (Barring Appeal or Certification): May 11, 20221 1940 Hearst Avenue
James T. Stocker-Loni Ding House
Landmark application (#LMIN2021-0003) for consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a residential building constructed in 1901 – APN 057-2056-026-00.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the following designation:
 City of Berkeley Landmark, pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 3.24.110(A) INITIATED BY: May Ying Welsh
ZONING DISTRICT: Restricted Multiple-Family Residential (R-2A) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines -- Review for Exemptions.

The application materials for this project are available online at:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/zoningapplications
1 Pursuant to BMC Section 23B.32.090, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, which has the same effect as an appeal. In most cases, the Council must certify the LPC decision during the 14-day appeal period. However, pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if any portion of the appeal period falls within a Council recess, the deadline for Council certification is suspended until the first Council meeting after the recess, plus the number of days of the appeal period that occurred during the recess, minus one day. If there is no appeal or certification, the Use Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.

Page 3 of 70 ends

Page 559 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
Landmark designation status - #LMIN2021-0003
1940 Hearst Avenue – James T. Stocker-Loni Ding House
May 10, 2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

FINDINGS, CONDITIONS AND LANDMARK APPLICATION ARE ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE
COMMISSION VOTE: 7-0-0-2
YES: ADAMS, CRANDALL, ENCHILL, FINACOM, LEUSCHNER, MONTGOMERY,

SCHWARTZ
NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: JOHNSON, TWU
TO APPEAL THIS DECISION (see Section 3.24.300 of the Berkeley Municipal Code):

To appeal a decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to the City Council you must:

1. Submit a letter clearly and concisely setting forth the grounds for the appeal to the City Clerk, located at 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley; or by facsimile to (510) 981-6901.

The City Clerk’s telephone number is (510) 981-6900.
a. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.300.A, an appeal may be taken to the City Council by the application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents, or by the application of at least fifty residents of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the Commission made under the provisions of Chapter 3.24.

2. The appeal must be received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the "APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION" date shown above (if the close of the appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the appeal period expires the following business day).

3. Submit the required fee (checks and money orders must be payable to ‘City of Berkeley’):
a. The basic fee for persons other than the applicant is $500. This fee may be reduced to $100 if the appeal is signed by persons who lease or own at least 50 percent of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or at least 25 such persons (not including dependent children), whichever is less.
b. The fee for appeals of affordable housing projects (defined as projects which provide 50 percent or more affordable units for households earning 80% or less of Area Median Income) is $500, which may not be reduced.
c. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $2500.

If no appeal is received, the landmark designation will be final on the first business day following expiration of the appeal period.

Page 4 of 70 ends

Page 560 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
Landmark designation status - #LMIN2021-0003
1940 Hearst Avenue – James T. Stocker-Loni Ding House
May 10, 2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

If you object to this decision, the following requirements and restrictions apply:

1. If you challenge this decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Landmarks Preservation Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.

2. You must appeal to the City Council within fifteen (15) days after the Notice of Decision of the action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is mailed. It is your obligation to notify the Land Use Planning Division in writing of your desire to receive a Notice of Decision when it is completed.

3. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b) and Government Code Section 65009(c)(1), no lawsuit challenging a City Council decision, as defined by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(e), regarding a use permit, variance or other permit may be filed more than ninety (90) days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b). Any lawsuit not filed within that ninety (90) day period will be barred.

4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), notice is hereby given to the applicant that the 90-day protest period for any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions included in any permit approval begins upon final action by the City, and that any challenge must be filed within this 90-day period.

5. If you believe that this decision or any condition attached to it denies you any reasonable economic use of the subject property, was not sufficiently related to a legitimate public purpose, was not sufficiently proportional to any impact of the project, or for any other reason constitutes a “taking” of property for public use without just compensation under the California or United States Constitutions, your appeal of this decision must include the following information:

A. That this belief is a basis of your appeal.

B. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a "taking" of property as set forth above.

C. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” as set forth above.

If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been taken, both before the City Council and in court.

Page 5 of 70 ends

Page 561 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
Landmark designation status - #LMIN2021-0003
1940 Hearst Avenue – James T. Stocker-Loni Ding House
May 10, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website.

Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Allison Riemer, at (510) 981-7433 or [email protected] or [email protected] ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Landmark application
ATTEST: _________________________
Fatema Crane, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
Cc: City Clerk
Property Owner/Applicant: May Ying Welsh, 1940 Hearst Ave., Berkeley, CA 94709

Page 6 of 70 ends

Page 562 ends

Attachment 1, part 2
F i n d i n g s
MARCH 3, 2022

1940 Hearst Avenue – James T. Stocker-Loni Ding
House
Landmark application #LMIN2021-0003 for the consideration of City Landmark designation status for a residential building constructed in 1901 – APN 057-2056-026-00

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City Landmark designation of the property at 1940 Hearst Avenue, James T. Stocker-Loni Ding House.

CEQA FINDINGS

1. The project is found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15061.b.3 of the CEQA Guidelines (activities that can be seen with certainty to have no significant effect on the environment).

LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORIDNANCE FINDINGS

2. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110(A)(1)(c) of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the Commission finds that the subject main building exhibits architectural merit as part of a neighborhood fabric wherein it is one of a few extant buildings on its block from the era prior to the construction of BART in the early 1970s. The building retains integrity of design primarily throughout its street-facing facade, in spite of exterior alterations on the side and rear elevations; it retains integrity of location, materials, feeling, association and workmanship. Through these qualities, it conveys its significant associations with its period of construction (1901), as well as the First Bay Tradition.

3. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110(A)(2) of the LPO, the Commission further finds that the subject building exhibits cultural value through its association with long-time resident Loni Ding (1931-2010), who was an award-winning filmmaker, producer, editor, teacher, social justice activist, and mentor; her work resulted in greater exposure and representation for Asians and Asian Americans in broadcast media as both the subjects and producers of content. She invited UC Berkeley students to her home, which also served as a production studio, and a repository for tapes, and archives used in the development of her films.

Page 7 of 70 ends

Page 563 ends

FINDINGS 1940 Hearst Avenue – James T. Stocker- Loni Ding House

Page 2 of 2 ends

FEATURES TO BE PRESERVED

1. This City Landmark designation shall apply to the subject property and the following distinguishing features of the main building shall be preserved:
 Rectangular footprint
 Three stories
 Side-gabled roof with gable-end returns and closed eaves  Hip-roofed north-facing dormer with twin double-hung windows  Wood-shingled exterior walls
 Symmetrical north façade
 Two gabled north-facing rooflets with deep-framed, shingled pediments
 Two second-story boxed windows under the gabled rooflets  Flaring second- and first-story walls on north, east, and west façades  Second-story overhang on north façade
 Beadboard soffits under boxed windows and second-story overhang  Heavy wooden molding trim edging the skirt and soffits  Elaborate scrolled wooden brackets under second-story overhang at either end of the north façade
 Scrolled wooden corbels at either end of soffits under boxed windows  Recessed entrance porch supported by a battered column at the northeast corner
 Centrally located entrance door within the porch
 Shingled porch walls, beadboard ceiling, and floor clad in floorboards  North- and east-facing porch openings outlined in frames with turned upper corners
 Three-faceted window bay on north façade, with a double-hung, wood-framed window set in each facet
 Double-hung, wood-framed windows on north, east, and west façades  Molded wood window casings and sill trims
 Two semi-glazed, exterior wooden doors on upper levels of east façade  Wooden exterior staircase on east façade
 Wooden molding strip under the wall skirt and above the foundation

Page 8 of 70 ends

Page 564 ends

CITY OF BERKELEY
Ordinance #4694 N.S.

LANDMARK APPLICATION
James T. Stocker–Loni Ding House
1940 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94709
Figure 1. Street façade, June 2021
Land Use PlanningReceived
November 18, 2021
Attachment 1, part 3

Page 9 of 70 ends

Page 565 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 2 of 62

1. Street Address: 1940 Hearst Avenue
County: Alameda City: Berkeley ZIP: 94709

2. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 57-2056-26 (Sea View Park, Block 3, Lot 2) Dimensions: 45 feet x 100 feet
Cross Streets: Bonita Avenue & Milvia Street

3. Is property on the State Historic Resource Inventory? No Is property on the Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey? Yes Form #: 21465

4. Application for Landmark Includes:
a. Building(s): Yes Garden: Yes Other Feature(s):
b. Landscape or Open Space: Yes
c. Historic Site: No
d. District: No
e. Other: Entire property

5. Historic Name: Stocker House
Commonly Known Name: Loni Ding House

6. Date of Construction: 1901 Factual: Yes
Source of Information: Berkeley Daily Gazette, 11 Apr. 1901; 1902 property assessment record

7. Designer: Unknown; probably James T. Stocker, Jr.

8. Builder: James Thomas Stocker, Jr.

9. Style: Arts & Crafts with Colonial Revival elements

10. Original Owners: James T. & Belle A. Stocker
Original Use: Single-family residence

11. Present Owners:

May Ying Welsh & Elias Welsh
1940 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94709

Present Occupants: Owners & tenants

12. Present Use: Residential (three flats)
Current Zoning: R-2A Adjacent Property Zoning: R-2A

13. Present Condition of Property:

Exterior: Excellent Interior: Good Grounds: Good

Has the property’s exterior been altered? Yes, front door, rear façade & exterior stairs on east side. The house was recently restored.

Page 10 of 70 ends

Page 566 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 3 of 62

Executive Summary

The James T. Stocker–Loni Ding House is a shingle-clad dwelling built in 1901 by carpenter James T. Stocker for his own family residence. It is the only house of its type in the Sea View Tract and possibly in all of Berkeley, with a rarely encountered hybrid style that crosses Arts & Crafts with Colonial Revival elements. Among the distinguishing features of the Stocker-Ding House are a side-gabled roof with gable-end returns; twin gable rooflets over second-story boxed windows; elaborate scrolled wooden brackets under flaring overhangs; scrolled corbels under the boxed windows; and beadboard soffits edged with heavy molding. The street façade of the Stocker-Ding House retains virtually all its original character-defining features.

The Stocker-Ding House is a survivor on a block that has lost 70% of its historic fabric and that faces blocks to the north and south that lost, respectively, 50% and 100% of their historic fabric.

The Stocker-Ding House was the home and workplace of the late multiple- award-winning filmmaker, acclaimed social documentarian, and university instructor Loni Ding (1931–2010), who acquired it in 1965. The house is still owned and inhabited by Ms. Ding’s immediate family and has recently undergone extensive rehabilitation and restoration that preserve its historic appearance and character.

14. Description

Figure 2. The Sea View Park tract (Google Earth)

The Stocker-Ding House is a wood-framed, two-and-a-half-story dwelling, converted into three flats circa 1920 or a little earlier. It is situated in the Sea View Park tract, a five-block subdivision in North-Central Berkeley. The house is

Page 11 of 70 ends

Page 567 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 4 of 62

located on the historic Lot 2 (now Lot 26) in Block 3 (Assessor’s Block 2056) of the tract, within two short city blocks of Shattuck Avenue, University Avenue, and Martin Luther King, Jr., Way. The lion’s share of the block is occupied by mid- 20 th-century apartment buildings, with two enclaves of older houses at the northeast and northwest corners. All but three of the older houses have been converted to apartments and contain two or three units each.

Figure 3. Northern half of Block 3, Sea View Park (Assessor’s Map 57-2056)

Figure 4. The subject property on Assessor’s Map 57-2056

Architectural Style

When the Stocker-Ding House was built in 1901, Colonial Revival was the prevailing style in East Bay home construction. During the same period, Bernard Maybeck, Charles Keeler, and members of the Hillside Club were promoting the Arts & Crafts style, imported from England and evolved here into the variant known as the First Bay Region Tradition. Its early practitioners were Ernest

Page 12 of 70 ends

Page 568 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 5 of 62

Coxhead, Willis Polk, Albert C. Schweinfurth, and Maybeck.1 Especially on the Northside, artistic brown-shingle houses proliferated, becoming synonymous with Berkeley domestic architecture.

As a carpenter, James Thomas Stocker, Jr. would have been familiar with the popular but conventional Colonial Revival style; yet building the house for himself and his wife-to-be, he may have wanted it to be more distinctive than the average “Classic Box.”
The June 1899 issue of The House Beautiful magazine carried an article by Hillside Club founder Margaret “Madge” Robinson (later Mrs. Oscar Maurer), titled “The Hillside Problem.”
2 In it, Ms. Robinson offered solutions to building
on a hillside, with three illustrations as examples.

Two of the examples included unusually large twin gables, and the second (Fig. 6) also featured a side-gabled roof. This house, captioned “The Broad, Pleasant Face, One’s First Welcome,” appears to be a loose interpretation of Willis Polk’s double house, built in 1892 for Polk’s family and Mrs. Virgil Williams at 1013–1019 Vallejo Street in San Francisco.
3 Figure 5. Illustration from "The Hillside Problem" (House Beautiful, June 1899)

1 Richard Longstreth. On the Edge of the World: Four Architects in San Francisco at the Turn of the Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. 2 Daniella Thompson. “The Hillside Problem: Madge Robinson, architectural activist.” http://berkeleyheritage.com/berkeley_landmarks/hillside_problem.html 3 Polk-Williams House, 1013 Vallejo Street, San Francisco. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/ca1393/

Page 13 of 70 ends

Page 569 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 6 of 62

Figure 6. A possible inspiration for the Stocker House. Illustration from "The Hillside Problem"(House Beautiful, June 1899)

Such published designs could have inspired James Stocker to build his house along Arts & Crafts lines. However, while doing so, he also included a typical Colonial Revival bay window on the ground floor of the front façade, albeit positioned in the center rather than on one side. All the other windows also are more typical of Colonial Revival than of Arts & Crafts. The result is an unusual hybrid that is quite rare in Berkeley.

Massing, Cladding, and Roof

The Stocker-Ding House footprint is rectangular. Sanborn maps from 1903, 1911, 1929, and 1950 (Figs. 8–11) show the evolution of the house from a single- family dwelling to two, then three units. Over the years, the house retained its original footprint, with most of the alterations occurring in the rear. The rear wing was remodeled at various times, an external staircase on the west side came and went, as did a garage in the rear yard.

Figure 7. Side-gable roof & hip-roofed dormer (Google Maps)

Page 14 of 70 ends

Page 570 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 7 of 62

Figure 8. Sanborn, 1903

Figure 9. Sanborn, 1911

Figure 10. Sanborn, 1929

Figure 11. Sanborn, 1950

The main roof is gabled, its ridge running parallel to the street. The roof eaves are closed and trimmed with molding. There are gable-end returns on the east and west façades.

The exterior is clad in unpainted wood shingles. The shingle cladding was replaced in the spring of 2021 as part of a general restoration project that also included rebuilding the exterior staircase along the east façade.

Page 15 of 70 ends

Page 571 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 8 of 62

Figure 12. Closed roof eaves & gable-end return

A central dormer can be found on the north-facing slope. The dormer’s roof is hipped, its ridge level with the main roof’s ridge, and its eaves are closed and trimmed with molding. Two double-hung, wood-framed windows are set in the dormer’s north wall (Figs. 13, 14).

Below the dormer, on either side, are two smaller gable roofs that extend northward, protruding beyond the central roof edge, crowning two boxed windows on the second story.

Figure 13. North-facing dormer

Page 16 of 70 ends

Page 572 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 9 of 62

Front (North) Façade

Figure 14. Front façade closeup view

The front façade is symmetrical. The second story’s wall flares out into a skirt, overhanging the first story and trimmed with elaborate unpainted molding. The soffit under the second story is lined with unpainted beadboard. Scrolled wooden brackets are positioned at either end (Fig. 16).

Figure 15. Boxed window, soffit & corbels

Page 17 of 70 ends

Page 573 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 10 of 62

Two boxed windows surmounted by gable roofs dominate the second-story façade. The gable pediments are clad in shingles, set within deep frames trimmed with wooden molding. The windows are wood-framed, double-hung, with undivided panes. They are considerably wider than the other windows on this house. Beadboard soffits under the windows are trimmed with molding and supported by scrolled wooden corbels (Fig. 15).

Figure 16. Skirt molding, soffit & scrolled bracket

Tucked under the soffit
at the center of the ground
floor façade is a three-
faceted bay with
individually framed,
double-hung windows. The
windows are trimmed with
molded casings and sills
(Fig. 18).

Figure 17. Window bay

Page 18 of 70 ends

Page 574 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 11 of 62

Figure 18. Window sash, trim & sill detail

Figure 19. Front porch

The front porch is recessed and supported by a battered column at the northeast corner. The walls are clad in shingles, the ceiling in beadboard, and the

Page 19 of 70 ends

Page 575 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 12 of 62

floor in floorboards. The porch’s north and east openings are outlined in wooden frames with curved upper corners.

Figure 20. Porch detail

Figure 21. Porch openings, June 2021

Page 20 of 70 ends

Page 576 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 13 of 62

Figure 22. The porch pre-restoration, June 2018 (photo by owners)

The front door, installed in 2017, is a reconstruction of the original entrance.

During one of the early 20th-century remodels, the entrance door was shifted from the porch’s center wall to its west wall. The original doorway was replaced with two windows (see pre-restoration photo, Fig. 22). As part of the recent restoration project, the windows were removed, a new door was installed in the center wall, and the west wall was closed off. Like the previous door, the new one is semi-glazed, featuring wood panels below and a rectangle of beveled glass above.

The ground-floor wall also ends with a flared skirt. The original brick foundation was replaced with concrete in 2005. A relic of the old foundation is a wooden molding strip (possibly a water table) between the wall shingles and the new foundation (Fig. 17).

Page 21 of 70 ends

Page 577 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 14 of 62

East Façade

The flared skirt and heavy molding continue on the east façade, but without a soffit. This façade provides access to the second- and third-floor flats via an external staircase. The house lost its internal staircase sometime in the early 20 th
century (no surviving permit specifies its removal). In June 1933, owner Joseph O. Branstetter, a carpenter, took out a permit to “Construct outside stair on east side. No legal light obstructed.” (The old staircase can be seen in Fig. 22.) The replacement staircase, designed by architect James Novosel and completed in the spring of 2021, conforms to the Arts & Crafts idiom of the house. It is flanked by solid parapet walls, except for the section along the porch opening, where vertical wood rails are used.

Figure 23. East façade & rebuilt staircase

Three wood-framed windows are set in the gable of the east façade. A side- by-side pair of double-hung windows is located under the roof ridge, and a small, square, fixed window, possibly of later vintage, is located under the roof’s north slope. The two entrance doors to the apartments are semi-glazed, featuring wood panels below and a rectangle of plain glass above.

At the second-story level toward the rear is another wood-framed, double- hung window that might have served the internal staircase in earlier times.

Page 22 of 70 ends

Page 578 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 15 of 62

A shed-roofed storage enclosure is built onto the staircase’s eastern wall.

At the rear of the east façade, a pair of kitchen windows have been shortened, their lower portions filled with framed wood panels.

Figure 24. Kitchen windows

Figure 25. East façade, rear

Figure 26. West façade post-restoration
West Façade

The flared skirt and heavy
molding continue on the west façade,
but without a soffit. At the ground-
floor level are four wood-framed
windows, three of which are double
hung and one is shorter and fixed. On
the second-story level, there is a single
double-hung window at the north end
and an attached pair at the south end.

In the center is a long and narrow
fixed window added by Loni Ding. A
single double-hung window is located
under the gable at the attic level.

Page 23 of 70 ends

Page 579 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 16 of 62

Rear (South) Façade

The rear façade has been altered multiple times and therefore will not be described here. As part of the recent renovation work, back stairs that led to the upper floors have been removed, all wiring and plumbing were brought indoors, and the one-story extension in the rear was entirely rebuilt.

Figure 27. West & rear façades post-renovation, June 2021

Figure 28. Rear façade post-renovation, June 2021

Page 24 of 70 ends

Page 580 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 17 of 62

Figure 29. Rear façade in November 2017 (photo by owners)

Exterior Restoration

Figure 30. Window restoration work (photo by owners)

Page 25 of 70 ends

Page 581 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 18 of 62

All historic exterior features were restored on the premises. Window restoration work involved removing ancient, flaking lead paint from the sashes; “caulking” the panes with wooden shims salvaged from the house; resurfacing weather-beaten sash parts with salvaged wood trim from the house, priming and painting or sealing.

Soffits, molding trim, scrolled brackets, and corbels were stripped, sanded, and refinished by hand.

Figure 31. Exterior detail restoration work (photo by owners)

Figure 32. Restored window detail

Page 26 of 70 ends

Page 582 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 19 of 62

Features to Be Preserved

The distinguishing features of the Stocker-Ding House include the following:

• Rectangular footprint
• Two stories + attic
• Side-gabled roof with gable-end returns and closed eaves • Hip-roofed north-facing dormer with twin double-hung windows • Wood-shingled exterior walls
• Symmetrical north façade
• Two gabled north-facing rooflets with deep-framed, shingled pediments
• Two second-story boxed windows under the gabled rooflets • Flaring second- and first-story walls on north, east, and west façades • Second-story overhang on north façade
• Beadboard soffits under boxed windows and second-story overhang • Heavy wooden molding trim edging the skirt and soffits • Elaborate scrolled wooden brackets under second-story overhang at either end of the north façade
• Scrolled wooden corbels at either end of soffits under boxed windows • Recessed entrance porch supported by a battered column at the northeast corner
• Centrally located entrance door within the porch
• Shingled porch walls, beadboard ceiling, and floor clad in floorboards • North- and east-facing porch openings outlined in frames with turned upper corners
• Three-faceted window bay on north façade, with a double-hung, wood-framed window set in each facet
• Double-hung, wood-framed windows on north, east, and west façades • Molded wood window casings and sill trims
• Two semi-glazed, exterior wooden doors on upper levels of east façade • Wooden exterior staircase on east façade
• Wooden molding strip (water table?) under the wall skirt and above the foundation

Page 27 of 70 ends

Page 583 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 20 of 62

15. History

Early Days of the Tract

The Sea View Park tract, in which the Stocker-Ding House is located, was part of Rancho San Antonio, a 44,800-acre Spanish land grant given to Sergeant Luís María Peralta (1759–1851) in 1820 by the last Spanish governor, Don Pablo Vicente de Sol, in recognition of Peralta’s forty years of military service to the Spanish king. The rancho included lands that form Oakland, Alameda, Piedmont, Emeryville, Berkeley, and parts of San Leandro and Albany.

In 1842, Luís Peralta divided the rancho among his four sons. Domingo and José Vicente were given the land that now comprises Oakland and Berkeley.

Within less than a decade, squatters overran the Peraltas’ properties, stole their cattle, and sold it in San Francisco. Worse, parcels of rancho land were sold without legal title. Domingo and Vicente Peralta fought the appropriations in the courts. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed their title, but by then the brothers had been forced to sell most of their lands to cover legal costs and taxes.

The various buyers engaged cartographer Julius Kellersberger 4 to map the
Peralta Ranchos for subdivision purposes.

Figure 33. Plot 79 (shaded) in Kellersberger’s Map

4 Map of the Ranchos of Vicente & Domingo Peralta. Containing 16970.68 Acres. Surveyed by Julius Kellersberger. Surveyed 1853. Partitioned 1854. Filed Jan. 21st 1857. Courtesy of Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps, Inc. http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/enlarge/39956

Page 28 of 70 ends

Page 584 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 21 of 62

Plot 79, which contained the future
Sea View Park tract, was a 160-acre
parcel located just north of Francis K.

Shattuck’s land. Its boundaries were
today’s M.L. King, Jr. Way to the
west, Cedar Street to the north, Arch
Street to the east, and Addison Street
to the south. Like so much of the
Peraltas’ lands, Plot 79 was acquired
by the French-born, San Francisco–
based financier François Louis Alfred
Pioche (1818–1872).
5 Pioche
apparently sold it to Joshua
Hathaway, who died without paying,
as one surmises from Pioche’s 1857
lawsuit to recover the 160 acres from
the Hathaway estate.
6 Figure 34. F.L.A. Pioche by Adrien
Tournachon (Nadar jeune)

Joseph Clapp & the Clapp Tract

Joseph Lewis Clapp (c. 1828–1886) was born in Norfolk County, Massachusetts. Drawn to California during the Gold Rush, he spent his early years in the state as a miner in Mariposa County.
7 In the gold fields he met and
befriended the Maine-born William Twichell, M.D. (1825–1886). Dr. Twichell [aka Twitchell] moved to New York in 1853 but returned to California in 1860, settling in San Francisco and later in Alameda. Meanwhile, Clapp had moved to Grass Valley, Nevada County, where he owned and operated the Golden Eagle Hotel
8 with his young wife, Mary Jane.

In the mid-1870s, both Clapp and Twichell, likely anticipating the introduction of the Berkeley Branch train service by the Central Pacific Railroad, acquired adjoining tracts of land near Shattuck Avenue. Clapp’s 1875 voter registration listed him as a farmer residing in Oakland Township. One would assume that he farmed the 15 acres he had acquired in North-Central Berkeley.

The land extended from Louisa Street (now Bonita Avenue) to Shattuck Avenue, and from Delaware Street to Berkeley Way.

In August 1876, the Central Pacific Railroad’s Berkeley Branch opened, running 3.84 miles from Shellmound via Adeline Street to downtown Berkeley.

This was the opportunity many a Berkeley landowner had been waiting for. In the fall of that year, Joseph Clapp subdivided the southern half of his land into three blocks whose northern boundary was College Way (now Hearst Avenue).

5 “Forgotten Financier: François L.A. Pioche.” California Historical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, Spring 1974, pp. 17–24.
6 Pioche v. Hathaway. Private Common Law Case Files, 1855–1863. Box 10, Docket Book 1, Case #146. Filed 21 May 1857. Judgment for Pioche, 2 November 1857. 7 Clapp was listed as a miner in Mariposa County in the 1850 U.S. Census, enumerated on 23 October 1850, and in the California State Census of 1852. 8 Current location of the Nevada County Bank Building, 131 Mill Street.

Page 29 of 70 ends

Page 585 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 22 of 62

Figure 35. The first subdivision map of the Clapp Tract, 1876

Joseph Clapp’s residence, the first one built on the tract, stood—and still stands, now greatly altered—on Lot 1 in Block 3, on the southwest corner of Hearst Avenue and Milvia Street, next door to the Stocker-Ding House.

Figure 36. Joseph Clapp House, 1942 Hearst Ave./1904 Milvia St.

Page 30 of 70 ends

Page 586 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 23 of 62

Figure 37. Clapp’s 15 acres in Map No. 16 of Thompson & West’s Atlas of Alameda County, 1878 (David Rumsey Historical Map Collection)

In 1878, Joseph Clapp still owned all but one lot in Block 1, including the only building on the block, assessed at $2,400. That building was Clapp’s Hall, which stood on the northwest corner of Shattuck Avenue and Berkeley Way and served as a meeting place for the Town Trustees, various social clubs and fraternal lodges, church services, and even school classes.

Figure 38. The subject property was part of the Clapp home parcel (Sanborn map, 1890)

Beginning in 1880, Clapp began listing himself in the city directory as a real estate dealer. About the same time, carpenter Ira A. Boynton built himself a new house on a parcel acquired from Clapp. Located on the southeast corner of

Page 31 of 70 ends

Page 587 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 24 of 62

Henry Street and College Way, it was the second building erected on Block 1 of the Clapp Tract.

The map of Berkeley published by realtors Carnall & Eyre in 1880 showed all 15 acres owned by Joseph and Mary Jane Clapp as a subdivided tract, although comprising six blocks rather than five.

Figure 39. Clapp Tract in the Carnall & Eyre Map of Berkeley, 1880 (David Rumsey Historical Map Collection)

On 7 June 1886, Mary Jane Clapp was committed to the Napa Insane Asylum.
9 She died there two weeks later, leaving a will, dated 8 May 1886, in which she bequeathed most of her estate to Dr. Twichell, with the income going to her husband.
10 Joseph Clapp contested the will but did not appear in court on the appointed day, 27 August 1886. He had been staying with the Twichells in Alameda and was found dead in their stable, having slashed his throat with a razor. In his will, Clapp left his entire property to Dr. Twichell and appointed him executor of his estate. Twichell himself died only four months after Clapp’s suicide, leaving a will bequeathing his entire estate—including his interests in the estates of Mary Jane and Joseph Clapp—to his wife, Lydia Twichell. Soon, various East Coast relatives of Joseph Clapp’s emerged to contest his will.

Representing several of them was Thomas Frederick Graber, Berkeley’s City Attorney at the time. After lengthy litigation, the parties settled in May 1888, the Clapp relatives receiving a cash payment and Mrs. Twichell keeping all the former Clapp land holdings.

9 Local Briefs from Tuesday’s Daily. The Napa Register (weekly), 11 June 1886, page 3. 10 “Death of Successful Owners of Real Estate.” Oakland Tribune, 30 May 1888, page 1.

Page 32 of 70 ends

Page 588 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 25 of 62

Figure 40. Clapp Tract in the Woodward & Gamble Map of Oakland & Surrounding, 1888 (Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps, Inc.)

The Sea View Park Tract

Figure 41. Sea View Park tract map, filed on 1 July 1890

Page 33 of 70 ends

Page 589 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 26 of 62

On 17 June 1890, the Daily Alta California announced, “The Clapp tract, consisting of eighty lots, bounded by Shattuck avenue, Berkeley way, Louisa and Delaware streets, will soon be placed on the market.” By the end of the month, the tract had been sold, and a tract map was filed on July 1. The San Francisco Call reported on the 4
th of that month that “[t]he owners of the original Clapp tract decided at the last moment before the maps of the tract were to be printed to change the name to Sea View Park tract instead of to Antonio tract.” The Sea View Park tract map listed the proprietors as M. Erkenbrecher, A.A.

Fink, and T.F. Graber. This unlikely trio had two things in common: all three were either of German extraction or married into a German American family, and they were active investors.

Thomas Frederick Graber (1848–1914), born in Lockport, upstate New York, graduated from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor before arriving in Berkeley. He was the lawyer who had served as Berkeley’s City Attorney from 1883 to 1890 and who represented some of Joseph Clapp’s relatives in the probate litigation. He lived at 2037 Durant Avenue.

Anton Alexander Fink (1831–1919), a Texas-born street contractor and realtor, came to Berkeley from Oregon. He was the only one of the three who built a home on the tract, although he remained in it only a couple of years.

The third partner never lived in Berkeley. She was Matilda Erkenbrecher, née Cunningham (1838–1911). Born in Ohio, she was the second wife of Andrew Erkenbrecher, a wealthy German-born Cincinnati starch manufacturer and eventual founder of the Cincinnati Zoo. Andrew’s death in 1885 left Matilda rich and independent. When she moved to California in 1895, it was to Los Angeles, where her son attended business school, and where they both lived for the rest of their lives.

Figure 42. The future Lot 2 (shaded) on the former Clapp home parcel (Sanborn map, 1894)

Page 34 of 70 ends

Page 590 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 27 of 62

Beginning in 1890, Lot 2 in Block 3, still part of Joseph Clapp’s home parcel (Lot 1), was owned jointly by Fink, Graber, and Erkenbrecher. It first appeared in print as an independent parcel in November 1894, when Thomas and Ada Graber deeded their undivided quarter interest in it to Anton Fink. 11 Two years
later, Matilda Erkenbrecher deeded her undivided quarter interest in the lot to Fink.
12 When the Commercial Bank of Berkeley sold Lot 1 to James R. Little in late August 1898, that lot had already been reduced to its current dimensions of 45 x 100 feet, indicating that Lots 2 and 13 had been split off from it. 13 No record has been found for the deed transfer of Lot 2 to James T. Stocker.

The earliest notice of his ownership of this lot came in the form of a brief announcement in the Berkeley Daily Gazette on 11 April 1901 (Fig. 43).

Figure 43. Item in Berkeley Daily Gazette, 11 April 1901

James T. Stocker & Belle A. Ellis

James Thomas Stocker, Jr. (1851–1921) was born in Northern California, the son of pioneers. His parents, James Thomas, Sr. and Josephine Elizabeth, were natives of Baltimore, Maryland. The father had sailed to California on one of the American warships that mistakenly captured Monterey in 1842. In 1874, he married in Baltimore, returning to California as a forty-niner and settling in Marin County c. 1851–52. James Sr. soon established himself as a prominent citizen, serving as Marin County Sheriff in 1853–55 and as a State Assembly member in 1857–58.
14 The Stockers operated a dairy ranch in Point Reyes.15 James Jr. was one of nine siblings. On 20 March 1876, he married 16-year-old Henrietta “Ettie” M. Franklin in Alameda County. It’s possible that the couple eloped, since neither appears to have been an Alameda County resident. A daughter, Maude, was born to them in 1879. The 1880 U.S. Census enumerated them on June 8 in San Rafael. James’s occupation was noted as house carpenter, but he had spent six months unemployed during the Census year. In December of that year, a son was born to them, named James Thurman Stocker.

In June 1898, James T. Stocker was declared an insolvent debtor, and the Sheriff of Marin was directed to take possession of all his belongings. The

11 Real Estate Transactions. San Francisco Call, 23 November 1894, page 7. 12 Real Estate Transactions. San Francisco Call, 5 September 1896, page 12. 13 Real Estate Transactions. San Francisco Call, 2 September 1898, page 8. 14 Death notice in the Marin Journal, 26 September 1889. 15 David V. Mitchell. “The Origins of Point Reyes Station.” https://www.sparselysageandtimely.com/blog/?p=13519

Page 35 of 70 ends

Page 591 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 28 of 62

following year, Stocker’s mother died in Los Gatos (his father had died of drowning in Tillamook Bay, Oregon, in 1889).

In his 1900 U.S. Census record, James Stocker was enumerated as single and living at San Quentin State Prison, where he worked as a guard. The clerk and secretary of the prison was Joseph Valentine Ellis (1839–1900), whose recently divorced daughter, Belle (1866–1912), was residing with her parents and sister in San Quentin. The Ellis household also included Belle’s daughter, Margery McGuire, aged 5.

James Stocker and Belle Ellis married on 14 July 1901 at St. Mary’s Cathedral in San Francisco. One would assume that the house Stocker was building in Berkeley had been completed by then. The first property assessment on the house was made to Belle A. Ellis in 1902. During the first two years of their residence in Berkeley, James Stocker was listed in the directory as a furniture manufacturer. This was a passing phase, however; beginning in the 1904 directory, he was consistently listed as a carpenter.

While living on Hearst Avenue, the Stockers brought two children into the world: Woodburn (born 1903) and Isabel Adele (born 1905).

The Stockers lived here until 1908, when they either sold the house to Charles F. Townsend or exchanged it for Townsend’s farm in Rincon Valley, near Santa Rosa. The Stockers went to live on the farm, where Belle died in a November 1912 fire that destroyed the house. James Stocker continued to live there until his death in 1921.

A Decade of Ownership by Real Estate Investors

In 1909 and 1910, the former Stocker parcel was assessed to Charles Francis Townsend (c. 1853–1913). He was the son of a well-known Berkeley character, Mary Ann Townsend, an Irish-born Civil War widow who, in 1876, famously refused to allow the Central Pacific Railroad Company to build its Berkeley Branch track in front of her Shattuck Avenue property. Twenty years later, she moved her house to the middle of Shattuck Avenue in a dispute with the City of Berkeley over a 50-foot-wide strip of land claimed by both. 16 Charles Townsend, who never married, lived with his mother, changing his occupation practically every year. Mrs. Townsend was apparently well- acquainted with many prominent Berkeley families, since she worked for them as a house cleaner and laundress.
17 In 1901, Mrs. Townsend reached a settlement with the City of Berkeley, selling the disputed strip of land for $475.18 Shortly thereafter, mother and son moved to a farm in Rincon Valley, four miles outside Santa Rosa. Mary Ann Townsend died there in 1908, and Charles returned to Berkeley. He went to work as a salesman for the Mills Company, a real estate and insurance firm owned by Philo Mills (1836–1918), with offices on Shattuck Avenue. It’s possible that Mills was one of Mary Ann Townsend’s former employers, for in 1908, Charles Townsend made out a will, bequeathing the lion’s share of his property to Philo

16 “Berkeley Trustees and a Citadel.” San Francisco Call, 9 November, 1896. 17 Richard Schwartz. Eccentrics, Heroes, and Cutthroats of Old Berkeley, Chapter 6. Berkeley: RSB Books, 2007.
18 “Townsend Litigation Amicably Settled.” San Francisco Call, 26 July 1901.

Page 36 of 70 ends

Page 592 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 29 of 62

Mills, if living, or to Philo’s son, Charles B. Mills. In the will, Townsend stated that he was leaving his estate to Philo Mills “in consideration of kindness shown to my mother and me.”
No record of a deed transfer from Stocker to Townsend has been found, but the circumstances strongly suggest that the Stockers exchanged their Hearst Avenue house for the Townsend farm in Rincon Valley.

Townsend never lived at 1940 Hearst Avenue. He found lodging at 2041 Haste Street, next door to Philo Mills’s home at 2035 Haste, and the Stocker House was turned into a rental property.

Sometime in late 1910 or early 1911, Townsend transferred the title to Charles Ballantine Mills, Philo’s son and secretary of the Mills Company. Mills was assessed on the property in 1911. On 25 May 1911, Mills entered into a contract to sell 1940 Hearst Avenue to Dr. Lyman Allen (1837–1919), a real-estate broker who lived around the corner, at 1920 Milvia Street. Allen co-owned the Clapp House and had turned it into a rental property. He was paying for 1940 Hearst Avenue in installments, as stipulated in the contract. Eventually, title was transferred back from Mills to Townsend, who was assessed on the property in 1913, the year of his death. On 16 May 1914, a judge of the Alameda County Superior Court issued an order to convey the deed to Lyman Allen. 19 With Lyman Allen in possession, a separate apartment was built in the attic of 1940 Hearst Avenue. On 6 August 1911, the following classified ad was published on page 71 of the San Francisco Call:

Figure 44. Ad, San Francisco Call, 6 August, 1911

A week later, a follow-up ad, this time over Lyman Allen’s name, offered not only the top-floor apartment but (to be rented separately) the lower floors of the house, as well as a 3-room apartment in the adjacent Clapp House. Keys to all three rentals were available at 1920 Milvia Street, where Lyman Allen was residing at the time.

19 Order for conveyance of real estate. Probate court documents pertaining to Charles F.

Townsend’s estate. 16 March 1914.

Page 37 of 70 ends

Page 593 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 30 of 62

Figure 45. Lyman Allen ad, San Francisco Call, 13 August, 1911

No additional ownership records during the 1910s have emerged. Lyman Allen died in Napa on 26 April 1919, and it is not known whether he held on to the property until his death.

Throughout the 1910s, the Stocker House was occupied by tenants. By 1920, the house comprised three flats, each with a separate household, as enumerated in the U.S. Census taken on 2 January 1920.

The top-floor flat, 1940A, was occupied by Frances A. Cole, a 60-year-old widow, and her 50-year-old widowed sister, Rowena Smith. Both were teachers, Mrs. Smith’s specialty being music.

On the second floor, flat #1940B was home to a Canadian family of three:

Allan Betzner, 48, his wife Lillian, 50, and their daughter Ruth, 17. None of the Betzners listed an occupation, although Allan Betzner soon found work as a railroad motorman. (The Betzners eventually acquired their own home across the street, at 1939 Hearst Avenue.)
The ground-floor flat, 1940C, housed the Warfield family, headed by Bertha, a 52-year-old widow, and including daughter Mabel, 22, son Walter, 27, and Walter’s wife, also Mabel, 28. Walter Warfield worked as a steamfitter in the Navy Yard, and his sister was a stenographer for an insurance company.

The Blakeslee-Branstetter Family

The Blakeslee family’s ownership of and residence at 1940 Hearst Avenue appears to have begun in 1920. In June of that year, an alteration permit showing Mrs. Blakeslee as owner and resident was applied for, seeking to enlarge the back porch on the ground floor, enclosing it with sash and shingle while leaving the east side open.

Page 38 of 70 ends

Page 594 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 31 of 62

Born in Battle Creek, Michigan, Mark L. Blakeslee (1855–1932), a traveling salesman, and his wife, Idella “Birdie” Snow (1860–1938), arrived in Berkeley with their three grown daughters and two granddaughters toward the end of the 1910s. The 1920 U.S. Census enumerated them as tenants at 2240 Dwight Way. In 1922, they were listed at 1940 Hearst Avenue in both the Berkeley city directory and Birdie Blakeslee’s voter registration record. Also living in the house in 1922 was a carpenter by the name of Joseph O. Branstetter.

Joseph Oscar Branstetter (1874–1939) was born in Ferndale, Humboldt County, to a stock raiser from Missouri and his Swiss-born wife. The father was murdered in 1875 during a card game dispute. In 1900, when Joseph was 26, his mother gave him 30 acres of land.
20 At the time, he was living in Rohnerville, and
in 1904 he married his first wife, Olive Elizabeth Williams. The 1910 U.S. Census enumerated them on a farm in Van Duzen Township, Humboldt County, along with daughter Maxine, 4, and son Clifton, 2.

By 1912, Joseph Branstetter was listing his occupation as carpenter. The employer he indicated in his 1918 World War I draft registration card was the Libby, McNeil & Libby creamery in Loleta, where he was still working when enumerated in the 1920 U.S. Census. In September 1919, Elizabeth Branstetter had sued for divorce, which was granted in November 1920.

On 4 March 1922, Joseph Branstetter remarried. His new wife was Shirley Blakeslee Pfander (1884–1975), eldest daughter of Mark and Birdie Blakeslee.

Shirley had married a Battle Creek wholesale news dealer in 1906 and divorced him in 1916. After the separation, Shirley returned to her parents’ house with her daughter, Margaret Pfander. It’s not clear whether Branstetter came to live with the Blakeslees after his marriage to Shirley, or whether he met Shirley as a result of living in the house as a tenant.

For a few years, the Blakeslees and the Branstetters lived under the same roof, but in 1925, the Blakeslees moved to San Diego, where they lived out their lives.

Mark L. Blakeslee was still listed as the owner of 1940 Hearst Avenue in a 1927 alteration permit, to shingle one side of the house, and in a 1929 permit to build a garage. Joseph Branstetter was the builder in both cases.

The 1930 U.S Census enumerated two households residing at 1940 Hearst Avenue. In addition to Joseph and Shirley Branstetter, there was a family of five, consisting of Kenneth E. Dunn, a public-school custodian, his wife, Florence, their two young daughters, and Florence’s father, also a school custodian.

Branstetter was first listed as owner of the house in a 1933 alteration permit for constructing an exterior staircase. One would assume that Shirley’s father, who died in 1932, left the house to her and to Joseph.

The 1933 permit says nothing about interior alterations, but it’s likely that the interior staircase was removed about the same time. Branstetter also relocated the front door to the west side of the porch and built an angled wall between the living room and the original foyer to create a bedroom in the latter space (Fig. 46).

20 Deeds. Humboldt Times, 4 January 1900.

Page 39 of 70 ends

Page 595 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 32 of 62

Figure 46. First-floor plan in 2017, before the restoration project

In September 1939, Branstetter took out a permit to replace the back staircase.

Joseph Branstetter died on 18 November 1939. The 1940 U.S. Census enumerated three households in residence at 1940 Hearst Avenue. The building’s owners were Shirley’s daughter, Margaret, and her second husband, Russell Earle Harris (1899–1963), a salesman. Shirley Branstetter was enumerated as a renter in a separate unit, while the Alton family, consisting of Willard Alton (also a salesman), his wife, Meredith, and their daughter, Ruth, occupied a third unit.

On 10 September 1941, Shirley Branstetter married William B. Quigley, a stationary engineer, in Carson City, Nevada. As recorded in the 1942 voter registrations, the Quigleys made their residence in 1940B, the Harrises lived in 1940A, and the Altons at plain 1940.

Will Quigley died in September 1948. Shirley and Margaret continued to own the house until 29 July 1965, when they sold it to Isadora Q. Ding, better known as the filmmaker and social documentarian Loni Ding.

Page 40 of 70 ends

Page 596 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 33 of 62

Figure 47. 1940 Hearst Avenue in 1964 (Donogh files, BAHA)

Loni Ding (Isadora Quanehia Ding)

When she acquired the Stocker House from
the Branstetter family in 1965, Loni Ding (1931–
2010) was a U.C. Berkeley Ph.D. candidate and
lecturer in Sociology.

She was born Isadora Quanehia Ding, aka
Bik Lon Ding, in San Francisco, the seventh and
last child of Chuck Sing Ding (1874–1943) and
May Ying Kwan (1893–1963), both born in
Guangdong Province, China.

Chuck Sing Ding came to the United States in 1907 as Din Lung Ding (later Den Leung Ding). A young married teacher, he left his wife and three-year-old son in China.
21 According to the Ding family’s oral history, he was sent to the United States by the Chinese Imperial government to establish Chinese language schools in California. Ding’s listing in the S.S. Mongolia’s passenger manifest showed his status as Exempt, yet it was noted that his passage had been paid by a friend in Stockton (where a Chinese community had existed since the Gold Rush).
22 21 S.S. Mongolia ship manifests, 23 July & 30 July 1907. 22 Chinese Heritage in Stockton. http://www.stocktongov.com/discover/history/siteMiner.html Figure 48. Loni Ding, then a
lecturer at Mills College, 1963

Page 41 of 70 ends

Page 597 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 34 of 62

Although no records have been found of his early years in California, it is known that Ding eventually settled in Sacramento, where he appears to have taught at and possibly even established the Chung Wah Chinese School.23 The book Sacramento’s Chinatown, published by the Chinese American Museum of Northern California, informs, “As the population of young Chinese Americans increased, new organizations formed to meet their needs. First among them were Chinese schools teaching language and history from the homeland. Chung Wah Chinese School was founded in 1908.”
24 In 1916, Chuck Sing returned to China, but not to his wife. In 1918,25 he married May Ying Kwan (1893–1963), a Christian minister’s daughter who trained in medicine under a German physician.
26 The couple sailed to San
Francisco on board the S.S. China, arriving on 27 July 1919. The ship’s manifest noted their destination as Chung Wah College, Third Street, Sacramento.

By the early 1920s, the Dings had established the Kin Quon Herb Co. at 1049 Stockton Street, in San Francisco’s Chinatown, selling medicinal herbs. 27 In the mid-1930s, the Dings opened a second herbal remedies store in a run- down Victorian building at 3307 Mission Street. Located in the Bernal Heights neighborhood, the area was populated with “working-class Catholics, Portuguese, Greeks, Italians, and Irish.”
28 The Dings called their new store
Shanghai Herb Co., a name not quite as foreign as Kin Quon.

About 1941, the top-floor flat in the same building became available, and the Dings moved in. This wasn’t the ideal neighborhood in which to raise children, since “there were broken families and a lot of drunkenness,” as Loni Ding would tell interviewer Barbara Abrash of New York University in 1991. 29 In a videotaped interview at Stony Brook University, Loni Ding said that the move out of Chinatown stemmed from her parents’ desire that their children speak English without a Chinese accent. With restrictive covenants barring non- Whites from most residential neighborhoods, the Dings had searched for five years before managing to obtain a month-to-month lease in the Victorian on Mission Street.

The Shanghai Herb Co. was located on the second floor, above Cavanaugh’s Irish tavern. Decades later, Loni remembered carrying buckets of water downstairs every morning to wash vomit off the doorstep and sidewalk. In order to remain in the landlord’s good graces, Loni regularly brought him homemade cakes.
30 23 S.S. China ship’s manifest, 27 July 1919.
24 Lawrence & Brian Tom. Sacramento’s Chinatown. Chinese American Museum of Northern California, 2010.
25 May Ying Ding’s petition for naturalization, 11 November 1954. 26 Information provided by the Ding family.
27 Kin Quon Herb Co., 1049 Stockton St., San Francisco. Drug store listing in Julius Su Tow, The Real Chinese in America. New York: The Academy Press, 1923. 28 Interview with Loni Ding at Stony Brook University, 2000. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtOqyTHEmZ0
29 Interview with Loni Ding by Barbara Abrash, 28 April 1991. http://documentaryisneverneutral.com/words/intloniding.html 30 Information from Loni Ding’s daughter, May Ying Welsh.

Page 42 of 70 ends

Page 598 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 35 of 62

Figure 49. 3307 Mission Street, SF, 1944
(Ding-Welsh family collection)

In her interview with Barbara Abrash, Loni Ding recalled what she and her family went through in those days:

We grew up in Chinatown for the first three years of my life and then we moved into a part of San Francisco which was, at that time, a place where “Orientals” did not live. There was something called “restrictive covenant,” so you could not just live anywhere in the city.

All through my school years, right up until the time I went to college at U.C. Berkeley, I attended schools in which my sisters and brothers were the only Asians, so I had the experience of growing up very aware that I was different from everyone else. It was also really clear to me that we, as a family, were embattled, and every one of us had a job to do: to represent ourselves as a Chinese family.

We were only six [Note: actually, 3.6] miles from Chinatown, but it might as well have been on another planet, because life was still that segregated.

Very early, I had to make up my mind what I felt about being Chinese.

Was that an inferior thing or not? Luckily, because of the kind of family I grew up in, I knew absolutely that the problem was not mine.31

31 Abrash, 28 April 1991.

Page 43 of 70 ends

Page 599 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 36 of 62

Despite language barriers and prejudice, the Dings’ herb store was successful, as Chinese remedies for hangovers, asthma, arthritis, skin conditions, “female troubles,” colds, and constipation—as well as Mrs. Ding’s unique blend of Western and Chinese therapeutic approaches to cancer and other serious illnesses—proved popular with non-Asian San Franciscans. Mrs. Ding prepared custom remedies, made house calls, and eventually had patients flying in for consultation from as far away as Europe.

The Ding children commuted daily by bus and cable car between home in the Mission—where they attended all-White schools—and Chinatown, where they took Chinese language classes. The movement back and forth between White and Chinese worlds was a formative experience in Loni’s life, creating a desire to bridge the two through understanding.

As a student at U.C. Berkeley, Loni earned her B.A. in Communications and Public Policy in 1954, followed by an M.A. in Sociology and Social Institutions in 1957. She was a lecturer in the Sociology Department from 1958 to 1967, also lecturing as a faculty member at Mills College.

In 1958, Loni Ding married Professor Herbert Franz Schurmann (1926–2010), a sociologist and historian who taught at U.C. Berkeley for 38 years. Schurmann was an expert on China during the Cold War,
32 and Loni was his teaching
assistant. They remained married until 1968.

In 1965, Loni purchased the house at 1940 Hearst Avenue. The location was ideal, just a few minutes’ walk away from the U.C. campus.

When the Vietnam War came along, Loni was writing her Ph.D. dissertation.

I had teaching positions, and everything was going well for me except that the war was truly overwhelming. Being at Berkeley at the time, we were among the leaders of the Anti-War movement. I ended up finally leaving the university for full-time organizing against the war. That put me out into the Bay Area communities, and I found that I was truly happy doing that instead of being in the stacks with my books and writing and re-writing very turgid stuff.33

In 1968, Loni Ding married David Welsh, a journalist, civil rights and labor activist, and musician who became “my life partner, a key person in my development and my work.”
34 She eventually got involved in grass-roots organizing for the arts and media advocacy for communities of color.

The Chinese community wanted a TV series for teaching basic English to Chinese immigrants. I ended up being the project director and line producer for this TV series of English lessons done in sixty-five half-hour programs. It gave me my first experience in what television could do, and I loved it.35

32 Franz Schurmann obituary. New York Times, 26 August 2010. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27schurmann.html
33 Abrash, 28 April 1991.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.

Page 44 of 70 ends

Page 600 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 37 of 62

In 1971, Ding and nine others were selected out of hundreds of applicants to participate in the groundbreaking TEACH (Television Experiments in Alternatives in Cultural Harmony) program for people of color at KQED TV. The year-long program provided training in television production, engineering, and station operations. Following training, Ding spent seven years as a staff producer at KQED before becoming an independent producer-director, a multiple award– winning filmmaker, and a teacher of filmmaking for nearly 30 years in the Department of Ethnic Studies at U.C. Berkeley.

Figure 50. Loni Ding’s KQED TV employment ID card, 1972

Figure 51. Loni Ding directing, 1975 (Ding-Welsh family collection)

Career Accomplishments

Loni Ding produced more than 250 broadcast programs, including five series for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and international broadcasts. She also

Page 45 of 70 ends

Page 601 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 38 of 62

produced documentary films collaboratively with the California Historical Society, California State Department of Education, Chinese for Affirmative Action, San Francisco Opera Center, and KQED TV.

Ding’s films helped rewrite U.S. history and turn the lens on previously invisible American heroes. Her documentaries Nisei Soldier and The Color of Honor: The Japanese-American Soldier During World War II were screened to both houses of Congress, as well as to then-President Ronald Reagan, and were instrumental in helping pass the 1988 Civil Liberties Act, which granted formal U.S. reparations to American citizens of Japanese descent interned during World War II.

Figure 52. Advocating for Independent Television funding at the U.S. Senate, 1987

Her landmark PBS series, Ancestors in the Americas,
36 is taught in classrooms
across the country and serves as a main reference on Asian American history, offering an epic scope of Asian migrations to North America, South America, and the Caribbean from the 1700s to the early 1900s and uncovering the role of Asians in building the United States.

Loni Ding’s productions have been honored with multiple Emmy awards and have been broadcast internationally on four continents, including Japan (NHK) and the United Kingdom (BBC), and screened at international film festivals around the world. Her achievements in media have been recognized by more than 15 career awards and fellowships, including the Rockefeller Foundation Film/Video Fellowship (1994); a Guggenheim Fellowship (1982); the American Film Institute Director’s Fellowship (1983); and the Asian CineVision Annual Filmmaker’s Award (1988).

The San Francisco Examiner called her “a master of her craft.” In the program notes for a retrospective of her work at the Pacific Film Archive, Loni Ding was described as “that rare artist who entwines twin passions for social justice and the ‘true facts’ of history in films that are works of hard-hitting revelation and lyrical beauty.”
37 36 “Emmy Award-winning filmmaker Loni Ding dies.” San Francisco Chronicle, 12 March 2010. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Emmy-Award-winning-filmmaker-Loni-Ding-dies- 3196841.php
37 Spotlight on Loni Ding. https://bampfa.org/event/spotlight-loni-ding

Page 46 of 70 ends

Page 602 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 39 of 62

Figure 53. Loni Ding at the Northern California Emmy Awards, 1981 (Ding-Welsh family collection)

For almost 30 years, Loni Ding taught media analysis and hands-on film production in the Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. She has also been a visiting faculty member at Cornell University, New School for Social Research (NY), and Mills College, as well as a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Loni Ding was a prime mover and co-founder of several local and national media and arts organizations, and a policy advocate for more democratic public- interest art and media resources.

Her pioneering efforts helped establish the Center for Asian American Media (CAAM),
38 the largest organization dedicated to the advancement of Asian Americans in television and filmmaking; the Independent Television Service (ITVS), “public media’s leading incubator and presenter of independent film” 39;
the Neighborhood Arts Program of the San Francisco Art Commission; and San Francisco PBS station KQED’s Open Studio. She also served as Co-President of the national board of the New York-based Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers (AIVF), to which she was elected eight times by her peers.

Loni Ding is survived by her husband, David Welsh, her daughter, May Ying, and her son, Elias. The three continue to live at 1940 Hearst Avenue. Their family holds the record for longest tenure at this address, marking 56 years of ownership and residence in 2021.

38 https://caamedia.org/about-caam/
39 https://itvs.org/about/mission

Page 47 of 70 ends

Page 603 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 40 of 62

Figure 54. Loni Ding & David Welsh in France, 1988

Ownership Timeline

1901–1908 James T. & Belle A. Stocker
1908–1911 Charles F. Townsend
1911–1919? Lyman Allen
1920–1965 Blakeslee-Branstetter family
1965–Present Loni Ding & Welsh family

16. Context

The neighborhood north of University Avenue, between Shattuck Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way (formerly Grove Street), was mostly farmland during the second half of the 19
th century. Subdivision into building lots began in
a piecemeal fashion after train service from Oakland to downtown Berkeley was inaugurated in 1876.

The earliest of the four tracts in the area between University Avenue and Delaware Street were the Clapp Tract (1876) and the College Tract (subdivided in 1876, map filed in 1877). Block A of the Twichell Tract was subdivided in 1877, the rest of the tract in 1889. Sea View Park was subdivided in 1890.

The 1890 Sanborn map (Fig. 55) shows five dwellings on Block 3 in Sea View Park. Only the oldest among them—the Clapp House at 1942 Hearst Avenue/1904 Milvia Street—still stands, albeit severely altered.

Page 48 of 70 ends

Page 604 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 41 of 62

Figure 55. SVP Block 3 in the 1890 Sanborn map

Figure 56. George A. Embury House, 1941 Berkeley Way, in 1960 (Donogh, BAHA)

Three Victorian houses stood on the corner of Milvia Street and Berkeley Way in 1890. The only photograph showing any of them is of the 1870s Stick-Eastlake residence of carpenter George A. Embury at 1941 Berkeley Way. This house was one of “eight slum structures”
40 that were removed in 1968 to make room for a

40 “Up From the Ashes.” Oakland Tribune, 28 September 1969.

Page 49 of 70 ends

Page 605 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 42 of 62

93-unit apartment building erected by Smith & Haley Construction Co. at 1945 Berkeley Way.

At the block’s southwestern corner, the former site of George Pape’s East Berkeley Planing Mill was vacant in 1890, the mill having moved to Addison Street two years earlier. The Sanborn map indicated that the mill buildings were to be removed. A Chinese laundry operated next to the former mill. Ironically, only four years earlier, this laundry was advertised as employing “White Labor.”

Figure 57. Ad in The Occident, March & April 1886

Figure 58. SVP Block 3 in the 1894 Sanborn map

Page 50 of 70 ends

Page 606 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 43 of 62

The arrival of electric streetcars in 1891 gave building activities in North- Central Berkeley a boost. The 1894 Sanborn map of Block 3 in Sea View Park (Fig. 58) shows eight dwellings. Harry Hartkop’s 1870s cottage at 1932 Hearst Avenue had gained a new windmill and water tank. The abandoned planing mill buildings had been removed and replaced with a municipal electric light plant.

The Chinese laundry was still in operation.

One of the new dwellings was Anton A. Fink’s residence, built in 1891 and still standing at 1901 Bonita Avenue (Fig. 60). Two cottages at 1933 and 1937 Berkeley Way survived until 1968.

Development in the neighborhood accelerated as the railway was extended from University Avenue to Cedar Street in 1902. On Block 3 of Sea View Park, the 1903 Sanborn map (Fig. 59) shows Lot 2 split off from Lot 1 and containing the Stocker House, built two years earlier.

Two houses at the corner of Milvia Street and Berkeley Way had been turned into flats, and a third, at 1933 Berkeley Way, had doubled in size. The Chinese laundry was still in place, now with a windmill and a water tank. The electric power plant had been privatized.

Figure 59. SVP Block 3 in the 1903 Sanborn map

Page 51 of 70 ends

Page 607 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 44 of 62

Figure 60. A.A. Fink House (1891), 1901
Bonita Avenue

Figure 61. F.D. Chase Flats (1908),
1905–07 Bonita Avenue

In 1904–05, realtor William T. Gillihan built a speculative Dutch Colonial Revival house that is still standing at 1938 Hearst Avenue, directly to west of the Stocker home. The house was sold to the Keating family, who remained in residence for decades.

Figure 62. 1938 Hearst Avenue in 1956 (Donogh files, BAHA)

Page 52 of 70 ends

Page 608 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 45 of 62

Figure 63. SVP Block 3 in the 1911 Sanborn map

By 1911, the neighborhood was almost fully built, and still primarily residential. Included in the architectural mix were Victorian houses built in the earlier years of settlement, but the dominant building style was Colonial Revival, fashionable between 1895 and 1910.

On Block 3 of Sea View Park, the 1911 Sanborn map shows a new building at the southern end of the former A.A. Fink parcel on Bonita Avenue. Although this pair of flats, currently numbered 1905–07 Bonita (Fig. 61), is Victorian in appearance, it was built in 1908 for the parcel’s owner, Franklin D. Chase, a prominent realtor and lumber merchant who made the Fink House his home in 1903.

The 1911 map also shows two new one-story houses at 1906 and 1910 Milvia Street. Still standing on a site carved out of the Clapp House parcel, the small Colonial Revival (altered) cottage at 1906 Milvia was built c. 1903–04 as a rental property for landlord Nelson Butler, who owned Lot 1 at the time. The Colonial Revival cottage at 1910 Milvia, also a survivor, was built c. 1904–05 as a rental property for landlord Enoch Morrill.

Page 53 of 70 ends

Page 609 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 46 of 62

Figure 64. 1910 Milvia Street in 1954 (Donogh files, BAHA)

Figure 65. 1910 Milvia St. (Google, 2018)

Figure 66. 1906 Milvia Street

Figure 67. Joseph Clapp House, Milvia Street façade

By 1911, both the Clapp House and the Stocker House had been acquired by realtor Lyman Allen and turned into two apartments each. The only downsizing

Page 54 of 70 ends

Page 610 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 47 of 62

on the block occurred at 1920 Milvia Street, which had reverted from flats to a single-family dwelling. This coincided with the residence of Lyman Allen in the house.

The electric plant was marked vacant and dilapidated in 1911, but the Chinese laundry was still in operation. Ownership in the laundry changed over the years (Chin On in 1900, Shick Jung in 1910), but there was always a contingent of eight or nine Chinese male laundrymen residing and working on the premises.

In 1923, a Queen Anne cottage, owned by Francis & Inez Dam, appeared at 1930 Hearst Avenue, having been moved there from an unknown location. It is shown for the first time in the 1929 Sanborn map (Fig. 70). In January 1955, the house was moved again, this time to 916 Bancroft Way, making way for a mid- century apartment court.

Figure 68. Dam House being moved from 1930 Hearst Ave. to 916 Bancroft Way (Berkeley Daily Gazette, 26 January 1955)

Other additions to the block seen in the 1929 Sanborn map include a third structure on Franklin D. Chase’s parcel—a rental property at 1903 Bonita Avenue, built or moved here c. 1913–1914. This house, whose hip roof suggests a 19 th-century core, has been
altered beyond recognition (Fig. 69).

The 1929 map also marks the disappearance of the Chinese laundry and its replacement with an elegant Queen Anne house (Fig. 71), apparently moved here circa 1921. This was another of the eight “slum structures” removed in 1968 to make room for the apartment complex that occupies nearly half the block.

The former electric plant site was now vacant.

Page 55 of 70 ends

Page 611 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 48 of 62

Figure 69. F.D. Chase rental property, 1903 Bonita Avenue

Figure 70. SVP Block 3 in the 1929 Sanborn map. X marks indicate structures that have since been demolished.

Page 56 of 70 ends

Page 612 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 49 of 62

Figure 71. 1929 Berkeley Way in 1967. This house was moved here c. 1921 and demolished in 1968 (Donogh files, BAHA)

Figure 72. SVP Block 3 in the 1950 Sanborn map. X marks indicate structures that have since been demolished.

Two notable changes can be seen in the 1950 Sanborn map. The little Hartkop cottage and its water tower had disappeared from 1932 Hearst Avenue, and two 4-unit apartment buildings occupied the former site of the planing mill and electric plant. These Moderne-style buildings at 1915 and 1921 Bonita (Fig. 73) were constructed in 1946 for H.C. Reid by contractor W.M. Fariss.

Page 57 of 70 ends

Page 613 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 50 of 62

Figure 73. Reid Apartments (1946), 1915 Bonita Ave., in 1972 (Donogh files, BAHA)

Between 1929 and 1950, houses on Block 3 were further subdivided into additional units and single rental rooms. From the 1950s until the early ‘70s, older houses on nearly every block were demolished, giving way to large, boxy apartment blocks.

On Block 3, three new structures were erected in 1955: side-by-side, motel- like twin apartment buildings at 1930 and 1932 Hearst Avenue, and a “tickytack”
41 bungalow behind the Dutch Colonial at 1938 Hearst Avenue.

Figure 74. Apartments, 1930 & 1932 Hearst Avenue, built in 1955

41 Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey, 1982. BAHA archives.

Page 58 of 70 ends

Page 614 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 51 of 62

Figure 75. Rear house, 1934–38 Hearst Ave., in 1956 (Donogh files, BAHA)

During the 1960s, BART construction gave rise to land speculation that was particularly evident on the southern half of this block. Figure 76 below shows four of the eight historic houses characterized in the press as “slum dwellings,” although photos from that decade show them as sound.

Figure 76. 1929, 1931, 1937 & 1941 Berkeley Way in 1965. All were razed in 1968 to make way for the apartment block at 1945 Berkeley Way. (Donogh files, BAHA)

Page 59 of 70 ends

Page 615 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 52 of 62

In December 1965, a real estate listing offered for sale the houses at 1929, 1931, 1937, 1941, and 1945 Berkeley Way. The listing’s description stated, “5 old homes as carriers. Value in LAND.” The remarks below promised “Terrific appreciation potential. See to believe. 32,295 sf ft of land near proposed BART station. 2½ blocks to West Gate of U.C. […] Value in land. O.K. for 99 units low- rise or 134 [units] high-rise.”
Eight historic houses facing Berkeley Way and Milvia Street were removed to make way for an apartment block erected by Smith & Haley Construction Co. at 1945 Berkeley Way. Construction was underway in September 1968 when a fire destroyed all but the concrete foundation. The project was rebuilt and completed a year later. It occupies almost half the block.

Figure 77. Smith & Haley apartments, 1945 Berkeley Way
(Oakland Tribune, 28 Sept. 1969)

Figure 78. 1945 Berkeley Way, August 2021

Page 60 of 70 ends

Page 616 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 53 of 62

Figure 79. The block viewed from the south (Apple Maps)

BART construction resulted in the loss of nearly all the houses along the north side of Hearst Avenue between Milvia and Sacramento streets. In response to citizen action, Ohlone Park was created instead of the apartments that BART had intended to construct on top of the train tube.

Figure 80. The block viewed from the east (Google Maps)

Page 61 of 70 ends

Page 617 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 54 of 62

Figure 81. The next block to the south in 1950 (Sanborn map). The entire block was razed for the Golden Bear development and parking lot.

On the next block to the south, 13 historic residential structures were razed in 1968. They were replaced in 1987 by the Golden Bear Building, 1995 University Avenue, and its parking lot, which takes up the northern half of the block.

Figure 82. Reid Apartments & Golden Bear Center, Bonita Ave. & Berkeley Way

Page 62 of 70 ends

Page 618 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 55 of 62

Neighborhood Streetscapes

Figure 83. 1938, 1940 & 1942 Hearst Avenue

Figure 84. Ohlone Park, north side of Hearst Avenue

Page 63 of 70 ends

Page 619 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 56 of 62

Figure 85. South side of Hearst Avenue

Figure 86. Hearst & Milvia intersection, looking northeast

Page 64 of 70 ends

Page 620 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 57 of 62

Figure 87. North side of Hearst Avenue, east of Milvia Street

Figure 88. North side of Hearst Avenue, east of Milvia Street

Page 65 of 70 ends

Page 621 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 58 of 62

Figure 89. Milvia Street south of Hearst Avenue (Google Street View)

Figure 90. Bonita Avenue north of Hearst Avenue

Page 66 of 70 ends

Page 622 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 59 of 62

Figure 91. Bonita south of Hearst Avenue

Figure 92. Bonita Hall (William G. Black, 1905), 1918 Bonita Avenue

Two City of Berkeley Landmarks stand in the neighborhood. One of them is Bonita Hall, constructed by brickmason and contractor William G. Black in 1905.42 Black’s own house, an Italianate Victorian that was moved circa 1902 to its present location at 1930 Delaware Street, is currently suffering demolition by neglect (Fig. 93).

The second designated landmark is the Charles H. Spear House (1904), 1905 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way.
43 42 Daniella Thompson. “A Yankee Bricklayer’s Creation, Bonita Hall Endures.” http://berkeleyheritage.com/berkeley_landmarks/bonita.html 43 Daniella Thompson. “A Tale of Two Mystery Houses and One Politician.” http://berkeleyheritage.com/eastbay_then-now/spear.html

Page 67 of 70 ends

Page 623 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 60 of 62

Not designated but noteworthy for historic reasons is architect William H.

Wharff’s Colonial Revival house (1907) at 2000 Delaware Street and Milvia.44 Wharff designed many Berkeley buildings, including the landmark Masonic Temple (1905–06) and the landmark F.D. Chase Building (1909) at 2107 Shattuck Avenue.

Figure 93. William G. Black House, 1930 Delaware Street

Figure 94. William H. Wharff
House, 2000 Delaware Street

While many historic structures remain in the neighborhood, none resemble the Stocker-Ding House, which offers a singular presence in this district.

17. Significance

The James T. Stocker–Loni Ding House meets the following criteria for designation in the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, BMC Section

3.24.110.

Section 3.24.110A.1.a. Property that is the first, last, only or most significant architectural property of its type in the region;
The Stocker-Ding House possesses architectural merit. It is the only structure of its type in North-Central Berkeley and possibly in the entire city. Its rarely encountered hybrid style combines Arts & Crafts design with Colonial Revival windows. Although there exist in Berkeley several Colonial Revival brown- shingle houses that incorporate some Arts & Crafts elements, no other house is known to be designed primarily in the Arts & Crafts style with Colonial Revival elements.

44 Daniella Thompson. “William Wharff: Architect, Civil War Vet, and Freemason.” http://berkeleyheritage.com/eastbay_then-now/wharff.html

Page 68 of 70 ends

Page 624 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 61 of 62

Section 3.24.110A.1.b. Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction […]; The Stocker-Ding House possesses architectural merit. Some of its distinguishing features are a side-gabled roof with gable-end returns; twin gable rooflets over second-story boxed windows; elaborate scrolled wooden brackets under flaring overhangs; scrolled corbels under the boxed windows; and beadboard soffits edged with heavy molding. The street façade of the Stocker- Ding House retains virtually all its original character-defining features.

Section 3.24.110A.1.c. Architectural examples worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric.

The Stocker-Ding House is worth preserving for the exceptional value it adds to the neighborhood fabric. It is the only house of its style in a district that includes a mixture of Victorians, Colonial Revival “boxes,” and mid-20 th-century
apartments and commercial or institutional buildings.

The house stands on a block that has lost about 70% of its historic fabric to mid-20th-century development. To the north, the house faces a block that has lost 50% of its historic fabric—the entire Hearst Avenue frontage—to BART construction. Adjacent blocks on the east, west, and south all lost historic fabric to a greater or lesser degree (the next block to the south was entirely razed).

The Stocker- Ding House retains integrity of location, design, materials, and setting. It is both instantly recognizable and highly memorable for its unique features, which enhance the Hearst Avenue streetscape.

Section 3.24.110B.4. Historic value: Preservation and enhancement of structures, sites and areas that embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County/California/United States.

The Stocker-Ding House possesses historic value. It was the home and the workplace of Loni Ding (1931–2010), a pioneering Asian American documentary filmmaker, university educator, and media activist. Ms. Ding worked to create public institutions that showcased under-represented voices in American life, mentored hundreds of emerging Asian, Pacific Islander, Black, Latino, and other filmmakers, and created award-winning films that broadened the historical narrative, redefining what it is to be American.

Loni Ding was one of the first women and people of color to break into the all-white, male world of U.S. television in the late 1960s and early 1970s. She and a handful of pioneers produced the first “minority”-made programs on American television and went on to train a generation of minority and women producer-directors, camera people, and engineers with the skills to demand a place in the industry.

A tireless organizer and advocate for democratizing television and making it accessible and accountable to communities, Loni Ding played a leading role in creating the Center for Asian American Media (CAAM) the largest organization dedicated to the advancement of Asian Americans in television and filmmaking, and the Independent Television Service (ITVS), “public media’s leading incubator and presenter of independent film.”
As a professor of filmmaking in the Department of Ethnic Studies at U.C.

Berkeley for over 30 years, she trained and inspired hundreds of young people of color and women to enter the media field.

Page 69 of 70 ends

Page 625 ends

Stocker-Ding House, 1940 Hearst Avenue Landmark Application, Page 62 of 62

Loni Ding’s films helped re-write U.S. history and turn the lens on previously invisible American heroes. Her documentaries Nisei Soldier and The Color of Honor: The Japanese-American Soldier During World War II were screened to both houses of Congress, as well as to then-President Ronald Reagan, and were instrumental in helping pass the 1988 Civil Liberties Act, which granted formal U.S. reparations to American citizens of Japanese descent interned during World War II.

Loni Ding’s acclaimed PBS series, Ancestors in the Americas, is a main reference on Asian American history, offering an epic scope of Asian migrations to North America, South America, and the Caribbean from the 1700s to the early 1900s, and uncovering the role of Asians in building the United States.

Her productions have been honored with multiple Emmy awards, have been broadcast internationally on four continents, and were screened at international film festivals around the world.

Historic Value: City Yes Neighborhood Yes
Architectural Value: Neighborhood Yes

18. Is the property endangered? No

19. Reference Sources:

Alameda County assessment records. BAHA.

Berkeley and Oakland directories. BAHA, Berkeley Historical Society, Ancestry.com.

Block files. BAHA.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. BAHA.

Assessor’s maps. Alameda County Assessor’s Office.

U.S. Census and California Voter Registration records. Ancestry.com.

Ormsby Donogh files. BAHA.

Historic newspapers. BAHA archives, California Digital Newspaper Collection, Chronicling America, Ancestry.com
Center for Educational Telecommunications (CET) http://www.cetel.org/ Contemporary photographs by Daniella Thompson unless otherwise specified.

Nelson, Marie. Surveys for Local Governments—A Context for Best Practices. California Office of Historic Preservation, 2005. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/Survey Savvy CCAPA.pps

20. Recorder: Applicant:

Daniella Thompson May Ying Welsh
2663 Le Conte Avenue 1940 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94709 Berkeley, CA 94709

Date: August 2021

Page 70 of 70 ends

Page 626 ends

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC/Commission) has designated the subject property as a City of Berkeley Structure of Merit. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period, which began on April 25, 2022.

Unless the Council wishes to review the determination of the Commission and make its own decision, the attached NOD is deemed received and filed.

Page 1 of 28 ends

Page 627 ends

LPO NOD: 2523 Piedmont Avenue/#LMIN2021-0004 INFORMATION CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

their removal, achieves construction and demolition waste diversion, and promotes investment in existing urban centers.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Council may choose to certify or appeal the decision to grant designation status, setting the matter for public hearing at a future date.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no known fiscal impacts associated with this designation action.

CONTACT PERSON
Fatema Crane, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7410 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMIN2021-0004, 2523 Piedmont Avenue

Page 2 of 28 ends

Page 628 ends

Attachment 1, part 1

L A N D M A R K S

P R E S E R V A T I O N

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: February 3, 2022
DATE NOTICE MAILED: April 25, 2022
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: May 10, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE OF PERMIT (Barring Appeal or Certification): May 11, 20221 2523 Piedmont Avenue
The Wurts-Lenfest House
Landmark application (#LMIN2021-0004) for consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a single-family residence – APN 055-1851-022-00.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the following designation:
 City of Berkeley Structure of Merit, pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section

3.24.110.B
INITIATED BY: Petition of Berkeley Residents
ZONING DISTRICT: Restricted Multiple-Family Residential (R-2A) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines -- Review for Exemptions.

Page 3 of 28 ends

Page 629 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
Structure of Merit designation status - #LMIN2021-0004
2523 Piedmont Avenue – Wurts-Lenfest House
May 10, 2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

FINDINGS, CONDITIONS AND APPROVED PLANS ARE ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE COMMISSION VOTE: 9-0-0-0
YES: ADAMS, CRANDALL, ENCHILL, FINACOM, JOHNSON, LEUSCHNER,

MONTGOMERY, SCHWARTZ, TWU
NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
TO APPEAL THIS DECISION (see Section 3.24.300 of the Berkeley Municipal Code):

To appeal a decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to the City Council you must:

1. Submit a letter clearly and concisely setting forth the grounds for the appeal to the City Clerk, located at 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley; or by facsimile to (510) 981-6901.

If no appeal is received, the landmark designation will be final on the first business day following expiration of the appeal period.

Page 4 of 28 ends

Page 630 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
Structure of Merit designation status - #LMIN2021-0004
2523 Piedmont Avenue – Wurts-Lenfest House
May 10, 2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

If you object to this decision, the following requirements and restrictions apply:

A. That this belief is a basis of your appeal.

B. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a "taking" of property as set forth above.

C. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” as set forth above.

If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been taken, both before the City Council and in court.

Page 5 of 28 ends

Page 631 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
Structure of Merit designation status - #LMIN2021-0004
2523 Piedmont Avenue – Wurts-Lenfest House
May 10, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Fatema Crane, at (510) 981-7410 or [email protected] or [email protected] ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Landmark application
ATTEST: _________________________
Fatema Crane, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
Cc: City Clerk
Property Owner: Wilson Wong & Christina Kwan, 2523 Piedmont Ave., Berkeley, CA Applicants: Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association, P. O. Box 5108, Berkeley, CA

Page 6 of 28 ends

Page 632 ends

A t t a c h m e n t 1 , p a r t 2
F i n d i n g s f o r A p p r o v a l
FEBRUARY 3, 2022
2523 Piedmont Avenue – The Wurtz-Lenfest House
City of Berkeley Landmark Application #LMIN2021-0004

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Structure of Merit Designation of the property at 2523 Piedmont Avenue [APN 055 185102200] – The Wurtz-Lenfest House

CEQA FINDINGS

LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORIDNANCE FINDINGS

2. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.110.B.2.c of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, and based on the evidence presented in the Landmark application, the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley (Commission) finds that the subject property exhibits architectural merit as a good example of the East Shingle Cottage, also known as the High-Peaked Colonial Revival House. The subject main building dates to the period during which this regional style emerged and retains all of its character-defining features, including: a steeply-pitched roof with front-facing gable, horizontal wood siding on the lower story and wood shingles on the upper story; recessed entry porch with partial height pony walls and classical column posts; bay window at lower story of front elevation; windows in front gable with shingles curving inward to meet the frame; wood windows throughout with painted sashes and broad, flat trim. Further, the building retains its original design, materials and workmanship, which are the National Park Service’s hallmarks of architectural integrity.

For these reasons, the property and building warrant designation status as a City of Berkeley Structure of Merit.

3. Further, the Commission finds that property was the long-time residence of David Mundstock, a key figure in the development of progressive politics and government in Berkeley. Mundstock was the author of major reforms in elections, fair representation, and local government structure and policies; he was a community historian who compiled records and analysis of his era.

4. The property is one of four, extant residences in the immediate area that was developed by Rebecca Snyder Wurts and Myron Le Fevre Wurtz.

Page 7 of 28 ends

Page 633 ends

FINDINGS for APPROVAL 2523 PIEDMONT AVENUE

Page 2 of 2 ends

FEATURES TO BE PRESERVED, OR RESTORED WHERE POSSIBLE
This designation shall apply to the subject property and the following distinguishing features shall be preserved:

Main Building
 Two-story massing, with A-frame upper story roughly twice the height (at the ridge) than the lower story
 Recessed main entry porch, with partial-height walls topped with classical columns  Wood exterior materials and trim, including shingles on the upper story and horizontal, narrow gauge clapboard siding on lower story
 Bay window on lower floor at front facade
 Original wood main door, including glazing in the upper half and ornamental wreath detail within the lower half
 Twenty-seven original wood windows including: west/front elevation (at ground floor and upper floors) containing double-hung with true-divided-lites and ogee lugs at the upper sash; north/side elevation (at ground and upper floors) containing double-hung with true-divided-lites and ogee lugs at the upper sash and (at upper floor) containing a horizontally-oriented, fixed true divided lite window; south/side elevation (at ground and upper floors) containing double-hung with true-divided-lites and ogee lugs at the upper sash; and east/rear (at ground and upper floors) containing double-hung with true-divided-lites and ogee lugs at the upper sash and (ground) true-divided lite wood door.

Page 8 of 28 ends

Page 634 ends

Attachment 1, part 3

Page 9 of 28 ends

Page 635 ends

Page 10 of 28 ends

Page 636 ends

Page 11 of 28 ends

Page 637 ends

Page 12 of 28 ends

Page 638 ends

Page 13 of 28 ends

Page 639 ends

Page 14 of 28 ends

Page 640 ends

Page 15 of 28 ends

Page 641 ends

Page 16 of 28 ends

Page 642 ends

Page 17 of 28 ends

Page 643 ends

Page 18 of 28 ends

Page 644 ends

Page 19 of 28 ends

Page 645 ends

Page 20 of 28 ends

Page 646 ends

Page 21 of 28 ends

Page 647 ends

Page 22 of 28 ends

Page 648 ends

Page 23 of 28 ends

Page 649 ends

Page 24 of 28 ends

Page 650 ends

Page 25 of 28 ends

Page 651 ends

Page 26 of 28 ends

Page 652 ends

Page 27 of 28 ends

Page 653 ends

Page 28 of 28 ends

Page 654 ends

INTRODUCTION
The attached Notice of Decision adopted by the Landmarks Preservation Commission is presented to the Mayor and City Council pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code/Landmarks Preservation Ordinance Section 3.24.240.A, which requires that “a copy of the Notice of Decision shall be filed with the City Clerk and the City Clerk shall present said copy to the City Council at its next regular meeting.”

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) has approved a Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) to install new equipment on City Landmark Fred Turner building. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period, which began when the Notice of Decision (NOD) was mailed on April 25, 2022.

BACKGROUND
BMC/LPO Section 3.24.300 allows City Council to review any action of the LPC in granting or denying an SAP. For Council to review the decision on its merits, Council must appeal the Notice of Decision. To do so, this Information Item must be taken up as an Action Item and then set for a public hearing at a later date. Such action must be taken within 15 days of the mailing of the Notice of Decision, or by May 10, 2022. Such certification to Council shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal.

If the Council chooses to appeal the action of the Commission, then a public hearing will be set. The Council must then rule on the designation within 30 days of closing the hearing; otherwise, the decision of the Commission is automatically deemed affirmed.

Unless the Council wishes to review the determination of the Commission and make its own decision, the attached NOD is deemed received and filed.

Page 1 of 19 ends

Page 655 ends

LPO NOD: 2580 Bancroft Way -- #LMSAP2022-0003 INFORMATION CALENDAR May 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Landmark designation provides opportunities for the adaptive re-use and rehabilitation of historic resources within the City. The rehabilitation of these resources, rather than their removal, achieves construction and demolition waste diversion, and promotes investment in existing urban centers.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Council may choose to appeal the decision of the LPC to approve the SAP, in which case it would conduct a public hearing at a future date.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no known fiscal impacts associated with this action.

CONTACT PERSON
Fatema Crane, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7410 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMSAP2022-0003 for 2580 Bancroft Way

Page 2 of 19 ends

Page 656 ends

Attachment 1, part 1

L A N D M A R K S

P R E S E R V A T I O N

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: April 7, 2022
DATE NOTICE MAILED: April 25, 2022
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: May 10, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE OF PERMIT (Barring Appeal): May 11, 20221 2580 Bancroft Way
Structural Alteration Permit (#LMSAP2022-0003) to install roof equipment on a City Landmark Building – Fred Turner Building.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the following permit:

PERMITS REQUIRED:
 Structural Alteration Permit
APPLICANT: Gary Wang & Associates, Inc., 1000 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 550, Monterey Park, CA
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial Telegraph (C-T)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines (Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation).

The Application materials for this project are available online at:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/zoningapplications
1 Pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if the close of the appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the appeal period expires the following business day. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.190, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, within fifteen days from the mailing of the NOD. Such certification shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of a notice of appeal.

Page 3 of 19 ends

Page 657 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2022-0003
2580 Bancroft Way
April 25, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

FINDINGS, CONDITIONS AND APPROVED PLANS ARE ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE COMMISSION VOTE: 8-0-0-1
YES: ADAMS, CRANDALL, ENCHILL, FINACOM, JOHNSON, LEUSCHNER,

MONTGOMERY, TWU
NO: [NONE]
ABSTAIN: [NONE]
ABSENT: SCHWARTZ
TO APPEAL THIS DECISION (see Section 3.24.300 of the Berkeley Municipal Code) An appeal may be taken to the City Council by the City Council on its own motion, by motion of the Planning Commission, by motion of the Civic Art Commission, by the verified application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents, or by the verified application of at least fifty residents of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the commission made under the provisions of this chapter.

Such appeal shall be taken by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within fifteen days after the mailing of the notice of the decision of the commission. The notice of appeal shall clearly and concisely set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based. If the appeal is taken by an owner of the property affected, or an authorized agent, the notice of appeal shall be filed in duplicate and the City Clerk shall immediately forward one copy to the secretary of the commission. If the appeal is taken by someone other than an owner of affected property or an authorized agent, the notice of appeal shall be filed in triplicate and the City Clerk shall immediately forward one copy to the owner or authorized agent of the affected property and one copy to the secretary of the commission. Within ten days after the filing of a notice of appeal, the secretary of the commission shall transmit to the City Council a copy of the application, a copy of the notice of appeal and a written statement setting forth the reasons for the commission’s decision, and shall make available to the council, at the time the matter is considered by the council, all other papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.

The City Clerk is located at 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley. The City Clerk’s facsimile number is (510) 981-6901. The City Clerk’s telephone number is (510) 981-6900.

An appeal must be received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the "APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION" date shown above (if the close of the appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the appeal period expires the following business day).

The required fee is as follows (checks and money orders must be payable to “City of Berkeley”):

Page 4 of 19 ends

Page 658 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2022-0003
2580 Bancroft Way
April 25, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

a. The basic fee for persons other than the applicant is $500. This fee may be reduced to $100 if the appeal is signed by persons who lease or own at least 50 percent of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or at least 25 such persons (not including dependent children), whichever is less. b. The fee for appeals of affordable housing projects (defined as projects which provide 50 percent or more affordable units for households earning 80% or less of Area Median Income) is $500, which may not be reduced.
c. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $2,500.

STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT ISSUANCE:

If no appeal is received, the Structural Alteration Permit will be issued on the first business day following expiration of the appeal period, and the project may proceed at that time. Information about the Building Permit process can be found at the following link:
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/permitservicecenter/.

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

If you object to this decision, the following requirements and restrictions apply:

1. If you challenge this decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in a public hearing and/or written correspondence during the proceedings related to this permit.

2. You must appeal to the City Council within fifteen (15) days after the Notice of Decision of the action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is mailed.

3. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b) and Government Code Section 65009(c)(1), no lawsuit challenging a City Council decision, as defined by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(e), regarding a permit may be filed more than ninety (90) days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b). Any lawsuit not filed within that ninety (90) day period will be barred.

A. That this belief is a basis of your appeal.

Page 5 of 19 ends

Page 659 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2022-0003
2580 Bancroft Way
April 25, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

B. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a "taking" of property as set forth above.

C. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” as set forth above.

If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been taken, both before the City Council and in court.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Fatema Crane, at (510) 981-7413 or [email protected]. All project application materials, including full-size plans, may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Thursday.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Project Plans, revised February 17, 2022
ATTEST:

Fatema Crane, Senior Planner
Secretary to the Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Applicant: Ruben Rodela
Gary Wang & Associates, Inc.
1000 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 550
Monterey Park, CA 91754

Page 6 of 19 ends

Page 660 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2022-0003
2580 Bancroft Way
April 25, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

Property Owner: The Mark at Berkeley, LLC
315 Oconee Street
Athens, GA 30601

Page 7 of 19 ends

Page 661 ends

Attachment 1, part 2
F i n d i n g s a n d C o n d i t i o n s
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]
2580 BANCROFT WAY – Fred Turner Building
Structural Alteration Permit #LMSAP2022-0003
Structural Alteration Permit #LMSAP2022-0003 to install new rooftop equipment as a part of tenant improvements for one of the two commercial tenant spaces in the Turner Building.

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA

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 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines (“Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation”). Furthermore, 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, and (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5,.

FINDINGS RELATED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS Regarding the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley makes the following findings:

1. The property has historically been used as commercial space. The work proposed in this application would support the continued use of this as a commercial space.

2. The scope of proposed work would not remove or alter any significant features.

3. The proposed scope will not affect any changes to the property that have acquired historic significance in their own right.

4. The required alterations to the building to accommodate the proposed scope are minimal and will not affect any distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property. Perforations in the historical façade shall be as discreet as possible and patched where necessary.

5. No deteriorated historic features will be affected by this request and none are proposed to be replaced.

6. The applicant does not propose chemical or physical treatments. However, standard conditions of Structural Alteration Permit approval would require any chemical or physical treatments to be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

Page 8 of 19 ends

Page 662 ends

PUBLIC
2580 BANCROFT WAY STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT -DRAFT Findings and Conditions

Page 2 of 5 ends

7. The project does not have the potential to affect any archaeological resources because the applicant proposes no excavation.

8. The applicant proposes no exterior alterations beyond the addition of the roof mounted mechanical equipment. The equipment will be painted so as to be visually compatible with the colors and massing of the existing architecture. The screening mechanism will

9. The equipment will be installed in such a manner that, if it were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORDINANCE

1. As required by Section 3.24.260 of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the Commission finds that proposed work is appropriate for and consistent with the purposes of the Ordinance, and will preserve and enhance the characteristics and features specified in the designation for this property. Specifically:

A. Staff finds that the proposed scope will not adversely affect the exterior features of the landmark, the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of its site and will preserve its distinguishing features.

B. The equipment would be installed without impairing the building, and the screening element would adequately camouflage the equipment so as to be compatible with the existing proportions, colors, and scale of the architecture.

Page 9 of 19 ends

Page 663 ends

PUBLIC
2580 BANCROFT WAY STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT -DRAFT Findings and Conditions

Page 3 of 5 ends

STANDARD CONDITIONS
The following conditions, as well as all other applicable provisions of the Landmarks Preservation 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 Permit, under the title ‘Structural Alteration 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. Plans and Representations Become Conditions
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.

3. Subject to All Applicable Laws and Regulations
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 Zoning Adjustments Board or Zoning Officer, Building and Safety Division, Public Works Department and other affected City divisions and departments.

4. Exercise and Lapse of Permits (Section 23B.56.100)
A. 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.

B. 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.

5. Indemnification Agreement
The applicant shall hold the City of Berkeley and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to the granting of this Permit, shall cooperate with the City in defense of such action, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages or attorneys fees that may result.

Page 10 of 19 ends

Page 664 ends

PUBLIC
2580 BANCROFT WAY STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT -DRAFT Findings and Conditions

Page 4 of 5 ends

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
The following additional conditions are attached to this Permit:

6. REVISED PROJECT PLANS -- SCREEN ELEMENT. Prior to submitting any building permit application for this project, the applicant shall revise the project and proposed screen to include a return on both the east and west sides. The applicant shall provide staff with site photos that accurately show sight lines to the roof; upon staff’s review of the revisions and photographs, staff shall determine the minimum and maximum length and depth of the screen element return.

7. ROOF EQUIPMENT. Any above ground or roof equipment, such as transformer(s), utilities, fire apparatus, air conditioning units, compressors, etc. shall be shown to scale on the architectural drawings of the building permit set of drawings in both plan and elevation, in order to determine if additional screening and SAP may be required.

8. COLORS. Prior to Landmarks plan checker sign-off of the Building Permit set of drawings, the applicant shall submit color and materials information for review and approval by Landmarks staff, in coordination with the LPC Chair as needed.

9. REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES (where applicable). Repair and replacement of character-defining features. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old or historic feature in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.

Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

10. DETAILS. Prior to Landmarks plan checker sign-off of the Building Permit set of drawings, the applicant shall submit screen element details for review and approval by the Landmarks plan checker.

11. LIGHTING. Prior to Landmarks plan checker sign-off of the building permit set of drawings, the applicant shall submit lighting details showing all existing and proposed site and building lighting. Exterior lighting, including for signage, shall be downcast and not cause glare on the public right-of-way and adjacent parcels.

12. The applicant shall be responsible for identifying and securing all applicable permits from the Building and Safety Division and all other affected City divisions/departments prior to the start of work.

13. The applicant is responsible for complying with all the above conditions. Failure to comply with any condition could result in construction work being stopped, issuance of citations, as well as further review by the Landmarks staff, which may modify or impose additional conditions, or revoke approval.

14. All building permit drawings and subsequent construction shall substantially conform to the approved plans as outlined in Condition #1. Any modifications must be reviewed

Page 11 of 19 ends

Page 665 ends

PUBLIC
2580 BANCROFT WAY STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT -DRAFT Findings and Conditions

Page 5 of 5 ends

by the Landmarks plan checker to determine whether the modification requires approval.

15. 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.

Page 12 of 19 ends

Page 666 ends

PANDA EXPRESS
1,470 SQ. FT.

BANCROFT WAY

FUTURE TENANT

COURTYARD
ARCADE

FUTURE RETAIL A FUTURE RETAIL B

RAMP DOWN TO

BASEMENT LEVEL

STUDY LOUNGE

FITNESSCLUB ROOM
OFFICE
ENTRY
MAIL

NOT A PART
(E) BANCROFT
CLOTHING CO.
(E) COLLEGIATE
STORE
±11'-0"
BOWDITCH ST.
(E) DOUGLAS PARKING

PANDA EXPRESS
1,470 SQ. FT.

NOT A PARTOF SCOPE
±11'-0"±40'-2"
4 9
1 3 5 2 4 6 8 5 3 7
10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

BERKELEY
A-100

ARCHITECTURAL

SITE PLAN
A-100
E
Scale= NTS

KEY NOTES
A-100
1 Scale= 1/16" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN
PANDA PROJECT #:

DRAWN BY:

ISSUE DATE:

REVISIONS:

All ideas, designs, arrangement and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are the property of Panda Express Inc. and were created for use on this specific project.

None of these ideas, designs, arrangements or plans may be used by or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation without the written permission of Panda Express Inc.
1683 Walnut Grove Ave.

Rosemead, California
91770
Telephone: 626.799.9898
Facsimile: 626.372.8288
PANDA EXPRESS, INC.
1ST SAP SUBMITTAL 01-03-22
ARCH PROJECT #:

RR/JH/AB
20-109
S4-21-D8218
BERKELEY, CA 94704
2548 BANCROFT WAY, SUITE 1,

PANDA EXPRESS
1ST
2ND SAP SUBMITTAL 02-16-222ND
N
(E) LANDSCAPING AREA
(E) ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL

LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
(E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK
(E) PARCEL LINE
(E) TRANSFORMER VAULT
(E) LIGHT POLE
(E) DRIVEWAY
(E) ALLEY

LANDLORD

TENANT APPLICANT

DONNA HAGEROTT

LANDMARK PROPERTIES
315 OCONEE STREET,
ATHENS, GA 30601
T: 706.543.1910
F: 706.543.1909

MICHAEL CADELL, PROJECT MANAGER
PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.
1683 WALNUT GROVE AVE,
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
T: 626.799.9898
F: 626.372.8288

RUBEN RODELA, PROJECT MANAGER

GARY WANG, AIA
GARY WANG & ASSOC.
1000 CORPORATE CENTER DR., # 550
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
T: 626.288.6898
F: 626.768.7101
A-100
A
Scale= NTS

TEAM INFORMATION
A-100
B
Scale= NTS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A-100
C
Scale= NTS

BUILDING INFORMATION
A-100
D
Scale= NTS

VICINITY MAP

INSTALLATION OF NEW ROOFTOP EQIUIPMENT FOR A NEW PANDA EXPRESS RESTAURANT TENANT IMPROVEMENT IN AN EXISTING HISTORICAL BUILDING.

WORK ALSO INCLUDES DUCTWORK BELOW THE ROOF DECK. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT INCLUDES (1) EXHAUST POLLUTION CONTROL UNIT, (1) MAKE-UP AIR UNIT, (2) CONDENSERS, (1) RESTROOM EXHAUST FAN, (2) HVAC UNITS, AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW ROOF ACCESS LADDER.

RESTAURANT AREA 1,470 S.F.

OCCUPANCY

CLASSIFICATION

GROUP B
(BUSINESS)

FIRE SPRINKLER YES, SPRINKLERED

PANDA EXPRESS
55-1877-19-2APN

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION V-B
OCCUPANT LOAD 36
1 PANDA EXPRESS

PROPOSED
N
10 NOT PART OF SCOPE
Attachment 1, part 3

Page 13 of 19 ends

Page 667 ends

(E) COLUMN
++ + +
+
+
(E) COLUMN(E) COLUMN
(E) COLUMN

ADJACENT FUTURE TENANT
2552 BANCROFT WAY
1 STORY
(NOT A PART OF SCOPE)

EXISTING

COURTYARD

ADJACENT TENANT

THE STANDARD
2580 BANCROFT WAY
BERKELEY, CA 94704
(NOT A PART OF SCOPE)

ADJACENT TENANT
2542 BANCROFT WAY
1 STORY
(NOT A PART OF SCOPE)
TOTAL SQ. FT. = 49 SQ. FT.

TOTAL SQ. FT. = 137 SQ. FT.

TOTAL SQ. FT. = 342 SQ. FT.

TOTAL SQ. FT. = 76 SQ. FT.

TOTAL SQ. FT. = 81 SQ. FT.

TOTAL SQ. FT. = 268 SQ. FT.

EMPLOYEE RESTROOM
107
TOTAL SQ. FT. = 517 SQ. FT.

SEATS = 32

CUSTOMER AREA
100

SERVING AREA
101

KITCHEN
103
54'-3"

KITCHEN PREP
104

WALK-IN
COOLER
105

WALK-IN

FREEZER
105A
31'-21
2"
9'-1"
9'-21 4"
16'-8"
22'-41
2"
21'-01
4"

EXISTING

EXTERIOR

WALKWAY

PROPOSED PANDA EXPRESS
TOTAL SQ. FT. = 1,470 SQ. FT.

EXISTING

COVERED

WALKWAY
7'-21
2"
N
A-101
1 Scale= 1/4" = 1'-0"

FLOOR PLAN
PANDA PROJECT #:

DRAWN BY:

ISSUE DATE:

REVISIONS:

All ideas, designs, arrangement and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are the property of Panda Express Inc. and were created for use on this specific project.

None of these ideas, designs, arrangements or plans may be used by or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation without the written permission of Panda Express Inc.
1683 Walnut Grove Ave.

Rosemead, California
91770
Telephone: 626.799.9898
Facsimile: 626.372.8288
PANDA EXPRESS, INC.
1ST SAP SUBMITTAL 01-03-22
ARCH PROJECT #:

RR/JH/AB
20-109
S4-21-D8218
BERKELEY, CA 94704
2548 BANCROFT WAY, SUITE 1,

PANDA EXPRESS
1ST
2ND SAP SUBMITTAL 02-16-222ND
A-101

FLOOR PLAN

Page 14 of 19 ends

Page 668 ends

A-107
16 Scale= 1/4" = 1'-0"

ROOF ACCESS LADDER DETAIL
A-107

ROOF PLAN
PANDA PROJECT #:

DRAWN BY:

ISSUE DATE:

REVISIONS:

All ideas, designs, arrangement and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are the property of Panda Express Inc. and were created for use on this specific project.

None of these ideas, designs, arrangements or plans may be used by or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation without the written permission of Panda Express Inc.
1683 Walnut Grove Ave.

Rosemead, California
91770
Telephone: 626.799.9898
Facsimile: 626.372.8288
PANDA EXPRESS, INC.
1ST SAP SUBMITTAL 01-03-22
ARCH PROJECT #:

RR/JH/AB
20-109
S4-21-D8218
BERKELEY, CA 94704
2548 BANCROFT WAY, SUITE 1,

PANDA EXPRESS
1ST
2ND SAP SUBMITTAL 02-16-222ND
N
A-107
1 Scale= 1/4" = 1'-0"

ROOF PLAN
ELEV. = ± 19'-0"
R12
ELEV. = ± 13'-11"
R12
R5
R9
R8
ROOF PLAN KEYNOTES:

R1
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R2
R11
R12

CONDENSER UNIT AND WOOD PLATFORM
KEC MODEL # LASD75RL4
R13
R14
R15
R13
R11
3 EF
108 lbs
1'-2"11'-2"
10'-0" SETBACK
10'-0" SETBACK
3'-21
4"
1'-5"
RTU
1 7.5 TONS
MA
1 1,726 lbs
1 CU
220 lbs
2 CU
220 lbs
1,337 LBS
RTU
2 1,337 LBS
1 PCU
R10'-0" MIN.
1'-11
2"1'-13
4"
6'-21
4"
10'-01
2"
4'-11"
1'-73
4"
3'-11
2"
4'-11
4"
1'-63
4"
4'-01
2"
3'-0" 2'-41
4"
5'-51
4"
9'-83
4"
6'-21
2"
5'-53
4"
3'-21
4"
3'-5"
3'-01
4"
16'-0"
223lbs
31-S
203lbs
10J-S1
197lbs
32-S1
2'-01
2"
ELEV. = ± 19'-0"
R12
ELEV. = ± 19'-0"
R12
ELEV. = ± 19'-0"
R12
R8
R9
R19
(E) SLOPE
R15
R7
R3
R13
R6
R4
(E) ROOF SLOPE
(E) ROOF SLOPE
R2
R1
R10
R10
R10
R10
R18
ELEV. = ± 19'-0"
R14
ELEV. = ± 17'-6"
R14
ELEV. = ± 12'-8"
R14
ELEV. = ± 13'-7"
R14
ELEV. = ± 18'-6"
R14
ELEV. = ± 13'-6"
R16
ELEV. = ± 18'-2"
R16

RESTROOM EXHAUST FAN
CAPTIVEAIRE MODEL # EABDCR7
AC UNIT 1
LENNOX MODEL # KGA092H4M
AC UNIT 2
LENNOX MODEL # KGA092H4M
PCU-1 UNIT
AIR QUALITY MODEL # AUTOCLEAN 8000WP

MAKE-UP AIR UNIT
CAPTIVEAIRE MODEL # EAA3G18MPU

CONDENSER UNIT
CAPTIVEAIRE MODEL # 24ABB360
EXISTING 4" ROOF DRAIN AND OVERFLOW DRAIN

EXISTING ROOF CRICKET
EXISTING ROOFING TO PROTECT AND REMAIN IN PLACE.

REPAIR AS NEEDED
ROOF ACCESS HATCH, SEE DETAIL 16/A-107.

TOP OF EXISTING PARAPET

PROVIDE WALK-WAY PAD

TOP OF EXISTING ROOF
HEIGHT: 43" COLOR: GRAY PRE-PAINTED
690 GALVANIZED STEEL
HEIGHT: 37.50" COLOR: SPUN ALUMINUM &
G90 GALVANIZED
HEIGHT: 46.90" COLOR: PAINT TO MATCH

PARAPET WALL COLOR
HEIGHT: 46.90" COLOR: GRAY
HEIGHT: 73.49" COLOR: PAINT TO MATCH

PARAPET WALL COLOR
HEIGHT: 76.38" COLOR: PAINT TO MATCH

PARAPET WALL COLOR
HEIGHT: 49.50" COLOR: GRAY PRE-PAINTED G90

GALVANIZED STEEL
ROOF LADDER, SEE DETAIL 5/A-107.

R16 TOP OF EXISTING PITCH ROOF
R17 EXISTING WALL BELOW
R18 ROOF HYDRANT
R19 PLUMBING VENTS, SEE DETAIL 13/A-107.

R17
(E) SLOPE
(E) SLOPE(E) SLOPE
A-107
5 Scale= 3/4" = 1'-0"

EXTERIOR ROOF LADDER DETAIL
(E) ROOF SHEETING - 12'-8"
(E) STUCCO FINISH SEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW
PAINT FINISH, G.C. TO REPAIR AS NECESSARY
(E) PLYWOOD SHEATHING
1 1/2" X 1 1/2" SUPPORT ANGLES

WELDED TO STEEL SIDE RAILS
(E) ROOF PARAPET - 19'-0"
1'-0"
3'-8"
3'-01
4"
8"
113
4"
3'-0"
3/4"x2'-0" STL. RODS @ 12" O.C. VERT.

SECURED TO 2"x1/4" STL. RAILS (STRINGER)
10 1/2" X 4 X 3/8" FLAT WELDED TO 2 1/4" STRINGER AND 4" X 4" X 1/4" X 3"L ANGLE FASTENED THRU WALL WITH GAL. 6" X 3/4" BOLT, PRE-DRILL METAL PANEL WHERE OCCURS
LADDER GUARD DOOR WITH LOCK. G.C. TO
PROVIDE AND INSTALL. COLOR TO MATCH LADDER
NOTE:

ROOF LADDER SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED BY G.C., LADDER
MUST BE OSHA APPROVED. COLOR IRON ORE SW 7069
R9"
PROVIDE 2-2x6 BLOCKING AT
THIRD POINTS IN WALL. INSTALL
1- 1/4" METAL SHIM THROUGH

EIFS AROUND BOLT
8"3"
2" GALV. GRIP STRUT PLANK
NOTE 1: IF A LEAD FLASHING IS

PRESENT ON THE PIPE, IT

MUST BE REMOVED BEFORE A

DURO-LAST STACK FLASHING
IS INSTALLED.

NOTE 2: MEMBRANE

ATTACHMENT AROUND THE

PENETRATION WILL BE THE

SAME AS THE DECK
MEMBRANE, MAX. 18-INCHES

ON CENTER, AND A MINIMUM

ONE PLATE/FASTENER PER
FLASHING.

STAINLESS STEEL BAND
POSITIONED 1/4" FROM THE

TOP OF THE STACK FLASHING

STAINLESS STEEL BAND

TYPICAL VENT PIPE
DECK
A-107
13 Scale= NTS

PLUMBING VENT DETAIL
8" MIN.
5/8" PLYWOOD OVER
3 5/8" METAL STUDS
@ 16" O.C. - TYP. ALL

SIDES OF LADDER

OPENING
2'-6" x 3'-0" BILCO TYPE "S"

ACCESS HATCH

TELESCOPING SAFETY POST
"LADDERUP" MODEL LU-1

OR APPROVED EQUAL

LADDER RUNGS TO BE
2 1
4" SERRATED ALUM.
2 1/2" ALUM CHANNEL SIDE
RAILS .
4 1/2" x 1/4" BENT ALUM.

PLATE CLIP@ 4'-0" O.C. MAX
WITH 1/2" OVER M.B. THRU
FRAMING AND 1/2" OVER M.B.

THRU RAIL
2X12 BLOCKING IN WALL

AT ALL LADDER
CONNECTION POINTS.

CLIP ANCHOR BLOCKING

TO STUDS EACH SIDE
4'-0" MAX
6"
1'-6"

END VIEW SIDE VIEW
REF. RCP

FRP ON ALL

INTERIOR SURFACES
(TYPICAL)
1"

CEILING AS SCHEDULED
REF. REFLECTED CEILING
PLAN - TYP.
1'-0" TYP.

HOLD FRAMING BACK

FROM INSIDE FACE OF
CURB 1/8" ON ALL SIDES

TO PROVIDE TERMINATION

POINT FOR FRP
HATCH
CURB 1/8"

FRP J-MOULD
5/8" PLYWOOD OVER
3 5/8" METAL STUDS
@ 16" O.C. - BEHIND LADDER
61 2"
6"
1'-0" MAX.
1'-0" MAX.

LADDERS TO BE ALUMIMUM, UNPAINTED
MILL FINISH.

LADDER SOURCE:

PRECISION LADDER LLC
423-586-2265
WWW.PRECISIONLADDERS.COM
S.S WALL CAP BY G.C.
1/8" MOLDED

POLYURETHANE

SAFETY CAPS

TOP & BOTTOM
(E) I-BEAM
(E) 2X6 MEMBER
(E) 2X6 MEMBER(E) 2X MEMBERS
6"
6"
6"
3"
A-107
18 Scale= NTS

MECHANICAL CURB DETAIL

ROOF TOP MECHANICAL UNIT

REFER MEP DRAWINGS

COUNTERFLASHING

SINGLE PLY ROOF

MEMBRANE

PRE-MANUFACTURED

INSULATED ROOF CURB

PLYWOOD ROOF DECK
REF. STRUCTURAL
2X WOOD SUPPORTS WHERE

PERPENDICULAR TO JOISTS
REF. STRUCTURAL
ROOF INSULATION. REFER

ROOF PLAN

WOOD JOISTS
REF. STRUCTURAL
8" MIN.

Page 15 of 19 ends

Berkeley City CouncilMay 10, 2022

Berkeley City Council
May 10, 2022