Berkeley City Council
July 9, 2024

6 Part I: Background

A. Problem definition

About a thousand Berkeley residents experience homelessness on a given night. Most of those Berkeleyans—about 75 percent—are unsheltered, meaning that they sleep in a tent, vehicle, or on the street rather than in a shelter or interim housing.1

Homelessness is a regional problem with roots beyond Berkeley’s borders, driven by a shortage of affordable housing and federal disinvestment during the twentieth century.2 Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 17 percent of households in the Bay Area had extremely low incomes, making an average of $17,800 per year. More than half of these households were at high risk of losing their housing.3 Rising housing costs and pandemic-related instability have put further pressures on this population.4 As of 2022, more than 38,000 people in the nine-county Bay Area were homeless on a given night, a nine percent increase since 2019.5

That said, Berkeley’s level of homelessness is disproportionate among its neighbors. Berkeley residents make up about seven percent of Alameda County’s population, but were 11 percent of unsheltered people on a given night in 2022.6

Figure 1: Berkeley’s rate of unsheltered homeless people is higher than area counties Homeless people per 100,000 population

Unsheltered people per 100,000 population

Source: 2022 PIT Count

1 EveryOne Home, “Berkeley 2022 Point in Time Count: Unsheltered & Sheltered Report,” accessed February 16, 2024, https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Berkeley-PIT-2022-Infographic-Report.pdf. 2 Greg Rosalsky, “How California Homelessness Became A Crisis,” NPR, June 8, 2021, https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/06/08/ 1003982733/squalor-behind-the-golden-gate-confronting-californias- homelessness-crisis.
3 Carolina Reid, “On the Edge of Homelessness: The Vulnerability of Extremely Low-Income Households in the Bay Area” (Terner Center for Housing Innovation, December 2021), https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ELI- Households-Bay-Area-Report-Final-1.pdf.
4 Christian Leonard and Sriharsha Devulapalli, “Bay Area Real Estate: Where Rent or Mortgages Hurt Residents Most,” accessed February 16, 2024, https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/housing-costs-rent-mortgage-18535110.php. 5 Analysis of 2019 and 2022 PIT data.
6 EveryOne Home, “Berkeley 2022 Point in Time Count: Unsheltered & Sheltered Report.”

7 Unsheltered people are vulnerable to a wide range of harms. They have high rates of chronic health conditions and low access to health care. The trauma of living on the street can cause or exacerbate physical and mental health conditions and substance abuse disorders.7 They are also highly vulnerable to crime: more than a third of homeless people surveyed in California said that they had been physically victimized while homeless.8 Between 2018 and 2020, at least 809 people in Alameda County died while experiencing homelessness.9

These harms fall disproportionately on people of color. Black residents make up eight percent of Berkeley’s population but 45 percent of the sheltered homeless population in the 2022 Point-in-Time Count. Native American and Latine Berkeleyans are also overrepresented.10 A long history of racist policies such as redlining have made people of color in Berkeley and elsewhere more vulnerable to losing their homes and less able to rely on a safety net when they do.11

Unsheltered homelessness also has an impact on the community where it occurs. Some people experiencing homelessness use public services at high rates—for instance, 38 percent of homeless people in California reported that they had made an emergency room visit that did not result in hospitalization in the last six months.12 A study in Santa Clara County found that the public cost of medical care and justice system involvement for homeless people was $520 million, with just five percent of the homeless population accounting for 47 percent of these costs.13 Additionally, surveys of Bay Area residents regularly find that unsheltered homelessness impacts their perceptions and feelings of safety in their community.14

B. Report background

In July 2021, Berkeley City Council voted to endorse the All Home California Regional Action Plan (RAP), which seeks to reduce the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness across the nine- county Bay Area region by 75 percent.15

One central component of the Regional Action Plan is the concept of “system flow.” In a functioning homelessness response system, there are adequate permanent housing resources to move people out of homelessness, and there are adequate prevention resources to prevent people from falling into homeless in the first place—meaning that fewer people end up relying on emergency shelter and other

7 Margot Kushel and Tiana Moore, “Toward a New Understanding: The California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness,” June 2023, https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2023-06/CASPEH_Report_62023.pdf. 8 Ibid.
9 Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, “Alameda County 2018-2020 Homeless Mortality Report,” March 2022, https://www.achch.org/uploads/7/2/5/4/72547769/2018-2020_ac_homeless_mortality_report_final_4.11.2022.pdf. 10 EveryOne Home, “Berkeley 2022 Point in Time Count: Unsheltered & Sheltered Report.” 11 “Homelessness and Racial Disparities,” National Alliance to End Homelessness, December 2023, https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/what-causes-homelessness/inequality/; Kate Cimini, “Black People Disproportionately Homeless in California,” CalMatters, October 5, 2019, http://calmatters.org/california-divide/2019/10/black-people-disproportionately-homeless-in-california/. 12 Kushel and Moore, “Toward a New Understanding: The California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness.” 13 “Home Not Found: The Cost of Homelessness in Silicon Valley,” accessed April 1, 2024, https://destinationhomesv.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/FactSheetDestinationHome.pdf.
14 For example: Sarah Ravani, “Oaklanders Say Homelessness Is the Most Urgent Issue Facing the City,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 3, 2023, https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/oakland-homelessness-survey-priority-17816397.php. 15 “Item 12: Endorse All Home CA Regional Action,” July 13, 2021, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 07-13%20Item%2012%20Endorse%20All%20Home% 20CA%20Regional%20Action.pdf.

8 services. In our current homelessness response system, too many people are entering homelessness and too few are exiting, leading to a bottleneck of people who are currently homeless.

Figure 2: System flow diagram from the All Home Regional Action Plan (RAP)

Source: All Home Regional Action Plan

The RAP’s 1-2-4 framework encourages local governments to fund homelessness prevention and permanent housing solutions alongside emergency shelter and interim housing. The framework broadly suggests that policymakers fund two units of permanent housing and four slots of homelessness prevention for every additional unit of shelter. That said, the RAP acknowledges that the ideal mix of investments will look different for different localities.

This report makes recommendations for how Berkeley can recalibrate and prioritize its investments to align with the Regional Action Plan. It gives an overview of Berkeley’s current homelessness system of care and analyzes the needs and demographics of people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley. Lastly, it describes the results of modeling developed by All Home to project the resources needed over the next ten years to achieve a significant reduction in street homelessness.

9 Part II: Berkeley’s Current System of Care

This section provides an overview of the homelessness services available to Berkeley residents and contextualizes the City of Berkeley’s current investments in these services. I use the HUD Housing Inventory Count (HIC)16, Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data, City of Berkeley budget documentation, shelter capacity reporting, and referrals to the county’s Coordinated Entry housing queue to paint a picture of the system as a whole.

A. Homelessness and affordable housing programs used by Berkeley residents

Berkeley residents experiencing homelessness receive assistance through a constellation of service providers and governments, paid for by a mix of city, county, state, and federal funds. Berkeley is part of the Alameda County Continuum of Care, meaning that many services are coordinated county-wide and Berkeley residents have access to services outside of the city’s borders.17 That said, this analysis largely focuses on services within Berkeley, given that people tend to stay local when seeking shelter and assistance.

Berkeley’s homelessness system of care was dramatically reshaped by the COVID-19 pandemic, in ways that are reflected in the data in this section. The pandemic response brought unprecedented new resources and new priorities, including increased need for non-congregate shelter and reduced capacity in congregate shelters. As of 2023, the system was adjusting to the new normal in the post-emergency period. Federal funds were rapidly drawing down and the City and County were providing additional services to transition people out of temporary FEMA shelters.

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

Non-congregate shelter beds have become more common, though most are designated for specific purposes. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, new shelter beds in Berkeley are increasingly likely to be in non-congregate settings, meaning that residents have a private room or space rather than sleeping in a dorm-style shelter. When paired with case management and housing navigation on site, this model is sometimes referred to as “interim housing.”18

More than a third of Berkeley’s shelter beds were non-congregate as of the 2023 HIC count, more than triple the number of non-congregate beds available in 2021. Several additional non-congregate shelters opened in Berkeley later in 2023, such as the Dorothy Day House University Community Shelter. This growth has made up for the closure of the FEMA COVID-19 shelters in 2022.

16 The HIC includes permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, emergency shelter, transitional housing, and safe havens. It is a point-in-time count at the start of each year and only includes services that are intended solely for homeless people, so the number of beds reported will not include services that opened midyear or services that do not screen for literal homelessness. 17 Continua of Care, or CoCs, are HUD-mandated regional collaborations of governments and nonprofits that coordinate services, funding, and data across communities.
18 Gail Gilman, “Strengthening Interim Housing as a Housing First Approach,” All Home, March 20, 2023, https://www.allhomeca.org/2023/03/20/strengthening-interim-housing/.

10 Figure 3: Berkeley now has more non-congregate shelter beds

Proportion of shelter beds in non-congregate settings.

Source: 2021–2023 HIC

Non-congregate shelters in Berkeley are almost exclusively dedicated to specific populations, with funding streams for particular purposes. For instance, several are intended for people from specific encampments, while others serve populations such as families or SSI recipients. These non-congregate shelters necessarily have lower capacity than congregate shelters, with an average of 22 beds per facility.

Nevertheless, during 2023 non-congregate shelters served 317 individual people out of the 900 who accessed shelter.

Congregate shelters have barriers to entry for many homeless people. During January and February of 2024, 82 percent of available shelter beds were occupied each night on average.19 This rate is slightly below the national average occupancy rate of 88 percent in 2023, though the methodology used to calculate that occupancy rate is slightly different.20 Non-congregate shelters had higher levels of utilization: 93 percent of beds in non-congregate shelters were full on average, compared to 79 percent of beds in congregate shelters.

Providers and City staff report that matching a person with shelter is more complex than simply finding an empty bed. People have physical limitations or needs that make some shelter beds inappropriate for them—for instance, they cannot physically climb onto a top bunk or need to stay with family members.

Restrictive rules such as curfews and pet policies also play a role, though many shelters in Berkeley are moving away from these restrictions. The two shelters in Berkeley with the earliest nightly curfews

19 This analysis excluded the Ursula Sherman Village families shelter because of the limitations of using bed counts for family shelters (“How Do I Calculate a Unit Utilization Rate?,” HUD Exchange, November 2017, https://www.hudexchange.info/faqs/reporting-systems/homelessness-data-exchange-hdx/ahar/understanding-utilization-rates- in-the-ahar/how-do-i-calculate-a-unit-utilization-rate2). It also excludes the HCEB Rodeway to Home Shelter and IH Berkeley Respite Shelter because both are winding down operations and no longer taking new enrollments. For nights where over 100 percent of beds were occupied, I set the rate to 100 percent. 20 HUD simply divides the number of sheltered homeless people by the number of ES, TH, and SH beds available at the PIT count, a method that captures a much larger variation in settings. The 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report Congress Part 1: Point-In-Time Estimates of Homelessness, December 2023, December 2023, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2023-AHAR-Part-1.pdf, p. 11.

Non-congregate
Congregate
FEMA shelters

11 during this period also had the lowest occupancy rates, with an average of 71 percent occupancy each night.

Street outreach providers report that people are especially skeptical of congregate shelters due to concerns about safety, theft, and past trauma. One outreach team recorded that eighty percent of the people who declined offers of shelter were concerned about the fact that it was a shared space or that it was co-ed. All of these factors make congregate shelter less attractive and less accessible for a large portion of the unhoused population. City’s Homelessness Response Team has reported that people living in encampments are far more likely to accept offers of shelter when they are non-congregate than congregate.21

Figure 4: Non-congregate shelters consistently have higher utilization rates

Berkeley shelter utilization rates, January to February 2024.

Source: HMIS weekly housing census

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

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

21 Interview with Markos Gonzalez, Bay Area Community Services; “Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) Grant Application and Budget Match, Budget and Finance Policy Committee, January 25, 2024, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-attachments/ITEM%2003%20- %20ENCAMPMENT%20RESOLUTION%20FUNDING%20%28ERF%29%20PRESENTATION% 20%28STAFF%29.pdf Non-congregate
Congregate

12 The permanent supportive housing available in 2023 represents an increase of nearly one hundred beds from the 2022 HIC. The city added both the HOPE Center in downtown Berkeley and the Golden Bear Hotel during 2022. There are additional PSH units in the pipeline set to open in the coming years.22

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

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

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

Figure 5: Berkeley has expanded its supply of permanent supportive housing

Point-in-time count of permanent housing beds in the last week of January of each year. RRH inventory based on project stays.

Source: 2021–2023 HIC

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

22 For instance, the Step-Up Housing Project will provide 39 additional units, and the Maudelle Miller Shirek development will also include some PSH units https://www.self-sufficiency.org/boss-housing-projects; https://rcdhousing.org/maudelle-miller- shirek/

13 served over 300 people, and clients enrolled in RRH during 2023 spent a median of 241 days in the program in total.

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

Figure 6: Berkeley housing and shelter beds capacity, 2023

Number of beds/slots in Berkeley vs. number of people served by programs over the course of 2023. For most programs, multiple people cycle in and out of a single bed over the course of a year.

Source: 2023 HIC; HMIS

A small proportion of federal vouchers are designated for people experiencing homelessness. The Berkeley Housing Authority administers the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, sometimes known as Section 8, which is one of the main ways the federal government subsidizes housing for low-income people. As of November 2023, the BHA had authority for 2,110 vouchers, which are distributed to households in Berkeley who make less than fifty percent area median income.23 The need for these vouchers far outstrips demand: when the BHA opened its waitlist for the first time in over ten years in 2022, over 21,000 households applied.24

23 Not all of these vouchers were in use: Berkeley’s voucher utilization rate was 76 percent as of 2023. “Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Data Dashboard,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), accessed April 14, 2024, https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/dashboard. 24 Supriya Yelimeli, “Over 21,000 Applied for Just 2,000 Section 8 Housing Vouchers in Berkeley,” Berkeleyside, September 8, 2022, http://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/09/08/berkeley-section-8-voucher-lottery-applications.

14 Figure 7: Eight percent of Berkeley’s vouchers are designated for people experiencing homelessness

Proportion of Berkeley Housing Authority voucher awards in Special Purpose Voucher programs, plus one-time EHVs Source: HUD HCV Data Dashboard

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

These include Veterans Authority Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers, which are designated for homeless veterans, and “mainstream” vouchers, which are designated for non-elderly disabled people referred through the Coordinated Entry system. BHA project-based vouchers also fund the operations of two permanent supportive housing SRO buildings, Erna P . Harris Courts and UA Homes.25 Lastly, HUD issued 51 Emergency Housing Vouchers to Berkeley in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These vouchers were distributed through Coordinated Entry, but they were a one-time expansion and will not continue after current voucher-holders give them up. BHA does not currently prioritize people experiencing homelessness for regular Housing Choice Vouchers, though this is allowed by federal law.26

Berkeley is now prioritizing people experiencing homelessness for some other subsidized housing.

Berkeley has over 2,000 subsidized or regulated affordable housing units for low-income people, funded by a range of overlapping funding sources and programs. As of 2024, there were 1,537 units in Berkeley that received funding from the City’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF), which leverages state and federal sources such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. The City also monitors 597 units of regulated below- market-rent (BMR) housing that are required by the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance.27 Some of these units are designated for people experiencing homelessness—for instance, the HTF supports permanent supportive housing projects, and a portion of BMR units are set aside for permanent supportive housing voucher tenants.

Affordable units that are not specifically dedicated to homeless people are often not accessible to them:
competition for these units is steep, and they are often not affordable to people with extremely low or zero income. However, the City recently adopted a preference policy that gives people who have lost or are at risk of losing housing in Berkeley priority for units regulated by the City. One of the preferences

25 “Housing for Disabled & Homeless Individuals (SROs),” Berkeley Housing Authority, accessed April 14, 2024, https://bha.berkeleyca.gov/bha-programs/housing-disabled-homeless-individuals-sros. 26 Under current BHA policy, people on the waitlist are prioritized if they live/work in Berkeley, are a veteran, are elderly or disabled, and are a family with more than two people in the household. 2022 Administrative Plan for Section 8 Programs, https://bha.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022%20Administrative%20Plan.pdf. 27 Correspondence with City staff.

15 applies to people who are currently homeless in Berkeley and not eligible for permanent supportive housing, as well as people at risk of homelessness who live in Berkeley.28

Prevention, retention, and problem-solving
Flexible funds and housing navigation help people in a variety of circumstances. Berkeley’s system of care funds a wide range of services intended to support people along their path to housing, including short- term rental assistance, counseling, legal help, move-in assistance, and housing search assistance.

Figure 8: Most people served by flex funds and navigation come from homelessness

Recorded residence of people served by flex funds and navigation programs during 2023.

Source: HMIS

The purpose of these services can vary, from supporting people who are entering housing, to retaining them once they are there, to preventing vulnerable people from falling into homelessness in the first place. That said, resources in Berkeley generally go first to people who are currently homeless or were recently rehoused—with limited funds, prevention is a lesser priority.

Many of these resources are distributed to service providers as “flex funds,” which they can use to support clients with move-in costs, one-time rental assistance, and tenancy supports. The Housing Resource Center also provides problem-solving and navigation services to help people who have recently become homeless regain their footing, for instance by connecting them to a family member willing to take them in. In 2023, 469 unique people were served by flex funds or housing navigation services. More than two-thirds of people enrolling reported that they were literally homeless at the time they enrolled.

Berkeley’s eviction prevention programming has expanded in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The City of Berkeley spent $1.6 million on homelessness prevention services in FY 2022–23, including eviction defense services, rental assistance, and domestic violence survivor advocacy. According to city budget documents, this translated to 460 households served.29

Berkeley had an housing retention program prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it was transformed by the pandemic-era eviction moratoria and an infusion of federal funds. Berkeley now provides assistance

28 “City Council Report: Item 32 Referral Response Affordable Housing Preference Policy for Rental Housing Created Through the Below Market Rate and Housing Trust Fund Programs,” July 11, 2023, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 2023-07-11%20Item%2032%20Referral%20Response%20Affordable.pdf. 29 Because these enrollments are not recorded in HMIS, this figure may double-count households who accessed multiple services over the course of the fiscal year.

16 up to a higher dollar amount and can cover expenses such as utilities in addition to rent. 30 Service providers report that these expansions have increased their ability to help people stay housed, though many families simply cannot afford to live in the area for the longer term.31

The City’s eviction prevention programs are less targeted to those most at risk of homelessness compared to programs in other cities in the area. The City’s current housing retention program is primarily intended to prevent eviction and displacement in general rather than homelessness specifically.32 The program targets resources based on factors such as whether the recipient is a senior citizen, a long-term resident of the city, or very low-income.

In the last few years, more jurisdictions around the Bay Area have used targeted homelessness prevention to direct assistance to the families most at risk. For instance, both Oakland and San Francisco use factors such as past episodes of homelessness, justice system involvement, and living in a vulnerable neighborhood that are predictive of falling into homelessness. San Francisco provides assistance to people without formal leases, a group that is especially vulnerable to falling into homelessness.33 A randomized control trial (RCT) of Santa Clara County’s targeted prevention program found that it was effective at reducing rates of homelessness compared to a control group.34

The City’s shallow subsidy program is not very shallow. In 2022, the City began funding a rental assistance program that provides up to 36 months of assistance to Berkeley households. The program is part of a larger movement towards medium-term “shallow” subsidies, which offer monthly rental assistance for up to a few years. Alameda County’s 2021 Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design report identified shallow subsidies as a solution for households paying more than fifty percent of their income on rent and unlikely to increase their income, but without significant disabilities.35 That year, Oakland launched a shallow subsidy pilot that is focused on preventing homelessness for people with high cost burdens.36 Cities such as Los Angeles and the Veteran’s Authority (VA) have also recently launched shallow subsidy programs.37

30 “Housing Retention Program,” accessed April 25, 2024, https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/affordable-housing- berkeley/housing-retention-program.
31 Interview with Eric Magaña, Eviction Defense Center
32 “City Council Report: Item 13 Budget Referral Supplemental Funding” (City of Berkeley, November 7, 2023), https://berkeleyca.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/2023-11- 07%20Item%2013%20Budget%20Referral%20Supplemental%20Funding.pdf. 33 “SF ERAP Program Rules,” City and County of San Francisco, accessed April 14, 2024, https://www.sf.gov/information/sf-erap- program-rules.
34 David C. Phillips and James X. Sullivan, “Do Homelessness Prevention Programs Prevent Homelessness? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, May 29, 2023, 1–30, https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01344.
35 “Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design” (EveryOne Home, January 2021), https://everyonehome.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/02/2021-Centering-Racial-Equity-in-Homeless-System-Design-Full-Report-FINAL.pdf. 36 Oakland Shallow Subsidy Pilot. https://www.oaklandfund.org/oakland-shallow-subsidy-housing-pilot/. 37 “COVID-19 Homeless System Response: Shallow Rental Subsidies” (HUD Exchange), accessed April 5, 2024, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/COVID-19-Homeless-System-Response-Shallow-Rental-Subsidies.pdf; “Shallow Subsidy Compliance Guide,” VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families, November 2021, https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/ssvf/docs/ Shallow_Subsidy_Compliance_Guide.pdf.

17 Figure 9: Berkeley’s shallow subsidy program is focused on people who are currently homeless Berkeley shallow
subsidy program
Oakland shallow
subsidy pilot
VA shallow subsidy
program
Funding limit Up to $1,800 per month
Up to 36 months
Up to $800 per month
Up to 18 months
Up to 50 percent of
“reasonable” rent
Up to two years
Target population
Currently homeless people
without significant
disabilities
People at risk of
homelessness (must be
housed to be eligible)
Veteran households with
sufficient income to pay,
often after participating in
RRH
Wrap-around
services
Tenancy sustaining
services, housing
navigation, employment
services
Referrals to other service
providers
Light case management
services
Source: Oakland shallow subsidy pilot; VA Shallow Subsidy Compliance Guide; Berkeley shallow subsidy program documentation

That said, Berkeley’s program differs from other programs in some important respects. Unlike Oakland, Berkeley chose to target its program to people who are currently homeless. This difference in prioritization means that the program must provide more wrap-around services and a much deeper subsidy, up to $1,800 per month as opposed to $800 in Oakland.38 It has also served as a bridge for some people transitioning out of rapid rehousing. The program is relatively small, serving 49 people over the course of 2023.

Basic needs and outreach
There are several day shelters and drop-in centers in Berkeley that provide storage space, shower services, hot meals, and other daily needs for unsheltered people. The drop-in centers that record enrollments in HMIS served nearly 2,000 unique people over the course of 2023, though this total probably include people who are not homeless or live outside of Berkeley.39 There are also a range of services that address the basic needs of people experiencing homelessness, including medical care, laundry trucks, and hot meals.

The City and nonprofit service providers also conduct street outreach to people who are unsheltered.

Some of this outreach is associated with facilities such as the STAIR Center that also provide shelter and case management. In 2023, nearly 600 unduplicated people were enrolled with a street outreach program. There are also several street outreach programs that do not report their data in HMIS, such as an outreach worker employed by the Downtown Business Association.

38 “Measure P: Contract No. 31900273 Amendment- Bay Area Community Services (BACS) North County Housing Resource Center – Shallow Subsidy Program,” November 15, 2022, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-11- 15%20Item%2008%20Measure%20P%20Contract%20No.%2031900273.pdf; interview with Logan McDonnell and Kelsey Knutson.
39 The Dorothy Day House drop-in center and the Network of Mental Health Clients drop-in center do not record enrollments in HMIS. In general, drop-in center data should be interpreted with caution.

18 B. The City of Berkeley’s current investments in homelessness

The City of Berkeley allocated approximately $35 million in expenditures related to homelessness, housing insecurity, and affordable housing in FY 2023–24. While this was an unusually high level of expenditure, Berkeley generally spends more on housing and homelessness than many other area cities.

Fremont, for instance, allocated about $15 million to affordable housing and homelessness in FY 2023– 24 despite having about the same number of people experiencing homelessness.40

Measure P is the largest source of funding for homelessness services. Voters approved Measure P in 2018, increasing the real estate transfer tax on high-value properties, and City Council dedicated those revenues to services related to homelessness. The measure largely funds community nonprofits to provide services such as shelter, housing assistance, and basic needs, but also pays the salaries of City staff who work in program administration and outreach.

Figure 10: Measure P is the dominant funding source for homelessness services Measure P revenues, FY 2020 through 2025

Homelessness services fund sources, FY 2024

Source: City budget documents

Measure P made up the largest part of the more than $35 million the City allocated to affordable housing, homelessness services, and tenant supports in the 2023–24 fiscal year. In addition to Measure P , the City uses its Housing Trust Fund and a general obligation bond passed by voters in 2018 to contribute to capital costs for housing that serves homeless people.41 It also allocates funds from Measure U1, a gross receipts tax on certain rental unit owners, to pay for affordable housing development and homelessness prevention services such as eviction defense.

Berkeley has received multiple rounds of state Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) grants for non- congregate hotel/motel shelters targeted to people living in specific encampments. The City committed a local one-to-one match for future years of operation for these shelters. The City also allocates federal

40 City of Fremont adopted operating budget, FY 2023–24: https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13972/ 638295969592101680; City of Fremont PIT Count, 2022: https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Fremont-PIT- 2022-Infographic-Report.pdf
41 “City Council Report: Item 14 Measure O Bond Impacts on Affordable Housing Development in Berkeley” (City of Berkeley, November 21, 2023), https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-11- 21%20Item%2014%20Measure%20O%20Bond% 20Impacts.pdf.

19 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) funds to homelessness services.

The City acts as the lead agency on some projects that it does not fund, such as the Winter Respite Shelter funded by the County. These projects are not included in this analysis.

Measure P revenues are not guaranteed in the future. Since its passage, Measure P has generally brought in around $10 million per year, though revenues spiked in FY 2021–22 due to an unusual number of high- value real estate transactions. City staff have estimated that revenues will be lower going forward: $6.5 million in the 2023–24 fiscal year and between $8 million and $9 million in the following years.42

Real estate transfer taxes are often highly volatile because they depend on the strength of the real estate market. Revenues are more likely to fall during times of economic strain, when there may be more need for the services that Measure P funds. In addition, Measure P sunsets in 2029 and will need to be renewed by voters.

In 2022, Berkeley voters passed Measure M, a vacancy tax that will tax residential property that is unoccupied for more than half the year. The City estimates that the tax will generate between $3.9 and $5.9 million dollars per year.43 These revenues will go to the General Fund, though backers have described building and preserving affordable housing as their intended purpose.

The City funds a full range of services, with a plurality of funding going towards permanent housing. City- funded services include permanent housing, emergency shelter, housing navigation, outreach, and basic needs such as medical care and hygiene services.

Figure 11: The City funds a wide range of homelessness services

City homelessness budget allocations from Measure P , CDBG, and other local funds. “Other” includes street outreach, basic needs such as storage lockers and street medicine, and administrative costs.

Source: City budget documents

42 “Measure P: FY25 Recommendations” (Homeless Services Panel of Experts, April 10, 2024), https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/Draft%20Agenda%20Package%20- %2004.10.24%20.pdf.
43 “Measure M - November 8, 2022 Election,” accessed April 15, 2024, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ Measure%20M%20-%20November%208%2C%202022%20Election.pdf.

20 Housing makes up the largest proportion of City homelessness funding. In the FY 2024–25 budget, programs such as permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, and housing navigation were about a third of City allocations, with prevention and shelter making up about 20 percent apiece.

Figure 12: City permanent housing expenditures include PSH, RRH, and other supports

City homelessness budget allocations for permanent housing-related services from Measure P , CDBG, and other local funds.. “Housing supports” include housing retention services, case management, and housing navigation.

Source: City budget documents

As described above, the City put dedicated funding into rapid rehousing in FY 2021–22 as part of a temporary program to transition people out of FEMA-funded shelters. Starting in FY 2022–23, the City has expanded its investment in permanent supportive housing projects such as the Step Up Housing project. The City also began funding a shallow subsidies program in 2023.44

44 This allocation was not fully expended during the 2022–23 fiscal year and was rolled over to the following fiscal year.

21 Part III: Homelessness in Berkeley

The purpose of this section is to outline who is homeless in Berkeley and how they interact with the system of care. I use service enrollment data from Alameda County’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), which tracks people across multiple enrollments and includes demographic information. For the most part, this section focuses on people homeless in Berkeley during 2023, but where feasible I make comparisons to 2021 and 2022.

A. Overview of homelessness in Berkeley

More than 2,000 people in Berkeley accessed services while homeless during 2023. Using HMIS data, I estimate that about 2,300 people experienced literal homelessness in Berkeley during calendar year 2023. This number represents the unduplicated count of people who accessed services located in Berkeley, excluding those enrolled in permanent housing for the entire year and those who did not report that they are homeless.45 This number translates to about two percent of the city’s population experiencing some form of literal homelessness over the course of the year.

Figure 13: More literally homeless people are accessing services in Berkeley

Unduplicated count of literally homeless people accessing services in Berkeley Source: HMIS

45 This methodology mirrors the approach used by the State of California’s Homelessness Data Integration System, which uses a the following definition of homelessness: “People are considered to be “experiencing homelessness” at any point in the selected time frame if they: 1) accessed lodging services through Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, and/or Safe Haven projects: 2) entered into a permanent housing project from homelessness (i.e., Permanent Supportive Housing, Housing Only, Housing with Services, Rapid Re-Housing); or 3) reported living in a homeless situation (e.g., they are living in a place not meant for habitation, such as a vehicle) at the time they accessed other services.” I also tried an alternative methodology used by Alameda County’s Home Together 2026 Strategic Plan to estimate the number of people homeless over the course of the year. This methodology uses the percentage of respondents in the PIT count who reported that they had been homeless for seven days or less and assumes that this is the weekly inflow rate for people experiencing homelessness. In the 2022 PIT Count, 2.4 percent of Berkeley respondents reported being homeless for less than seven days, meaning that about 25 people become homeless in Berkeley every week and 2,385 experienced homelessness over the course of 12 months. This number is slightly higher than the number of literally homeless people in HMIS during 2022 (2,105).

22 This number is another way of understanding the extent of homelessness in Berkeley, in addition to the more commonly cited Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. The most recent PIT count reported that 1,053 people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2022. However, a count at a single point in time do not capture the full impact of homelessness because people cycle in and out of homelessness during the course of the year. The 2024 PIT report is set to be released later this year, but the County used a different methodology for this year’s count, which may limit the comparability between 2022 and 2024.

Ultimately, both of these estimates are imperfect. The PIT count is generally understood to be an undercount, especially of unsheltered people, and it is highly dependent on the methodology used and on factors such as weather.46 HMIS data, on the other hand, may include people who live outside of Berkeley but access services in the city, since HMIS data does not generally include place of residence. It does not include Berkeley residents who experience homelessness but do not access services, a group that we know very little about. Changes how and whether people enroll in services—for instance, due to weather, increased outreach, or provider data practices—can also affect estimates based on HMIS data.

The number of people accessing homelessness services is trending upwards, but a larger proportion is accessing shelter. The number of people accessing services in 2023 represents about an 11 percent increase over 2022. A larger proportion of those people accessed shelter, probably reflecting increased shelter capacity: providers have opened new shelters such as the Inclement Weather Shelter and loosened COVID-era capacity restrictions in congregate shelters. Still, the raw number of people who were homeless and did not access shelter in Berkeley during the year was higher in 2023 than in 2022.

People experiencing homelessness in Berkeley are disproportionately Black and Indigenous. More than six in ten of the people who experienced homelessness during 2023 identified as Black, while Berkeley’s general population is less than ten percent Black. Seven percent of people who experienced homelessness during 2023 identified as Indigenous or Native American, a larger proportion than their representation in the general population.

46 For instance: Darrell Stanley, “Don’t Count On It: How the HUD Point-in-Time Count Underestimates the Homelessness Crisis in America” (National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, 2017), https://homelesslaw.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/HUD-PIT-report2017.pdf; Alistair Boone, “Why Couldn’t I Find Any Homeless People in Oakland?,” Bloomberg.Com, March 4, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-04/the-problem-with-hud-s-point-in- time-homeless-count.

23 Figure 14: Black and Indigenous people are overrepresented in Berkeley’s homelessness system of care

Demographics of people experiencing homelessness during 2023, compared to Berkeley residents in the 2023 ACS Source: HMIS; US Census Bureau American Community Survey

These disparities reflect historical and present institutional racist policies—including redlining and other forms of housing segregation—that make Black and Indigenous people more vulnerable to losing their homes and less able to find help from their networks when they do.47

The proportion of people with a disability appears to be trending up over time. Over eight in ten people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley had some type of disability in 2023, including severe mental illnesses (62 percent of all people reporting), physical disabilities (37 percent), and substance abuse disorders (39 percent). The proportion of people with disabilities and the proportion of people who are chronically homeless has increased from 2021 to 2023.48

47 “Homelessness and Racial Disparities,” National Alliance to End Homelessness, December 2023, https://endhomelessness.org/ homelessness-in-america/what-causes-homelessness/inequality/; Kate Cimini, “Black People Disproportionately Homeless in California,” CalMatters, October 5, 2019, http://calmatters.org/california-divide/2019/10/black- people-disproportionately-homeless-in-california/.
48 A chronically homeless person is defined by HUD someone who has a disability and has been literally homeless for at least 12 months, or on at least four separate occasions in the last three years.

24 Figure 15: Slightly more have a disability or are categorized as chronically homeless

Rate of disability and chronic homelessness among people experiencing homelessness over the course of year Source: HMIS

Among people who have been assessed for referral to permanent housing, vulnerability scores also trended up. These assessments evaluate risk factors such as disability, past trauma, and past homelessness to match people with permanent housing programs. Higher scores corresponding to higher vulnerability and a greater need for services. The average assessment score of people experiencing homelessness in 2021 was 53.9, which increased to 59.1 among people who experienced homelessness in 2023.49

Most people have been homeless for five years or less. About eleven percent of the people homeless during 2023 reported that their episode of homelessness started that year. More than half (54 percent) reported that their episode of homelessness had started at some point since January of 2019. A small number of people in Berkeley have been homeless for decades.

49 For people who have been assessed multiple times, this analysis uses the average of their scores.

25 Figure 16: Most people report that their homelessness started five years ago or less

Year episode of homelessness started among people homeless during 2023.

Source: HMIS

The number of people who reported becoming homeless in 2020 is lower than the number of reported becoming homeless in 2019 or 2021, possibly reflecting COVID-era shelter-in-place orders and policies that prevented evictions.

Most people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley are single adults. About 76 percent of people accessing services in Berkeley during this period were in single-person households, and an additional nine percent were in two-person households. Nearly nine in ten households were single adults.

Many people have only brief connections to the homelessness system of care. Most people—about 66 percent—enrolled in services only once between January 2021 and December 2023. More than a third of people experiencing homelessness during this period appeared at a day shelters or drop-in centers, where people access basic needs during the day and eat a hot meal. About 24 percent of people counted appeared only once at a drop-in center.

26 Figure 17: Service access among people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley Proportion enrolled in service during 2023

Average days enrolled during 2023

Left: Proportion of people experiencing literal homelessness during 2023 who enrolled in program type.

Right: Average days enrolled in program type during 2023 among people who enrolled.

Source: HMIS

That said, enrollments in shelter tend to be lengthier: the average person who enrolled in year-round emergency shelter during 2023 spent nearly five months there.

B. Unsheltered homelessness in Berkeley

Many people who access shelter also spend time unsheltered. Of the 2,300 people who accessed services in the City of Berkeley in 2023, 992 accessed emergency shelter or transitional housing at some point over the course of the year—about 42 percent. The remaining 58 percent of people captured by the data may have accessed services such as case management, street outreach, or drop-in centers while unsheltered, or may have entered a permanent housing program directly from unsheltered homelessness. Some may have accessed services and shelter outside of Berkeley’s borders.

Many of the people who did enroll in shelter or transitional housing at some point during the year also spent time unsheltered. Of year-round shelter enrollments during 2021–2023, seventy percent came from unsheltered homelessness and 17 percent exited to unsheltered homelessness. Including seasonal shelters, more than a third of the emergency shelter exits during 2021–2023 were to unsheltered homelessness.

27 Figure 18: Many people move between sheltered and unsheltered homelessness

Prior residence and exit destination of shelter enrollments, 2021–2023 (year-round shelters only) Source: HMIS

Unsheltered people in street outreach programs are more likely to be over thirty, male, and white. It is challenging to get accurate data about people who are unsheltered, since they are by definition less connected to services. People enrolled in street outreach programs is one imperfect approximation of the population that spends significant time unsheltered, though they probably do not capture people who spend only a short amount of time on the street before entering shelter or self-resolving.

Figure 19: Street outreach enrollees are more likely to be over thirty and male

All people accessing services during 2023 vs. people enrolled in a street outreach program during 2023 Source: HMIS

Exit destination from shelter Residence before entering shelter

28 More than nine in ten people enrolled in street outreach programs reported having some kind of disability. This group was also older on average and more likely to be white and male. They were more likely to spend time in seasonal shelter, probably reflecting that they are more vulnerable to weather.

29 Part IV: Inflows and Outflows

The purpose of this section is to examine homelessness in Berkeley at the system level. Largely using service data from HMIS, I estimate the rate of inflow into homelessness, the rate of exits to housing, and the number of people who fall back into homelessness soon after exiting. Where possible, I explore the demographics and needs of the people in Berkeley moving between homelessness and housing using both HMIS and PIT data.

Figure 20: More are entering or returning to homelessness than exiting, according to HMIS data

Estimated inflows to and outflows from homelessness in Berkeley during calendar year 2023 Source: HMIS

Figure 20 shows estimates of the number of people over the course of 2023 who entered homelessness, exited homelessness, and returned to homelessness within a year. These numbers should be thought of as very rough approximations due to the limitations of HMIS and PIT data, but give a sense of the scale movement in and out of homelessness over the course of the year in Berkeley.50

A. Inflows to homelessness

About a quarter to a third of the people who experienced homelessness during 2023 had been out of the homelessness system for at least five years. Of the approximately 2,300 people who were enrolled in a Berkeley program during 2023, 26 percent had not been enrolled in homelessness services in Alameda County at any point since 2018. 201 had never been recorded in an Alameda County homelessness program before—translating to about nine percent of people accessing services in 2023.

50 The number of newly homeless people is the number of people enrolling in services during 2023 who had not previously been enrolled in Alameda County since 2021. The number of people exiting to housing is the number who are recorded existing from Berkeley programs, plus an estimated ten percent who self-resolve or leave the area every year. The number of people who return to homelessness within a year is twenty percent of those who exit, based on the numbers in Part IV (C).

30 Figure 21: A quarter of people enrolled in 2023 had not accessed services for at least five years

Among literally homeless people enrolled in services during 2023, .

Source: HMIS

It should be noted that availability and daily needs affect how people access services. For instance, the number of people returning to services in Berkeley after time away increased notably during the winter months in 2022 and 2023, when weather may have driven more people indoors.

The homelessness response system doesn’t always catch people early in their episode of homelessness.

People who were new to the system often reported that their episode of homelessness started well before they first enrolled in a program—a median of 268 days for people who first enrolled in 2023.

About four in ten of the people new to the system in 2023 were designated as chronically homeless.51 This means that there are limitations to using this measure as an up-to-date indicator of inflows into homelessness, and that people are spending weeks or months unsheltered before accessing services.

Hispanic people are especially likely to be new to homelessness. More than six in ten Hispanic/Latine people experiencing homelessness during 2023 reported that their episode of homelessness had started sometime since January 2021, compared to about a third of people experiencing homelessness overall.52

51 A chronically homeless person is defined by HUD someone who has a disability and has been literally homeless for at least 12 months, or on at least four separate occasions in the last three years. Some of the delay in enrollment can be explained by the data practices used by providers. For instance, street outreach teams often spend months building relationships with unsheltered people before enrolling them in their programs. 52 There are also disparities when it comes to people who have been homeless for a long time. Nearly three in ten of white people accessing services during 2023 reported that their episode of homelessness started ten or more years ago, as opposed to 19 percent of people of color. Older people, people with disabilities, and people who identify as a gender other than male or female are also more likely to have been homeless for more than ten years.

31 Figure 22: The median episode of homelessness is shorter among people of color

Median length of time in years between self-reported date episode started and Jan.1, 2024, among people accessing services during 2023
Source: HMIS

The racial disparities in Berkeley’s homeless system of care reflect racial disparities in the population of people most at risk of falling into homelessness in the Bay Area. For instance, more than a quarter of Bay Area residents who are Black live in a household with an extremely low income, meaning that they make less than 30 percent of area median income (AMI).53

Most people experiencing homelessness were living with friends and relatives before becoming homeless.

Nearly six in ten people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley in the 2022 PIT count reported that their most recent residence before becoming homeless was a home owned or rented by friends or relatives.54 Less than a quarter had lived in a home they themselves owned or rented, where they were likely to have lease or other formal protections. This reflects that many people do not immediately enter a shelter or live on the street after being evicted or losing formal housing. Instead, they first double up with friends and family, then exhaust other options in a “gradual descent” towards literal homelessness.55

53 Reid, “On the Edge of Homelessness: The Vulnerability of Extremely Low-Income Households in the Bay Area.” 54 “2022 Homeless Survey Findings by County and Jurisdiction” (ASR), accessed April 25, 2024, https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/asr1451/viz/TableauAlamedaCounty-HDXandSurveyData/CityHDX. 55 Kushel and Moore, “Toward a New Understanding,” p. 19.

32 Figure 23: Most homeless people in Berkeley report that they last lived with friends and family

Reported last residence before becoming homeless among Berkeley respondents Source: 2022 PIT Count

About two-thirds of the people homeless in Berkeley surveyed in the 2022 PIT count reported that they had last lived in Alameda County before coming homeless. This figure is somewhat lower than among the County overall (82 percent), possibly reflecting that Berkeley is close to the border with Contra Costa County. 56

B. Exits from homelessness

About 300 people exited Berkeley’s homelessness programs to housing during 2023. During 2023, 215 people exited from Berkeley programs to permanent housing, and an additional 85 people exited to temporary housing situations.57

56 “2022 Homeless Survey Findings by County and Jurisdiction” (ASR). 57 This figure includes exits from year-round emergency shelter, temporary housing, and rapid rehousing programs. It excludes exits that are purely administrative, such as transitioning a shelter from one provider to another. For people with multiple exits during 2023, it counts only the last exit during the year.

33 Figure 24: Most exits are to subsidized housing or friends and family

Housing destinations of exits from shelter, transitional housing, and rapid rehousing homelessness during 2023 Source: HMIS

The vast majority of the permanent housing exits were to a rental with an ongoing housing subsidy (72 percent), which could include short-term subsidies, permanent supportive housing, below-market-rent housing, or a federal Housing Choice Voucher. About 16 percent exited to a rental with no ongoing subsidy, and 11 percent were planning to stay with family or friends.

In addition to the exits represented in these figures, there may be additional people who “self-resolve,” or exit homelessness without assistance from a program. These exits are often not captured by HMIS enrollment data because people who self-resolve may spend little or no time enrolled in programs.

Berkeley is moving more people into permanent housing compared to before the pandemic. Of all of the exits from year-round shelter, transitional housing, or rapid rehousing between 2021 and 2023, 28 percent were to homelessness and 32 percent were to permanent housing. In 2017, about half of exits were to homelessness.58

58 “City Council Report: Item 24 Referral Response: 1000 Person Plan,” March 26, 2019, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2019-03-26%20Item%2024%20Referral%20Response%20%201000%20Person%20Plan.pdf. The numbers reported here are slightly different than the numbers included in the original report. I removed exits from seasonal shelters and counted only the last exit per client per year so that the numbers would be comparable across years.

34 Figure 25: Fewer exits from Berkeley programs are to homelessness compared to pre-pandemic…

Percentage of exits from year-round ES, RRH, and TH to homelessness and permanent housing destinations.

For clients with multiple exits per year, counts the last exit only.

Source: HMIS

Fewer people are exiting to housing compared to 2021 or 2022, but it’s unclear whether more are exiting to homelessness from Berkeley programs. Nearly half of exits were to permanent housing in 2021, but this rate fell to about a third in 2023. This reduction was partially driven by the end of the temporary program intended to transition people out of FEMA emergency shelters, which lasted through 2021 and 2022. That said, there also more people exiting from emergency shelter without providing information about where they were going, which may also represent more people exiting to homelessness.

Figure 26: …but fewer people are exiting to permanent housing over last two years

Counts of exits from year-round ES, RRH, and TH to homelessness and housing destinations, 2021–2023.

For clients with multiple exits per year, counts the last exit only.

Source: HMIS
Exiting from emergency shelter Exiting from RRH Exiting from transitional housing Homelessness
Permanent housing
Temporary housing
Other/not recorded

2021

2022

2023

2021

2022

2023

2021

2022

2023

35 Non-disabled people are more likely to exit to housing. The people exiting to permanent housing from Berkeley programs are less vulnerable on average compared to people exiting to homelessness. They are less likely to have a disability and less likely to be chronically homeless, though these figures are still 75 percent and 50 percent, respectively. People exiting to housing are also more likely to be Black (64 percent). This pattern is likely related to the fact that rapid rehousing has the most exits to housing and also serves people with fewer vulnerabilities.

People wait more than nine months on average before they get into permanent housing programs.

Berkeley residents experiencing homelessness access permanent housing programs through the county- wide Coordinated Entry system. Once a household joins the housing queue, the system matches them to openings based on their level of need and likelihood of success in the program. Many people exit homelessness without ever going through Coordinated Entry, but it is the sole entry point to programs such as rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing.

Since July 2022, people in the north Alameda County region who were referred into a permanent housing program spent an average of 280 days, or about nine months, on the housing queue.59 One year after their initial referral to the queue, less than a quarter of had been housed, while about seven in ten were pending or had their referral expire.60

Figure 27: Less than a quarter are housed after a year on the queue

Status 365 days after referral was made, July 2022 – March 2024 Source: HMIS

Vulnerable people on the housing queue are stuck in a bottleneck. Over nine in ten people who spent time on the housing queue between July 2022 and March 2024 reported having some type of disability,

59 The North County region includes Berkeley, Albany, and Emeryville. I excluded people who were housed before July 2022 because the Coordinated Entry system changed its assessment methodology in July of 2021, which required staff to re-refer people to the housing queue and artificially reduced wait times. 60 Referrals expire if the person is inactive with the system for six months, often because they are out of contact with providers.

People in the “other removal” category were removed from the queue for some other reason, including passing away, moving out of the area, or finding their own housing.

36 and 70 percent were chronically homeless. About seven in ten had a vulnerability score above 80, which is the current threshold of eligibility for permanent supportive housing.61

People with higher vulnerability scores spend more time on the housing queue on average. Between July 2022 and March 2024, a person housed from the queue with a vulnerability score above 80 waited an average of 295 days, or about ten months, while a person with a score below 80 waited 237 days. This disparity is more extreme taking into account the fact that people with lower vulnerability scores may have other paths off of the housing queue. They are more likely to be removed from the queue for reasons like moving out of the area or self-resolving, or because their referral lapses.

Figure 28: People with higher needs tend to wait longer on the housing queue

Average wait time in months for people removed from queue during quarter (calendar years) Source: HMIS

Paperwork challenges also contribute to wait times. Providers report that there are also logistical roadblocks to moving through the queue. Many permanent housing programs require documentation of income, identity, and chronic homelessness status—all of which are challenging to obtain, especially for someone who is unsheltered. The barrier of being “doc ready” may contribute to the longer wait times for high-need people who are less able to manage the process of obtaining documentation. They may also contribute to the number of lower-needs people who become frustrated and disengage with the process, leading to expired referrals.

Taken together, these factors mean that the housing queue is largely composed of people with high needs, pointing to a serious lack of resources appropriate to this population. Of the 632 people with pending referrals as of the date of this analysis, 96 percent had a disability and 77 percent were chronically homeless.

There are racial and gender differences in how people move through the housing queue. People with vulnerability scores over 80 were more likely to identify as male (64 percent), more likely to be white (33 percent) and less likely to be Black (49 percent). Black women made up nearly a third of people in the lowest quartile of vulnerability scores (below 75).

61 People can be assessed multiple times over the course of their time in the queue. This analysis uses the most recent acuity score associated with the referral.

Vulnerability
score < 80
Vulnerability
score  80

37 Based on street outreach data, people who are long-term unsheltered in Berkeley are also more likely to be white and male than the general population of people experiencing homelessness. It may be the case that Berkeley residents of color have less of a safety net and are more vulnerable to homelessness even when their needs are not as acute, while white people must experience more serious problems before they end up on the streets. Researchers have found racial bias in one assessment used by Continua of Care to match people with resources, though a 2020 analysis as part of the County’s Centering Racial Equity report found no racial disparities in their custom prioritization tool. 62

In the context of Berkeley’s homelessness system of care, people who receive lower assessment scores may get off of the housing queue faster—but they receive short-term housing resources with less support than the permanent supportive housing that people with higher scores are waiting for.

C. Returns to homelessness

About one in five exits return to homelessness within a year. Of the people who exited to permanent housing during 2021 and 2022, 19 percent came back to homelessness services in Alameda County within a year. About ten to fifteen percent return within six months across the years covered in the data.63

Figure 29: About one in five who exited homelessness during 2021 returned within a year

Proportion of people who exited during 2021 who had returned to homelessness services at each time period Source: HMIS

Older people and people with disabilities are more likely to return to homelessness. People with disabilities were also more likely to return to homelessness, especially people with substance abuse

62 Catriona Wilkey et al., “Coordinated Entry Systems: Racial Equity Analysis of Assessment Data” (C4 Innovations, October 2019), https://c4innovates.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/CES_Racial_Equity_Analysis_2019-.pdf; “Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design,” p. 12.
63 HUD’s system performance measures do not count returns to projects other than emergency shelter, transitional housing, safe havens, and permanent housing, so these numbers are not totally comparable to those reported in other communities.

38 disorders (28 percent). Of the people who returned to homelessness within a year, six in ten were chronically homeless.

People exiting to rapid rehousing were most likely to return to homelessness. People exiting to unsubsidized housing, or to family and friends, were about as likely to return to homelessness as people with some kind of subsidy.64 There was variation in the rate of return among different types of subsidy.

More than a third of people who exited to rapid rehousing or equivalent subsidies returned to homelessness within a year, compared to just two percent of people who received a Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) voucher.

Figure 30: A third who exit to RRH return within a year Rate of return from all permanent housing exits

Rate of return from subsidized housing

Proportion of people who exited during 2021 and 2022 to each destination who had returned to homelessness services within 365 days. Excludes people who exited to housing that they own (n < 10).

Source: HMIS

The higher rate of returns among RRH recipients is partially related to pandemic-related programs. The City and County ran a short-term RRH program to transition people out of FEMA shelters opened during the pandemic. However, even when excluding people who were exiting from FEMA shelters, the rate of return for RRH was 29 percent.

That said, these numbers should be interpreted with caution. Providers have different standards for how they categorize exit destinations and generally have no way of verifying that the person who reports exiting to a subsidized housing program actually enrolls. More research would be needed to determine why people who are recorded as exiting to rapid rehousing appear to be returning at higher rates.

64 About three-quarters of exits to permanent housing were to a subsidized rental unit.

39 Part V: Modeling Future Investments

The following section describes modeling that projects what it will take for Berkeley to achieve a rapid reduction street homelessness. The model, which was developed by All Home, estimates the number of additional interim housing units, permanent housing solutions, and prevention interventions required to reduce unsheltered homelessness by 75 percent in five years, and to maintain those reductions for an additional five years. More detail about model methodology can be found in Appendix B.

Berkeley will need sustained investments across prevention, permanent housing, and interim shelter to reduce unsheltered homelessness. Figure 31 shows that Berkeley will need significant expansions in the capacity of the homelessness system of care in order to achieve reductions in unsheltered homelessness.65

Figure 31: Projected capacity requirements to achieve 75 percent reduction

Projected expansions within five years (light blue), and additional expansions over the following five years (dark blue), to achieve and maintain a 75 percent reduction in unsheltered homelessness in Berkeley. Prevention and short-term assistance numbers represent the additional people served each year for the entirety of the period.

Source: All Home Housing Gap Analysis; 2023 HIC; HMIS; City budget documents

These investments are interrelated. Without including expanded prevention services in the modeling, substantially more interim and permanent housing would be required to reach the same unsheltered reduction goals. Shelter and interim housing play a larger role during the first five years, given the time required to build affordable housing, but they are less necessary as permanent housing solutions come

65 The model projections are intended to provide a general sense of costs and do not map perfectly onto Berkeley’s existing programs. The “current capacity” numbers in Figure 31 reflect the number of year-round ES, TH, and SH beds in the 2023 HIC; the number of RRH slots and PSH beds in the 2023 HIC; the number of Housing Choice Vouchers allocated to the Berkeley Housing Authority; the number of HTF and BMR units in Berkeley; and the number of households served by prevention services in FY 2023 plus the number of households served by flex funds/navigation that were housed at the time they enrolled.

40 online. In the long term, permanent housing investments are necessary to maintain reductions in unsheltered homelessness. This dynamic can be seen in Berkeley’s present: while the city is sheltering a larger proportion of the homeless population than in years past, the number of unsheltered people continues to grow because of the overall increase in people experiencing homelessness. More detail about projected needs can be found in Appendix C.

Figure 32: Expansions in permanent housing allow decommissioning shelter beds

Projected shelter bed/IH unit needs and permanent supportive housing supply Source: All Home Housing Gap Analysis; 2023 HIC

Preventing people from falling into homelessness is key to limiting the number of people who need other types of interventions. Berkeley served about 450 households with eviction prevention services in FY 2022–23 and served an additional 150 housed people with flex funds and housing navigation. All Home’s model estimates that Berkeley will need to more than double this capacity, serving 750 additional households with targeted prevention each year in order to limit inflow and minimize the pressure on shelter and permanent housing resources. This estimate takes into account the challenges of targeting homelessness prevention: not everyone who receives assistance would have otherwise become homeless, but it is impossible to predict who is most vulnerable with complete accuracy.

The model anticipates costs of about $300 million over five years. This expansion in services would require significant new resources in addition to what the city, county, state, and federal governments are currently spending on homelessness services and housing. Berkeley allocated over $30 million for homelessness services and capital expenditures in FY 2023–24, a record level of spending that is unlikely to be sustained with current revenues. The projected need would require an additional $75 million per year on average, though this spending would not solely come from City coffers.

41 Figure 33: Most spending over ten years would be on permanent housing solutions

Percentage of projected spending over ten years
Source: All Home Housing Gap Analysis

About eighty percent of the funds spent over ten years would be for permanent housing and a majority would go to capital costs. The model includes only the development costs typically borne by local governments in development, subtracting out the funding that these projects typically receive from LIHTC and other sources.

42 Part VI: Discussion

By signing on to the All Home Regional Action Plan, the City has already committed to an “all of the above” strategy, acknowledging that addressing unsheltered homelessness requires investments in shelter, prevention, and permanent housing solutions simultaneously.

Reducing unsheltered homelessness will require more investments than what the City can fund with current resources. According to All Home’s system modeling, reducing unsheltered homelessness by 75 percent will require about $300 million in additional spending over five years and over $750 million over ten years, corresponding to about $75 million each year. If the City took on all of the additional spending to achieve this reduction, that would translate to more than tripling the amount the City spent on housing, shelter, and services in FY 2023–24, or redirecting about ten percent of the City’s budget that year.

More urgently, there is a real risk that Berkeley will not be able to maintain its current momentum with existing funding sources. Berkeley has made enormous strides in expanding its homelessness system of care in the past few years, in partnership with new programs at the state level and a robust federal COVID response. However, the City is now bumping against the limitations of local funding sources, the end of pandemic-era programs, and state budget woes.

In the following section, I discuss the likely effects of allowing present trends to continue and analyze potential investments Berkeley could make to tackle unsheltered homelessness. To evaluate these alternatives, I use the following criteria:

• Effectiveness at reducing unsheltered homelessness. Reduces the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in the city of Berkeley.
• Effectiveness at reducing homelessness overall. Reduces the number of people experiencing homelessness, whether sheltered or unsheltered.
• Equity, especially racial equity. Does not leave the people with the greatest needs behind and addresses racial disparities in homelessness.
• Fiscal sustainability. Can be sustained in the long term with resources realistically available to the City; aligns with funding and priorities at the state and federal level.

A. Impacts of maintaining current trends

Without additional action, Berkeley’s response to unsheltered homelessness over the next five years will likely be characterized by an increasing, but still inadequate, supply of permanent supportive housing (PSH) and a shelter system slowly moving towards more non-congregate beds.

That said, this outlook is far from assured. Much of Berkeley’s current progress in opening new non- congregate shelter has been paid for through state Encampment Resolution Fund grants, a program that is at risk as the state legislature considers cuts to homelessness services.66 With Measure P revenues

66 State leaders have considered cuts to homelessness programs during this year’s early budget negotiations process. Jeannie Nguyen, “Housing advocates call for no budget cuts toward solving homeless crisis in California,” April 4, 2024, https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/sacramento/california-budget-homeless-crisis/103-95d0f191-9cb8-4149-9ad4- c8fcfc215924

43 falling, temporary COVID-related eviction prevention funding could be among the services cut to balance the budget.

Effectiveness. Berkeley has seen more people enter homelessness than leave it over the last several years, pointing to a system that is not keeping up with the need. Without further action, the city will continue to see the number of people experiencing homelessness increase. These trends could accelerate if Berkeley pulls back on funding for homelessness prevention.

Berkeley’s recent expansions in shelter capacity have increased the proportion of homeless people in Berkeley who access shelter. However, the raw number of non-shelter users has increased as the number of people experiencing homelessness has continued to grow. Without addressing inflow into and outflow from the homelessness system of care, these strides in shelter capacity will be inadequate to address the problem of unsheltered homelessness.

Equity. People experiencing homelessness in Berkeley are disproportionately Black and Indigenous, and people with the greatest needs wait the longest for permanent housing resources in Berkeley’s current system of care. Without further action, these facts are unlikely to change.

Fiscal sustainability. As discussed above, some of the progress Berkeley has made in recent years is contingent on resources that may not be maintained for the long term.

B. Alternative: Focus on permanent supportive housing (PSH)

Berkeley added nearly one hundred beds of permanent supportive housing between 2022 and 2023.

However, the city will need sustained increases over the next several years just to meet the needs of people currently experiencing homelessness, as discussed in Part V. This alternative would require the City to focus its investments in PSH, possibly at the expense of other services if there is not additional funding.

Effectiveness. Permanent supportive housing serves people with some of the most acute needs—often, though not always, a population that is most visible and vulnerable on the street. In addition to directly moving people from street homelessness indoors, PSH has the potential to reduce demand pressure on shelters and services for people who are homeless. When implemented to its full extent, PSH is effective at ending homelessness for individuals, with 80 to 90 percent success and retention rates.67 That said, focusing resources on PSH might reduce the system’s ability to serve people with lower needs—possibly resulting in serving fewer people experiencing homelessness overall.

As discussed in Part IV, there are barriers to moving people into PSH other than supply. Many people, especially those who are unsheltered or have significant disabilities, struggle to obtain documentation that is required before enrollment. These delays do not appear to be creating slack in the system: the utilization rate of these beds was above ninety percent across 2021–2023, despite a large number of new beds to be filled during this period.68 Even so, these types of barriers are costly to individuals, and they may disproportionately affect people with higher needs. While Berkeley does not control the

67 Maria C. Raven, Matthew J. Niedzwiecki, and Margot Kushel, “A Randomized Trial of Permanent Supportive Housing for Chronically Homeless Persons with High Use of Publicly Funded Services,” Health Services Research 55, no. S2 (2020): 797–806, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13553.
68 As recorded in January of each year in the Housing Inventory Count. By comparison, the utilization rate of Housing Choice Vouchers in Berkeley is 76 percent.

44 federal documentation requirements or Coordinated Entry policies, the City could concentrate resources on intensive supports to help Berkeley residents get “doc ready” to make a PSH-focused strategy more effective.

Another factor that complicates this alternative is the county-wide nature of the Coordinated Entry system. As noted in Part II, not everyone who moves into a Berkeley PSH unit will be coming from Berkeley’s streets. City staff described a local preference policy as one solution to this mismatch—in other words, giving Berkeley residents priority in the Coordinated Entry queue for units that the City contributes to. However, this policy would have major equity considerations and may interfere with regional coordination between Berkeley and other cities.

Equity. PSH serves people with mental and physical disabilities that would make sustainably living indoors difficult or impossible without assistance. As discussed in Part III, people with disabilities are more likely to exit programs to homelessness and more likely to return from homelessness to housing in Berkeley’s current system of care. There are different levels of need within the group of people who are eligible for PSH; if the City chooses to invest in helping Berkeley residents get “doc ready,” that may make it more likely that people with the greatest barriers to housing make it through the queue.

Concentrating on PSH does come with tradeoffs. The population eligible for PSH is more white and more male compared to people experiencing homelessness overall; people who are not eligible for these higher-intensity services are especially likely to be Black women. Deprioritizing lighter-touch services might disproportionately harm people of color who have less of an existing safety net and are more vulnerable to homelessness even without significant disabilities.

Fiscal sustainability. Permanent supportive housing is expensive compared to other interventions. High- quality PSH requires skilled staff to provide wrap-around services and ensure residents are successful in housing, and residents are typically unable to pay much in rent to offset costs. All Home estimates the yearly cost of operations for a permanent supportive housing unit (including a housing subsidy and services) to be $40,000 to $50,000, not including capital costs.69

That said, policymakers around the state have recognized the barriers to constructing and operating PSH, and sources such as LIHTC and state Multifamily Housing Program funds increasingly prioritize these types of projects. The City can play an important role alongside these sources by providing gap funding, as it has done for projects like the HOPE Center.70 Operating costs are more challenging, but state policymakers have explored making it easier for operators to access Medicaid dollars to cover the ongoing cost of care for people in PSH.71 The City is not alone in tackling this problem, and City funding has a role to play in accelerating these types of projects.

C. Alternative: Accelerate the transition to non-congregate interim housing

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, Berkeley has made strides towards providing more shelter with a non- congregate, or interim housing, model. However, most shelter beds in the city are still in congregate settings, and the city’s non-congregate shelters largely focus on specific populations and rely on special funding sources. The City could take a more aggressive approach working with providers to identify

69 Based on estimates by the Corporation for Supportive Housing. 70 “City Council Report: Item 14 Measure O Bond Impacts on Affordable Housing Development in Berkeley.” 71 Carolina Reid, “Permanent Supportive Housing as a Solution to Homelessness: The Critical Role of Long-Term Operating Subsidies” (Terner Center, July 2023), https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/psh-homelessness-cost/.

45 potential non-congregate sites and fund their operations by moving money away from beds that are currently in congregate settings. These sites could include additional hotel/motel sites, but could also include cabins or tiny homes.

Effectiveness. This alternative has the potential to make a dent in unsheltered homelessness by simply moving more people indoors. Congregate shelter beds are not well-suited for many people experiencing homelessness due to medical needs and safety concerns. Street outreach providers report that unsheltered people are often more willing to come inside to a hotel room than a dorm-style shelter.

Sheltering people can also reduce logistical barriers to moving people into housing. According to reporting from other jurisdictions and anecdotal evidence from Berkeley providers, interim housing that includes case management and housing navigation has been more successful at moving people towards permanent housing compared to congregate shelters.72 That said, shelter alone will not solve homelessness. Without increasing the supply of housing for people to move into, navigation and shelter connections can only have a limited impact on the central problem.

Equity. Like PSH, non-congregate shelter has the potential to serve a population that is highly vulnerable and currently underserved by Berkeley’s shelter system. However, this strategy does potentially come with a tradeoff. It may result in a system with fewer shelter beds overall, and one that is more targeted to people with severe disabilities, who are more likely to be white and male.

Fiscal sustainability. Operating interim housing is more expensive than congregate shelters due to their larger footprint and the staffing costs of housing navigation and case management. Operations for “tiny home” interim housing programs elsewhere in the Bay Area have cost between $27,000 to $48,000 per unit per year.73 Berkeley’s current interim housing hosted in hotels and motels is generally more expensive due to the costs of renting rooms and serving a more vulnerable population. By way of comparison, Alameda County estimated that the cost to operate a congregate shelter bed was about $18,000 annually in 2021.74

These increased costs could create a tradeoff for effectiveness: transitioning more shelter beds to non- congregate may reduce Berkeley’s overall capacity to shelter people. The fact that interim housing requires more square footage per occupant than congregate shelter also creates capacity challenges.

Even so, increasing the number of non-congregate beds may bring a different population inside, including people with high needs who may represent a higher burden on other City services such as environmental remediation and emergency response.

In addition, non-congregate shelter facilities have the potential to transition to permanent housing in the future, as with the Rodeway to Home shelter in Berkeley—meaning that investing in shelter now could have long-term benefits.

D. Alternative: Expand medium-term subsides

Berkeley’s “shallow subsidies” program provides up to $1,800 per month for 36 months of rental assistance for people exiting homelessness with high rent burdens. The current program is relatively small, serving 49 people in 2023. Berkeley could consider expanding this program to serve a larger pool

72 Gilman, “Strengthening Interim Housing as a Housing First Approach.” 73 Ibid.
74 “Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design” (EveryOne Home, January 2021).

46 of people who are not eligible for permanent supportive housing, but who are not well-served by the short-term subsidies provided by rapid rehousing.

Effectiveness. Berkeley’s current program targets people with less acute needs, who may be homeless largely for economic reasons and are able to live independently without supports. Rapid rehousing is the current service model for this population, but there are indications that it is not working for everyone, given relatively high rates of exits and returns to homelessness. Alameda County’s 2021 Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design report identified people who are unlikely to increase their income on the timeline required by RRH as a target population for ongoing shallow subsidies.75 Making exits to housing for this population stick has the potential to reduce overall homelessness.

That said, it is not clear whether medium-term subsidies without additional services would make a large dent in the problem Berkeley faces. About four in five people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley have some form of disability. BACS, the nonprofit that runs Berkeley’s current medium-term subsidies program, found that smaller subsidies and lighter-touch casework would not be appropriate for most of the people waiting on the housing queue.76

Expanding medium-term subsidies would not directly make a large impact on unsheltered homelessness in the short term, since it is less targeted to people who have been living outside for long periods.

However, by reducing the number of people returning to or entering homelessness this strategy could decrease the number of people who are homeless and reduce the demand pressure on other resources such as shelter.

Equity. Medium-term subsidies do not directly serve the needs of the people in Berkeley’s homelessness system who have the greatest vulnerabilities. However, there are longer-term equity considerations to consider. The experience of homelessness itself can cause trauma and harm; people who are less vulnerable today may become more so if their needs are not addressed now. This population is younger and are more likely to be Black compared to the population of homeless people overall. Neglecting the needs of this population has the potential to exacerbate existing inequities.

Fiscal sustainability. The shallow subsidy program has lower fixed costs compared to building housing. It also has the potential to make existing dollars stretch more effectively by supporting people tapering off of rapid rehousing. That said, the program as it has been implemented in Berkeley is more expensive than existing interventions. The service provider that operates the shallow subsidy program has estimated that they will be able to serve 53 households with the $2.25 million the City has allocated so far, corresponding to $42,000 per household—costs that are partially driven by staffing needs to serve people with vulnerabilities.

E. Alternative: Invest in homelessness prevention services

As discussed in Part IV, many people enter homelessness after living with friends or relatives without a formal lease, and a sizeable minority of people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley were last housed outside of the city. Berkeley’s Housing Retention Program expanded during the COVID-19 emergency period and became more flexible. However, the program currently focuses primarily on formal tenancies,

75 Ibid.
76 “City Council Report: Item 08 Measure P Contract No. 31900273 Amendment,” November 15, 2022, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/2022-11- 15%20Item%2008%20Measure%20P%20Contract%20No.%2031900273.pdf.

47 only applies within city limits, and does not target people based on their risk of falling into homelessness. Berkeley does have flexible funding and navigation help allocated through the Housing Resource Center and other service providers, but these resources are largely dedicated to helping people who are homeless move into housing.

Berkeley could strengthen its prevention programming by funding programs dedicated to homelessness prevention that target people most at risk. One way of doing this would be investing in prevention through the City’s existing pots of flex funds—increasing funding so that providers have more flexibility to serve people who are not currently homeless and conduct outreach to people who are precariously housed. Berkeley could also ensure that the Housing Retention Program is as effective as possible by maintaining the flexibilities implemented during the COVID-19 emergency period, such as reducing documentation requirements and covering costs other than rent. The City would target these resources to the people most at risk of homelessness using evidence-based prioritization, like the programs already in place in San Francisco, Oakland, and Santa Clara County.

The City cannot directly control what happens in neighboring cities, but City leadership could also advocate for a county-wide or multi-county regional homelessness prevention programming, similar to the program currently in place in Santa Clara County.

Effectiveness. Like the previous alternative, making prevention more effective would not have a direct impact on unsheltered homelessness in the short term. That said, effective prevention reduces the demand for shelter or permanent housing solutions. System modeling suggests that Berkeley will need to serve 750 additional households per year with prevention resources or problem-solving in order to reduce unsheltered homelessness by 75 percent. In other words, preventing people from falling into homelessness is a necessary condition to reduce inflows and prevent increases in the homeless population in Berkeley.

Equity. Prevention programs would most help the population in Berkeley that is housed but vulnerable to homelessness, which is disproportionately Black, Indigenous and Hispanic/Latine. While this population has fewer support needs than the population likely to live in permanent supportive housing, they are still vulnerable. As described above, preventing people in these communities from experiencing homelessness in the first place can prevent trauma, loss of income, and physical and mental harm. The City could consider targeting assistance to specific neighborhoods where people are especially at risk of losing housing in order to ensure that these resources are being distributed to the communities who need them the most.

Fiscal sustainability. Prevention is relatively low-cost compared to many other investments and has the effect of reducing the need for higher-cost interventions such as shelter and housing supports. All Home estimates a cost of $8,000 to $9,000 per intervention based on existing prevention programming.

Targeting Berkeley’s existing housing retention services more tightly to the goal of preventing homelessness will also allow the City to get more bang for its buck, especially if the City is unable to maintain higher levels of spending in future years.

48 Figure 34: Policy alternatives trade-off matrix
Effectiveness:

Unsheltered
Effectiveness:

Overall Equity
Fiscal
sustainability
Maintain current trends Low Low Low Moderate
Focus on PSH High High Moderate Low
Move to non-congregate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Expand medium-term subsidy Low Low Moderate Moderate
Reinforce prevention services Moderate Moderate Moderate High Source: Author illustration

49 Part VII: Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on Berkeley’s existing resources and projected needs, I recommend that the City prioritize the following investments:

• Accelerating the transition to non-congregate shelter. Berkeley’s non-congregate shelters have been effective at sheltering people and streamlining their access to permanent housing. Extending these opportunities to a larger population experiencing homelessness could bring more people inside.

• Funding permanent supportive housing. Permanent supportive housing serves people with the highest needs—often, though not always, a population that is most visible and vulnerable on the street. While expensive compared to other interventions, PSH is the most urgent permanent housing need in the system, and it is highly effective at housing people and retaining them in housing. As part of this recommendation, the City should explore strategies to reduce documentation barriers for people with high vulnerabilities.

• Investing in homelessness prevention. Targeting prevention programs to the people most at risk can cost-effectively prevent Berkeley residents from experiencing the harm of homelessness and reduce pressure on shelter and permanent housing services. As part of this recommendation, the City should consider:
a. Maintaining expanded rules that make the Housing Retention Program more effective, such as more flexible documentation requirements and the ability to pay costs other than rent. b. Targeting scarce resources to people most at risk of homelessness by using evidence-based homelessness prevention, including factors such as past episodes of homelessness and living in an at-risk neighborhoods.
c. Explore increasing investments in flex funds to allow providers to serve more people who are precariously housed, especially those without a formal lease. d. Advocating for regional homelessness prevention, which could serve people in neighboring cities without the same resources as Berkeley.

In addition, the City should consider the following actions:

• Look for opportunities to increase funding and keep up the momentum. A truly “all of the above” strategy will require more resources from every level of government. As pandemic-era federal support recedes and one-time resources are spent down, Berkeley must retain its dedication to long- term solutions to the homelessness crisis and work with its neighbors to ensure that the region makes these investments together.

• Do additional research into rapid rehousing and the needs of people with lower levels of acuity.

While Berkeley’s current medium-term subsidy program may fill in gaps for this population, more research is needed to understand how best to serve them.

In addition to the above actions, the City should consider how else it can reduce the burden on the systems that serve homeless people in Berkeley. Homelessness is downstream of housing, health, and labor policy, and the City has a role to play in making it easier to build new housing, supporting mental health investments, and supporting living-wage jobs. The roots of our homelessness crisis are long and deep. It will require sustained investment and dedication from policy leaders to get ourselves out of it.

50 Appendix A: Interviews

Stacey Burmaster, Insight Housing

Laurie Flores, City of Fremont

Markos Gonzalez, Bay Area Community Services (BACS)

Kelsey Knutson, Bay Area Community Services (BACS)

Jennifer Lucky, Alameda County

Eric Magaña, Eviction Defense Center

Logan McDonnell, Bay Area Community Services (BACS)

51 Appendix B: Model Methodology77

The Housing Gap Analysis uses an illustrative modeling technique to estimate the number of additional interim housing units, permanent housing solutions, and prevention interventions required to rapidly reach designated goals in reducing unsheltered homelessness. Reporting outcomes for alternate investment strategies for reaching these goals illustrates the relationship between each of these three program types and the efficacy of investing in all three concurrently.

While comparable in many ways to alternative approaches to homelessness response system modeling, three key distinguishing characteristics of the Housing Gap Analysis should be noted:

• Linking prevention and inflow: in our analysis, the estimate for the number of individuals becoming homeless in a given year (“inflow”) may be reduced through increased investment in prevention. In nearly all other system modeling approaches, the association between inflow and prevention programming is typically unaddressed. Revealing the importance of prevention programming in a well-balanced homelessness system (especially its potential to reduce the need for more intensive housing-based interventions) requires establishing inflow as a dynamic variable determined in part by scaling new preventative measures.
• Acknowledging annual housing production limits: the production of new affordable housing is notoriously slow in the Bay Area, and the most informative modeling–even that investigating ambitious, aspirational change–must acknowledge that we cannot build all the homes we would need in the short-term to sufficiently address homelessness. In our modeling, we set baseline production limits based on recent trends, which we then allow to increase incrementally over time. • Allowing system performance flexibility: Traditional approaches to homeless system modeling use HMIS data to establish system pathways (the percent of people moving from transitional housing to PSH, for example, or from emergency shelter back to unsheltered settings) which are then used to determine the additional inventory required to reach homelessness reduction goals. While useful for understanding the impact of incremental change, this approach is more likely to distort estimates for scenarios involving significantly expanding investment, especially when many more permanent housing solutions are made available. For the new inventory added, we expect a notably higher rate of successful exits from interim housing to permanent solutions given the assumed expanded availability of such housing.

These characteristics allow the analysis to remain constrained to realistic housing production limits while envisioning the efficiencies and synergies likely resulting from significantly expanded new investment.

Figure B1 visualizes the basic logic of the Housing Gap Analysis. It depicts the major interventions and new inventory required to reach unsheltered reduction targets, and portrays the pathways along which households experiencing homelessness are expected to progress toward permanent housing. Though the process of calculating the housing needs does not exactly align with the process of people progressing through the envisioned system, it is a useful reference for conveying how the analysis is conducted. The description of the modeling strategy—divided into four broad steps below—references this schematic throughout. Data sources, per-unit costs, and key assumptions can be modified in collaboration with local administrative staff to reflect newly available or revised data, to refine expectations, or to investigate alternate scenarios.

77 This model methodology was developed and written up by David Amaral of All Home.

52 Figure B1: Basic structure of the Housing Gap Analysis model

53 Step 1: Establishing the total population to house to reach unsheltered reduction goals The RAP sets a goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness by 75 percent, and this goal ultimately determines how many people need to be housed and how much added housing inventory is needed to do so. Annual progress toward achieving this overarching goal is assigned for each of the first five years, and is assumed to hold steady for the remainder of the modeled time span.

The model incorporates a dynamic estimate of the population of people experiencing homelessness that includes both those currently experiencing unsheltered homelessness as well as the total number of people expected to become homeless in a given year. This latter group, in turn, includes both people expected to engage with the homelessness response system for the first time (a rough proxy for “first time” homelessness) along with those expected to return to homelessness after ending a previous experience of it. (See model diagram section B.)

The number of individuals expected to become homeless (combining both first-time and returns to homelessness) may be reduced through increased homelessness prevention interventions (as is represented in model diagram section A). The model sets a target for reducing inflow by a percentage of current baseline estimates and calculates the number of individuals who would need to be prevented from falling into homelessness to reach this goal. The number of actual prevention interventions required to reach this goal depends on the assumption for how efficiently prevention programming can be targeted; in other words, how many prevention interventions are required to reduce inflow by one? A targeting efficiency of twenty percent would mean that putting out five prevention interventions would reduce inflow by one. In the diagram section A, empty circles represent prevention services provided to those deemed at risk of homelessness but who would not have become homeless even in the absence of prevention services. Full circles represent individuals/households who would have become homeless without prevention services. Red arrows represent individuals or households becoming homeless in a given year who did not receive prevention assistance.

The ultimate number of individuals requiring housing interventions in a given year (the “population to house”) equals the difference between the expected number of unsheltered individuals (currently unsheltered plus annual inflow after prevention) and the particular year’s target total unsheltered population.

Step 2: Determining the number and type of permanent housing solutions required With the “population to house” calculated for a given year, the next step is to determine how many individuals can likely be assisted by the current homelessness response system and then how much additional inventory is required to fill the gap. Current system capacity is based on a three-year average for the number of individuals exiting the homelessness response system to permanent housing destinations. (See diagram section C.)

New permanent housing inventory is added for all individuals in the “population to house” remaining after accounting for current system capacity. Individuals served through this added inventory are assigned to one of the following four categories of permanent housing solutions:

1. Short-term assistance: a general category including one-time or time-limited financial or rental assistance. Operations/Services costs only.

2. Ongoing rental subsidy: comparable to Housing Choice Vouchers which persist and accumulate across the modeling time horizon. Operations/Services costs only.

3. New affordable housing unit: newly developed affordable housing units. Capital costs are calculated for the year new units become available. Operations/Services costs are calculated for

54 the year new units become available and all following years included in the modeling time horizon.

4. New permanent supportive housing (PSH) unit: like new affordable housing units but with higher annual operating/service costs.

The number of currently unsheltered individuals assigned new PSH units is directly determined by the number estimated to be experiencing chronic homelessness. For the population becoming newly homeless, the expected need for PSH units can be reduced. Assignment to the remaining three housing types aims to match the varied level of need expected among those experiencing homelessness while acknowledging that new construction (and not just rental subsidies) will be a crucial component to any effective and ambitious homelessness reduction strategy.

While the first two permanent housing solution types (neither involving any new construction) are added to meet the estimated need in a year, annual production limits are set for the cumulative number of newly added affordable housing units and PSH units. The baseline threshold is tied to recent trends in very-low income (VLI) housing production. In the primary modeled scenario, the production limit is allowed to grow incrementally over the course of the first five years included in the modeling. Though the cumulative projected need for new affordable and PSH units is often higher than the new production threshold, the total number of newly constructed units is constrained to a given year’s production limit. (See diagram section E.)

Step 3: Estimating the need for additional Interim Housing (IH) Total need for additional interim housing units is calculated to accommodate two distinct needs (See diagram section D):

1. Shorter duration needs: While a portion of all individuals/households assigned to each of the four permanent housing solutions are expected to move directly into housing from unsheltered settings (or at least without requiring an interim housing stay), a majority are expected to spend a short duration of time (2–3 months) in a new interim housing unit prior to their housing placement. Each new IH unit is expected to accommodate multiple individuals/households over the course of a year.

2. Longer-stay durations: In years for which the newly produced affordable and PSH units do not fully meet the level of need for these housing types (due to production limit constraints), additional new IH units are added equivalent to the gap between the number of needed new units and the number actually produced. Use of new IH for these longer-stay durations allows unsheltered reduction goals to be achieved despite production constraints. The expectation is that the individuals/households accommodated by longer-stay IH units are prioritized for newly produced units coming online in the following year.

The model assumes that the full need for new IH can be produced and utilized each year (i.e., there are no IH production thresholds imposed as they are for new affordable and PSH units in the model). Units produced in one year become available for use in the following year, and capacity is only expanded if need for new IH increases. As need for new IH units decreases, the new units are decommissioned in increments of ten units, while maintaining a limited buffer between need and capacity.

Step 4: Calculating costs
Average cost per unit/intervention is established for each of the interventions. For all one-time costs (including capital costs for all new IH, affordable, and PSH units; all short-term assistance permanent housing solutions; and prevention interventions) the full costs are tied to the year in which unit/intervention is first provided. For all ongoing costs (operations/services costs for all rental

55 subsidies, new affordable and PSH units) annual projected expenditures include both the cost of providing the units/support added in a given year while also covering all those added in previous years.

In other words, subsidies and operations/services for new units persist and accumulate over the years included in the modeling. Operations/services costs for IH include only units in operation in a given year.

Capital costs for new affordable and PSH units included in the modeling are not the full costs of development, but rather represent the average portion of the overall capital stack funded by local governmental entities after accounting for tax credits, loans, etc.

All baseline costs increase by an established inflation rate of three percent in each year of the modeling.

56 Appendix C: Model Projections

The following tables provide estimates the bed capacity and funds needed for Berkeley to achieve a 75 percent reduction in unsheltered homelessness, based on All Home’s modeling.

Figure C1: All Home model capacity projections
Five-year total Ten-year total
Permanent housing
Short-term assistance* 70 110
Full subsidy 460 760
AH units 190 450
Permanent supportive housing 190 430
Interim housing 270 270
Prevention* 750 750
* Households served per year

Figure C2: All Home model funding projections
Five years 10 year total
Permanent housing $195 M $607 M
Short-term assistance $3 M $5 M
Full subsidy $31 M $117 M
AH units $76 M $227 M
Permanent supportive housing $84 M $257 M
Interim housing $67 M $95 M
Prevention $32 M $70 M
Total Cost $294 M $772 M
Total Capital $153 M $334 M
Total Operations/Services $141 M $438 M

57 Figure C3: Model projections over ten years (households served and costs) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Permanent housing solutions
Short-term
assistance
Total households 50 70 80 80 70 50 50 40 40 40
Cost $436 K $436 K $436 K $436 K $436 K $436 K $436 K $436 K $436 K $436 K Full rental
subsidy
New households 70 90 100 110 90 70 60 60 60 50
Total households 70 160 260 370 460 530 590 650 710 760 Cost $1.5 M $3.5 M $6.0 M $8.6 M $11.2 M $13.2 M $15.2 M $17.3 M $19.3 M $21.3 M New affordable
units
New households 30 30 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 40
Total households 30 60 100 140 190 240 300 350 400 450
Units added 30 30 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 40
Capital Costs $8.2 M $10.0 M $11.9 M $13.9 M $18.1 M $18.6 M $19.2 M $19.5 M $20.8 M $16.4 M Operating Costs $685 K $1.6 M $2.7 M $3.9 M $5.6 M $7.4 M $9.3 M $11.2 M $13.3 M $15.2 M Permanent
supportive
housing (PSH)
New households 30 30 40 50 60 60 60 70 70 50
Total households 30 60 100 140 190 240 300 350 400 430
Units added 30 30 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 30
Capital costs $8.2 M $10.0 M $11.9 M $13.9 M $18.1 M $18.6 M $19.2 M $19.8 M $19.1 M $10.3 M Operating costs $1.1 M $2.5 M $4.1 M $6.1 M $8.7 M $11.4 M $14.3 M $17.4 M $20.4 M $22.4 M Interim housing

Total households 90 160 230 270 250 190 140 90 40 30
Units added 90 70 70 40 -- -- -- -- -- --
Capital costs $9.5 M $7.1 M $7.1 M $4.9 M -- -- -- -- -- -- Operating costs $3.3 M $5.8 M $8.4 M $10.4 M $10.7 M $9.0 M $7.1 M $5.2 M $3.6 M $3.2 M Prevention

Households served 730 750 760 760 760 760 760 760 760 760 Cost $6.0 M $6.0 M $6.0 M $7.0 M $7.0 M $7.0 M $7.0 M $7.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M

Item Removed From
Agenda
This item has been removed from the agenda by the
City Attorney.

If you have questions regarding this report, please
contact the person noted on the agenda.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
The City of Berkeley, City Council’s Website
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council
17

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.berkeleyca.gov

ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Initiative Petition – Initiative Ordinance Establishing Direct Rental Payments and Amending the Rent Stabilization Ordinance

RECOMMENDATION
1) Take action on the initiative petition to:
a) Adopt the provisions of the measure without alteration. -OR-
b) Adopt a Resolution submitting the measure, without alteration, to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.
2) Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No direct fiscal impacts related to the recommended action.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
An initiative petition titled “Initiative Ordinance Establishing Direct Rental Payments and Amending the Rent Stabilization Ordinance” was filed with the City Clerk on April 24, 2024.

The proponents of this petition submitted 4,349 prima facie signatures.

Under Berkeley City Charter Article XIII, a successful initiative petition must include valid signatures of at least 5% (2,985) of the votes for all candidates for Mayor in November 2020 (57,885).

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters verified the signatures by reviewing a random sampling of 500 signatures in accordance with State Elections Code §9215. This statistical sampling found 418 valid signatures. When this ratio of valid signatures is applied to the actual number of signatures submitted, it results in a validity rate of 122%, which exceeds the required threshold in the state Elections Code for the petition to be deemed sufficient. Therefore, the petition was certified by the Registrar of Voters as being sufficient on May 15, 2024.

18

Initiative Petition ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
Additionally, with respect to who can author arguments for measures placed on the ballot by petition, Elections Code Section 9282 provides the City Council may authorize the Council as a whole, or members of the Council, to submit an argument against the initiative ordinance.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the City Charter, Article XIII §92, once a petition has been found to have a sufficient amount of signatures, the City Council must consider whether to a) Adopt said ordinance without alteration within twenty days after the attachment of the City Clerk’s certificate of sufficiency to the accompanying petition (subject to a referendary vote, under the provision of Article XIV of this Charter); or b) Submit the ordinance to the voters of the City of Berkeley at the next general election.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed action is mandated by state codes and the provisions of the City Charter.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900
Attachments:

1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Full Text of Measure

2. City Clerk’s Certificate of Sufficiency

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

SUBMITTING TO THE BERKELEY ELECTORATE AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE

ESTABLISHING DIRECT RENTAL PAYMENTS AND AMENDING THE RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 BALLOT WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Council has elected to submit to the voters at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election, an initiative measure Establishing Direct Rental Payments and Amending the Rent Stabilization Ordinance; and WHEREAS, certain actions are required in connection with said election; and WHEREAS, the Council has requested that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Presidential General Election; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to submit all measures to be placed upon the ballot at said consolidated election.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to include on the ballots and sample ballots the measure enumerated above to be voted on by the voters of the qualified electors of the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that full text of the measure and the City Attorney’s analysis shall be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters in the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above enumerated measure requires a majority vote threshold for passage.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of notices, pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the Government Code and the Elections Code of the State of California.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County is requested to perform services in connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley agrees to reimburse the County of Alameda in full for the cost of election services performed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to enter into any contracts necessary for election consulting services, temporary employment services, printing services, and any such other supplies and services as may be required by the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Berkeley for the conduct of the November General Municipal Election.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285 (b), the City Council hereby adopts the provisions of Elections Code Section 9285 (a) providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city ballot measures.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said proposed initiative measure shall appear and be printed upon the ballots to be used at said election as follows:

CITY OF BERKELEY INITIATIVE ORDINANCE
YES
Shall the measure to use existing revenue to create a fund for rent payments to property owners on certain tenants’ behalf; to expand exemptions from rent control and registration for certain single-family homes and two-unit properties; to allow property owners and tenants to agree to rent increases in exchange for services or amenities; to modify certain grounds for eviction; to allow tenants’ associations; and to remove certain powers from the Rent Board, be adopted?
NO
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the text of the initiative ordinance be shown as Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Exhibits
A: Text of Ordinance

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.berkeleyca.gov

ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Initiative Petition – Initiative Ordinance to Adopt a Special Tax on Natural Gas Consumption in Buildings 15,000 Sq. Ft. or Larger

RECOMMENDATION
1) Take action on the initiative petition to:
a) Adopt the provisions of the measure without alteration. -OR-
b) Adopt a Resolution submitting the measure, without alteration, to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.
2) Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No direct fiscal impacts related to the recommended action.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
An initiative petition titled “Initiative Ordinance to Adopt a Special Tax on Natural Gas Consumption in Buildings 15,000 Sq. Ft. or Larger” was filed with the City Clerk on May 15, 2024. The proponents of this petition submitted 4,580 signatures.

Under Berkeley City Charter Article XIII, a successful initiative petition must include valid signatures of at least 5% (2,985) of the votes for all candidates for Mayor in November 2020 (57,885).

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters verified the signatures by reviewing a random sampling of 500 signatures in accordance with State Elections Code §9215. This statistical sampling found 404 valid signatures. When this ratio of valid signatures is applied to the actual number of signatures submitted, it results in a validity rate of 124%, which exceeds the required threshold in the state Elections Code for the petition to be deemed sufficient. Therefore, the petition was certified by the Registrar of Voters as being sufficient on May 28, 2024.

19

Initiative Petition ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
Additionally, with respect to who can author arguments for measures placed on the ballot by petition, Elections Code Section 9282 provides the City Council may authorize the Council as a whole, or members of the Council, to submit an argument against the initiative ordinance.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the City Charter, Article XIII §92, once a petition has been found to have a sufficient amount of signatures, the City Council must consider whether to a) Adopt said ordinance without alteration within twenty days after the attachment of the City Clerk’s certificate of sufficiency to the accompanying petition (subject to a referendary vote, under the provision of Article XIV of this Charter); or b) Submit the ordinance to the voters of the City of Berkeley at the next general election.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed action is mandated by state codes and the provisions of the City Charter.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900
Attachments:

1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Full Text of Measure

2. City Clerk’s Certificate of Sufficiency

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

SUBMITTING TO THE BERKELEY ELECTORATE AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A SPECIAL TAX ON NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION IN BUILDINGS 15,000 SQ. FT. OR LARGER FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 BALLOT
WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Council has elected to submit to the voters at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election, an initiative measure to Adopt a Special Tax on Natural Gas Consumption in Buildings 15,000 Sq. Ft. or Larger; and WHEREAS, certain actions are required in connection with said election; and WHEREAS, the Council has requested that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Presidential General Election; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to submit all measures to be placed upon the ballot at said consolidated election.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to include on the ballots and sample ballots the measure enumerated above to be voted on by the voters of the qualified electors of the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that full text of the measure and the City Attorney’s analysis shall be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters in the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above enumerated measure requires a majority vote threshold for passage.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of notices, pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the Government Code and the Elections Code of the State of California.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County is requested to perform services in connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley agrees to reimburse the County of Alameda in full for the cost of election services performed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to enter into any contracts necessary for election consulting services, temporary employment services, printing services, and any such other supplies and services as may be required by the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Berkeley for the conduct of the November General Municipal Election.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285 (b), the City Council hereby adopts the provisions of Elections Code Section 9285 (a) providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city ballot measures.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said proposed initiative measure shall appear and be printed upon the ballots to be used at said election as follows:

CITY OF BERKELEY INITIATIVE ORDINANCE
YES
Shall the measure adopting a tax of $2.9647/therm of natural gas consumed annually in buildings of 15,000 square feet or larger except government buildings, single-family residences, and residential buildings with at least 50% affordable units, adjusted annually for inflation plus 6%; allocating revenues to building decarbonization programs, and administration; and establishing an oversight committee, generating an estimated $___ million the first year and more thereafter until its expiration in December 31, 2050, be adopted?
NO
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the text of the initiative ordinance be shown as Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Exhibits
A: Text of Ordinance

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.berkeleyca.gov

ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Initiative Petition – Ordinance Creating a Parcel Tax for the Purpose of Funding Repairs and Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths (Fix the Streets & Sidewalks)

RECOMMENDATION
1) Take action on the initiative petition to:
a) Adopt the provisions of the measure without alteration. -OR-
b) Adopt a Resolution submitting the measure, without alteration, to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.
2) Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No direct fiscal impacts related to the recommended action.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
An initiative petition titled “Ordinance Creating a Parcel tax for the Purpose of Funding Repairs and Improvement to Streets, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths (Fix the Streets & Sidewalks)” was filed with the City Clerk on May 9, 2024. The proponents of this petition submitted 4,366 prima facie signatures.

Under Berkeley City Charter Article XIII, a successful initiative petition must include valid signatures of at least 5% (2,985) of the votes for all candidates for Mayor in November 2020 (57,885).

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters verified the signatures by reviewing a random sampling of 500 signatures in accordance with State Elections Code §9215. This statistical sampling found 471 valid signatures. When this ratio of valid signatures is applied to the actual number of signatures submitted, it results in a validity rate of 124%, which exceeds the required threshold in the state Elections Code for the petition to be

20

Initiative Petition ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
deemed sufficient. Therefore, the petition was certified by the Registrar of Voters as being sufficient on May 23, 2024.

Additionally, with respect to who can author arguments for measures placed on the ballot by petition, Elections Code Section 9282 provides the City Council may authorize the Council as a whole, or members of the Council, to submit an argument against the initiative ordinance.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the City Charter, Article XIII §92, once a petition has been found to have a sufficient amount of signatures, the City Council must consider whether to a) Adopt said ordinance without alteration within twenty days after the attachment of the City Clerk’s certificate of sufficiency to the accompanying petition (subject to a referendary vote, under the provision of Article XIV of this Charter); or b) Submit the ordinance to the voters of the City of Berkeley at the next general election.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed action is mandated by state codes and the provisions of the City Charter.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900
Attachments:

1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Full Text of Measure

2. City Clerk’s Certificate of Sufficiency

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

SUBMITTING TO THE BERKELEY ELECTORATE AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE

CREATING A PARCEL TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING REPAIRS AND

IMPROVEMENTS TO STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS (FIX THE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS) FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 BALLOT
WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Council has elected to submit to the voters at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election, an initiative measure Creating a Parcel tax for the Purpose of Funding Repairs and Improvement to Streets, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths (Fix the Streets & Sidewalks); and
WHEREAS, certain actions are required in connection with said election; and WHEREAS, the Council has requested that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Presidential General Election; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to submit all measures to be placed upon the ballot at said consolidated election.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to include on the ballots and sample ballots the measure enumerated above to be voted on by the voters of the qualified electors of the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that full text of the measure and the City Attorney’s analysis shall be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters in the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above enumerated measure requires a majority vote threshold for passage.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of notices, pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the Government Code and the Elections Code of the State of California.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County is requested to perform services in connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley agrees to reimburse the County of Alameda in full for the cost of election services performed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to enter into any contracts necessary for election consulting services, temporary employment services, printing services, and any such other supplies and services as may be required by the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Berkeley for the conduct of the November General Municipal Election.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285 (b), the City Council hereby adopts the provisions of Elections Code Section 9285 (a) providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city ballot measures.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said proposed initiative measure shall appear and be printed upon the ballots to be used at said election as follows:

CITY OF BERKELEY INITIATIVE ORDINANCE
YES
Shall the measure creating a special parcel tax for the purposes of street and sidewalk repair, repaving and reconstruction, pedestrian safety projects, traffic-calming measures on bicycle boulevards, and environmental infrastructure, at a rate of $0.13 per square foot of improvements, which may be increased annually for inflation, generating approximately $10.5 million annually for 12 years, provided the City continues to fund street maintenance and repair at levels established in 2022, be adopted?
NO
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the text of the initiative ordinance be shown as Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Exhibits
A: Text of Ordinance

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.berkeleyca.gov

ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Initiative Petition – Initiative Ordinance Requiring the Adoption of Minimum Indoor Air Quality Standards in City-Owned and City-Leased Buildings

RECOMMENDATION
1) Take action on the initiative petition to:
a) Adopt the provisions of the measure without alteration. -OR-
b) Adopt a Resolution submitting the measure, without alteration, to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.
2) Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No direct fiscal impacts related to the recommended action.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
An initiative petition titled “Initiative Ordinance Requiring the Adoption of Minimum Indoor Air Quality Standards in City-Owned and City-Leased Buildings” was filed with the City Clerk on May 15, 2024. The proponents of this petition submitted 4,417 prima facie signatures.

Under Berkeley City Charter Article XIII, a successful initiative petition must include valid signatures of at least 5% (2,985) of the votes for all candidates for Mayor in November 2020 (57,885).

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters verified the signatures by reviewing a random sampling of 500 signatures in accordance with State Elections Code §9215. This statistical sampling found 404 valid signatures. When this ratio of valid signatures is applied to the actual number of signatures submitted, it results in a validity rate of 120%, which exceeds the required threshold in the state Elections Code for the petition to be deemed sufficient. Therefore, the petition was certified by the Registrar of Voters as being sufficient on May 28, 2024.

21

Initiative Petition ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
Additionally, with respect to who can author arguments for measures placed on the ballot by petition, Elections Code Section 9282 provides the City Council may authorize the Council as a whole, or members of the Council, to submit an argument against the initiative ordinance.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the City Charter, Article XIII §92, once a petition has been found to have a sufficient amount of signatures, the City Council must consider whether to a) Adopt said ordinance without alteration within twenty days after the attachment of the City Clerk’s certificate of sufficiency to the accompanying petition (subject to a referendary vote, under the provision of Article XIV of this Charter); or b) Submit the ordinance to the voters of the City of Berkeley at the next general election.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed action is mandated by state codes and the provisions of the City Charter.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900
Attachments:

1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Full Text of Measure

2. City Clerk’s Certificate of Sufficiency

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

SUBMITTING TO THE BERKELEY ELECTORATE AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE

REQUIRING THE ADOPTION OF MINIMUM INDOOR AIR QUALITY STANDARDS IN CITY-OWNED AND CITY-LEASED BUILDINGS FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 BALLOT WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Council has elected to submit to the voters at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election, an initiative measure Requiring the Adoption of Minimum Indoor Air Quality Standards in City-Owned and City-Leased Buildings; and WHEREAS, certain actions are required in connection with said election; and WHEREAS, the Council has requested that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Presidential General Election; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to submit all measures to be placed upon the ballot at said consolidated election.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to include on the ballots and sample ballots the measure enumerated above to be voted on by the voters of the qualified electors of the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that full text of the measure and the City Attorney’s analysis shall be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters in the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above enumerated measure requires a majority vote threshold for passage.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of notices, pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the Government Code and the Elections Code of the State of California.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County is requested to perform services in connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley agrees to reimburse the County of Alameda in full for the cost of election services performed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to enter into any contracts necessary for election consulting services, temporary employment services, printing services, and any such other supplies and services as may be required by the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Berkeley for the conduct of the November General Municipal Election.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285 (b), the City Council hereby adopts the provisions of Elections Code Section 9285 (a) providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city ballot measures.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said proposed initiative measure shall appear and be printed upon the ballots to be used at said election as follows:

CITY OF BERKELEY INITIATIVE ORDINANCE
YES
Shall the measure setting indoor air quality standards for City-owned and -leased buildings; prohibiting compliance with those standards through the use of air filtration or disinfection technologies emitting ozone, volatile organic compounds, oxidation byproducts, excessive sound, or ultraviolet light; requiring repair, closure, evacuation, and/or provision of alternative services to the public due to building closure when standards are not met; and creating a private right to sue over alleged violations, be adopted?
NO
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the text of the initiative ordinance be shown as Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Exhibits
A: Text of Ordinance

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.berkeleyca.gov

ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Initiative Petition – Ordinance to Establish a Parcel Tax to Fund Repairs and Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks, and Pedestrian Paths (SAFE

STREETS)

RECOMMENDATION
1) Take action on the initiative petition to:
a) Adopt the provisions of the measure without alteration. -OR-
b) Adopt a Resolution submitting the measure, without alteration, to a vote of the people at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.
2) Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No direct fiscal impacts related to the recommended action.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
An initiative petition titled “City of Berkeley Ordinance to Establish a Parcel Tax to Fund Repairs and Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path (SAFE STREETS)” was filed with the City Clerk on May 9, 2024. The proponents of this petition submitted 3,874 prima facie signatures.

Under Berkeley City Charter Article XIII, a successful initiative petition must include valid signatures of at least 5% (2,985) of the votes for all candidates for Mayor in November 2020 (57,885).

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters verified the signatures based on the line-by-line examination set forth in accordance with State Elections Code §9115(b). The petition was certified by the Registrar of Voters as being sufficient on June 7, 2024.

Additionally, with respect to who can author arguments for measures placed on the ballot by petition, Elections Code Section 9282 provides the City Council may authorize the

22

Initiative Petition ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
Council as a whole, or members of the Council, to submit an argument against the initiative ordinance.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the City Charter, Article XIII §92, once a petition has been found to have a sufficient amount of signatures, the City Council must consider whether to a) Adopt said ordinance without alteration within twenty days after the attachment of the City Clerk’s certificate of sufficiency to the accompanying petition (subject to a referendary vote, under the provision of Article XIV of this Charter); or b) Submit the ordinance to the voters of the City of Berkeley at the next general election.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed action is mandated by state codes and the provisions of the City Charter.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900
Attachments:

1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Full Text of Measure

2. City Clerk’s Certificate of Sufficiency

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

SUBMITTING TO THE BERKELEY ELECTORATE AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE TO

ESTABLISH A PARCEL TAX TO FUND REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS (SAFE STREETS) FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 BALLOT
WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Council has elected to submit to the voters at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election, an initiative measure to Establish a Parcel Tax to Fund Repairs and Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks, and Pedestrian Paths (SAFE STREETS); and
WHEREAS, certain actions are required in connection with said election; and WHEREAS, the Council has requested that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Presidential General Election; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to submit all measures to be placed upon the ballot at said consolidated election.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to include on the ballots and sample ballots the measure enumerated above to be voted on by the voters of the qualified electors of the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that full text of the measure and the City Attorney’s analysis shall be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters in the City of Berkeley.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above enumerated measure requires a majority vote threshold for passage.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of notices, pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the Government Code and the Elections Code of the State of California.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County is requested to perform services in connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley agrees to reimburse the County of Alameda in full for the cost of election services performed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to enter into any contracts necessary for election consulting services, temporary employment services, printing services, and any such other supplies and services as may be required by the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Berkeley for the conduct of the November General Municipal Election.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285 (b), the City Council hereby adopts the provisions of Elections Code Section 9285 (a) providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city ballot measures.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said proposed initiative measure shall appear and be printed upon the ballots to be used at said election as follows:

CITY OF BERKELEY INITIATIVE ORDINANCE
YES
Shall the measure creating a special parcel tax for the purposes of street, sidewalk, and pedestrian path repair, repaving, and reconstruction, safety improvements, and environmental infrastructure, at a rate of $0.17 per square foot of improvements to dwelling units and $0.25 per square foot of improvements to other property, which may be increased annually for inflation; and generating approximately $15 million annually for 14 years, provided other funding for street maintenance is maintained, be adopted?
NO
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the text of the initiative ordinance be shown as Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Exhibits
A: Text of Ordinance

Kate Harrison
Councilmember District 4

ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Kate Harrison
Subject: Amendments to Berkeley Municipal Code 23C.22: Short Term Rentals

RECOMMENDATION
Amend Berkeley Municipal Code 23C.22: Short Term Rentals to clarify the ordinance and insure adequate host responsibilities, tenant protections and remedies for violating the ordinance.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On June 3, 2024, the Land Use, Housing, & Economic Development Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Humbert/Wengraf) to refer item to City Council with a qualified negative recommendation with the caveat that the ordinance cannot be passed without consideration and approval by the Planning Commission, and it is likely that elements of the proposal would violate State housing law. Vote: Ayes – Humbert, Wengraf; Noes – None; Abstain – Lunaparra.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley has had regulations on short term rentals (STRs) since 2017, allowing STRs in most residential and commercial zones, as long as the host pays the transient occupancy tax and the unit being rented fits particular criteria (no Below Market Rate unit may be a short term rental, no unit may be a short term rental if it has had a No Fault Eviction in the past five years, etc). The City of Santa Monica also has an ordinance regulating STRs that places the regulatory burden on the host platform (i.e., AirBnB or other corporate host platforms) rather than the individual renting out their unit.

Santa Monica placed four obligations on the host platform: collecting and remitting transient occupancy taxes, regularly disclosing listings and booking information to the City, refraining from booking properties not licensed by the City, and refraining from collecting fees for ancillary services. 1 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the legality in the case of Homeaway.com v. Santa Monica, thus confirming the rights of Cities to regulate short term rental host platforms.

The proposed amendments update the City of Berkeley’s STR regulations to more closely align with Santa Monica’s ordinance, as well as other amendments intended to 1 Homeaway.com v Santa Monica. United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No. 18-55367.

23

Resolution in Support of Senate Bill 54 and Assembly Bill 1080:

The California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act ACTION CALENDAR July 9, 2024
ensure that the short term rentals in Berkeley serve the needs of the City. The primary five changes are as follows:
1) Regulatory burden shifted to the Host Platform
We clarify the definition of a hosting platform in 23C.22.030.H (page 2) as a marketplace that derives revenue from maintaining said short term rental marketplace.

Regulating the host platform consolidates regulation and ensures that the transient occupancy tax owned to the City gets paid. Recommended changes to 23C.22.050.H and I (page 5) state that if a hosting platform is utilized to book a short term rental, both it and the individual host are legally responsible and are jointly liable for remitting the transient occupancy tax. New section 23C.22.050.I (pages 5-6) also outlines new duties of the hosting platform, including a regular disclosure of short term rental listings in the City as well as their address, length of stay, and listed prices. In addition, the hosting platform is responsible for ensuring that all short term rentals are appropriately licensed with a Zoning Certificate and adds the requirements that STRs must list the Zoning Certificate on any STR advertisements. The new regulations also include a safe harbor clause, making clear that hosting platforms that disclose listings, regularly remit the transient occupancy tax, and ensure the listing has a Zoning Certificate will be presumed to be in compliance with the chapter.
2) Hosts can have only one residence
Individual people have the right to rent out their homes on a short term basis, but in a housing crisis, it is in the best interest of the City to ensure that no one has extra units for STRs when they could house someone long term instead. To that end, 23C.22.030.F and 23C.22.030.I (pages 2-3) clarify that hosts may not have more than one principle place of residency, which may include accessory buildings or ADUs. 3) Short term rentals limited to single ADUs, single Accessory Buildings or Golden Duplexes not rented for the past ten years
The current ordinance limits use of Accessory Buildings or Accessory Dwelling Units to those that have not been rented for ten years. Additions to Section 23C.22.020.D (page 1) expand that prohibition to include more than one Accessory Building or ADU on a property and prohibits short term rentals in Golden Duplexes if those units have been rented in the last ten years. Unpermitted use of these units would be investigated by the Rent Stabilization Board under Section 23C.22.060.I (page 7). 4) Closing 14/30 day loophole
Under current law, any rental over 14 days is not a short term rental and thus does not require paying a transient occupancy tax. Any rental that is shorter than 30 days is not a long term rental and thus rent control and other rental protections are awarded to the tenant. As it now stands there are instances of regularly renting a unit for a period of time between 14 days and fewer than 30 days, thus circumventing standard regulations. 23C.22.030.N (page 3) and 23C.22.040 (page 4) close this loophole by disallowing

Resolution in Support of Senate Bill 54 and Assembly Bill 1080:

The California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act ACTION CALENDAR July 9, 2024
rentals between 14 and 30 days, and stating that no Zoning Certificate or advertisement for a short term rental may be permitted for rentals longer than 14 days. 5) Remedies
New language under 23C.22.060E and 23C.22.060.J (page 7) clarify that in the case of a private right of action the prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney’s fees, thus making private right of action more financially feasible. The new language also gives the City the right to issue administrative subpoenas to determine whether short term rentals are in compliance with the chapter. Both of these edits are intended to encourage enforcement and compliance.

Finally, the ordinance clarifies the definitions of the terms Accessory Building, Accessory Dwelling Unit, and the Transient Occupancy Tax and defines a Golden Duplex and other clarifying language.

CONTACT PERSON
Kate Harrison, Berkeley City Councilmember, (510) 981-7140

ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance

1 100Chapter 23C.22
Short-Term Rentals
23C.22.010 Purposes
The purposes of the Short-Term Rentals related regulations contained in this Chapter are:

A. To prevent long-term rental units from being replaced with Short-Term Rentals and protect affordable housing units from conversion.

B. To preserve and protect neighborhood character and livability from nuisances that are often associated with Short-Term Rentals.

C. To generate City revenue to share City infrastructure cost and other public expenditures by operation of Short-Term Rentals under established standards.

D. To provide alternative forms of lodging. (Ord. 7521-NS § 1 (part), 2017) 23C.22.020 Applicability
A. Short-Term Rentals shall be allowed in residential uses in the following zoning districts: R-1, R-1A, R-2, R- 2A, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-S, R-SMU, C-DMU, C-1, C-NS, C-SA, C-T, C-W, and MU-R.

B. Short-Term Rentals shall be prohibited in below market rate (BMR) units. BMR units for Short-Term Rental purposes refer to Dwelling Units whose rents are listed as a result of deed restrictions or agreements with public agencies, and whose tenants must be income-qualified.

C. A property containing a Dwelling Unit protected by a No-Fault Eviction cannot operate Short-Term Rentals for five years from eviction unless it is a single-family home that has been vacated for purposes of Owner Occupancy in compliance with the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

D. Short-Term Rentals are only allowed in a single, Accessory Building and in single existing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), or a Golden Duplex unless such ADUs are or have within the last 10 (ten) years preceding the effective date of this ordinance been used for long term rentals, as defined by the requirements of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Short-Term Rentals shall not be allowed in Accessory Dwelling Units permitted after the date this Ordinance first became effective. (Ord. 7521-NS § 1 (part), 2017)

2 23C.22.030 Definitions
The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the meaning of the following terms as used in this Chapter:

A. Accessory Building: A detached building containing habitable space, excluding a kitchen, which is smaller in size than the main building on the same lot, and the use of which is incidental to the primary use of the lot.

B. Accessory Dwelling Unit: A secondary dwelling unit that is located on a lot which is occupied by one legally established Single-Family Dwelling that conforms to the standards of Section 23C.24. An Accessory Dwelling Unit must comply with local building, housing, safety and other code requirements and provide the following features independent of the Single-Family Dwelling: 1) exterior access to Accessory Dwelling Unit; 2) living and sleeping quarters; 3) a full kitchen; and 4) a full bathroom. An Accessory Dwelling Unit also includes an efficiency unit and a manufactured home, as defined in the Health and Safety Code.

C. "Adjacent Properties" mean the Dwelling Units abutting and confronting, as well as above and below, a Dwelling Unit within which a Short-Term Rental is located.

D. “Dwelling Unit” means a building or portion of a building designed for, or occupied exclusively by, persons living as one (1) household.

E. “Golden Duplex” means an owner-occupied duplex that is exempt from rent control and eviction protection, so long as it was occupied by the owner on December 31, 1979 and is currently occupied by the owner.

F.. "Host" means any Owner and is used interchangeably in this Title with Owner Host. An Owner Host is a person who is the owner of record of residential real property, as documented by a deed or other such evidence of ownership, who offers his or her Host Residence, or a portion thereof, as a Short-Term Rental. For purposes of offering a Short-Term Rental, an Owner Host may not have more than one “Host Residence” in the City of Berkeley, excluding an Accessory Building or an Accessory Dwelling Unit on the same residential real property. A Tenant Host is a lessee of residential real property, as documented by a lease or other such evidence, who offers their Host Residence, or portion thereof, as a Short-Term Rental.

G. "Host Present" or "Host Presence" means the Host is living in the Host Residence during the Short-Term Rental period. In the case of a parcel comprised of a Single Family Dwelling and one or more authorized Accessory Dwelling Units and/or Accessory Buildings, the Host is considered Present if he or she is present in any Dwelling Unit on such property during the Short Term Rental period.

3 H. "Hosting Platform" means a business or person that provides a marketplace through which an Owner Host may offer a Dwelling Unit for Short-Term Rentals. A Hosting Platform is usually, though not necessarily, provided through an internet-based platform. It generally allows a Dwelling Unit to be advertised through a website provided by the Hosting Platform and provides a means for potential Short-Term Rental Transients to arrange and pay for Short-Term Rentals, and from which operator of the Hosting Platform derives revenue, including booking fees or advertising revenues, from providing or maintaining the marketplace.

I.. "Host Residence" means a Host’s principal place of residence as defined by whether the Host carries on basic living activities at the place of residence, and whether the place of residence is the Host’s usual place of return. Motor vehicle registration, driver’s license, voter registration or other evidence as may be required by the City shall be indicia of principal residency. A Host may have only one place of principal residency in the City, and if that principal place of residency contains more than one dwelling unit, the principal place of residency shall be only one such dwelling unit.

J. “Host Responsibilities” means the requirements that a “Host” is obligated to comply with as set forth in this Ordinance.

K. "Local Contact" means a person designated by the Host who shall be available during the term of any Short-Term Rental for the purpose of (i) responding within sixty minutes to complaints regarding the condition or operation of the Dwelling Unit or portion thereof used for Short-Term Rental, or the conduct of Short-Term Rental Transients; and (ii) taking appropriate remedial action on behalf of the Host, up to and including termination of the Short Term Rental, if allowed by and pursuant to the Short Term Rental agreement, to resolve such complaints.

L. "No Fault Eviction" means an eviction pursuant to the Ellis Act or Sections 13.76.130.A.9 or 10 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

M. "Short-Term Rental" or "STR" means the use of any Dwelling Unit, authorized Accessory Dwelling Unit or Accessory Building, or portions thereof for dwelling, sleeping or lodging purposes by Short-Term Rental Transients. Short-Term Rental shall be an accessory use to a residential use and be considered neither a Tourist Hotel nor a Residential Hotel for purposes of this Title.

N. Short Term Rentals are allowed for 14 or fewer consecutive days. Any rental for more than 14 consecutive days is not permitted as a Short Term Rental, and any rental for more than 14 consecutive days and less than 30 consecutive days is not permitted in the City of Berkeley.

4 O. "Short-Term Rental Transient" or "STR Transient" means any person who rents a Dwelling Unit, authorized Accessory Dwelling Unit or Accessory Building, or portion thereof, for 14 or fewer consecutive days.

P. “Transient Occupancy Tax” or “TOT” means local transient tax as set forth in Berkeley Municipal Code Section 7.36. The tax is paid by the Short-Term Rental Transient at the time payment is made for the Short- Term Rental. The TOT is then remitted to the City.
23C.22.040 Permit And License Required
Short Term Rentals are permitted only in the Host Residence. A Zoning Certificate and a Business License for a Short-Term Rental shall be required for each Host to operate a Short-Term Rental. A Host must provide the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) — specifically, the website address — for any and all advertisements for the STR, if applicable, on the Zoning Certificate application.

No Zoning Certificate may be issued to allow for a Short-Term Rental of more than 14 consecutive days, and no advertisement for a Short Term Rental of more than 14 consecutive days is allowed. 23C.22.050 Operating Standards and Requirements
A Short-Term Rental is allowed only if it conforms to each of the operating standards and requirements set forth in this Section, and the Host complies with all Host Responsibilities set forth in this Ordinance.

A. Proof of Host Residency.

1. An Owner-Host of a Short-Term Rental must provide documentation of Owner Host and Host Residence status and, if applicable, Host Presence, as defined above.

2. A Tenant-Host must provide documentation of lessee status, Host Residence and Host Presence, if applicable, as defined in subdivisions C, E, and B of Section 23C.22.030. In addition, a Tenant-Host must present written authorization allowing for a Short-Term Rental in the Host Residence from the building owner or authorized agent of the owner.

B. STR Duration and Required Residency Timeframes

1. When the Host is Present, the unit, or a portion thereof, may be rented as a Short-Term Rental for an unlimited number of days during the calendar year.

2. When the Host is not Present, the number of days that the unit can be used for Short-Term Rental purposes shall be limited to 90 days per calendar year.

5 C. Number of Occupants. The maximum number of Short-Term Rental Transients allowed for a Short-Term Rental unit shall be as provided for in the Berkeley Housing Code (BMC Chapter 19.40).

D. Notification.
(i) Initial, one-time notification of the establishment of a Short-Term Rental by Zoning Certificate and Business license, shall be provided to the residents of all Adjacent Properties. Notification shall include Host and Local Contact information. Additional notification shall be required within a week of updated Host or Local Contact information.
(ii) In any advertisement for the STR, a Host must include the Zoning Certificate number.

E. Enforcement Fee. For the initial enforcement period, while enforcement costs are being determined, the Host shall pay an additional enforcement fee in an amount equal to 2% of the rents charged by that Host, not to exceed the cost of the regulatory program established by this Chapter over time. Such fees may be paid by the Hosting Platform on behalf of the Host. After the initial enforcement period, the Council may revise the enforcement fee by resolution.

F. Liability Insurance. Liability insurance is required of the Host, or Hosting Platform on behalf of the Host, in the amount of at least $1,000,000.

G. Documents Provided to STR Transients. Electronic or paper copies of the Community Noise Ordinance and Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Ordinance must be provided to STR Transients upon booking and upon arrival.

H. Transient Occupancy Tax. (“TOT”). The TOT shall be collected on all Short-Term Rentals. The Host is responsible for collecting and remitting the TOT, in coordination with any Hosting Platform, if utilized, to the City. If a Hosting Platform collects payment for rentals, then both it and the Host shall have legal responsibility for collection and remittance of the TOT.

I. Housing Platform Responsibilities.
(i) Subject to applicable laws, A Hosting Platform shall disclose to the City on a regular basis each rental listing located in the City, the names of the person or persons responsible for each such listing, the address of each such listing, the length of stay for each such listing, and the price paid for each booking transaction.

6 (ii) A Hosting Platform shall not complete any booking transaction for any STR unless the Host has a valid Zoning Certificate at the time the Hosting Platform receives a fee the booking transaction. (iii) A Hosting Platform shall not collect or receive a fee for a STR unless the Host has a valid Zoning Certificate at the time the Hosting Platform would otherwise be entitled to receive a fee for the booking transaction.
(iv) Safe Harbor: A Hosting Platform operating exclusively on the internet, which operates in compliance with subsections (i), (Ii) and (iii) above, shall be presumed to be in compliance with this Chapter.

J. Housing Code Compliance. Any building or portion thereof used for Short-Term Rentals shall comply with the requirements of the Berkeley Housing Code (BMC Chapter 19.40).

K. Payment of Additional Taxes: The Host shall pay all City taxes and fees owed, in addition to the TOT, if applicable, in a timely manner. 100
L. The Host shall be responsible for listing on any rental ad the Zoning Certificate number. The Host shall also provide both the Business License number, if required pursuant to Chapter 9.04, and Zoning Certificate for the STR to the City and/or a vendor hired by the City to administer this Chapter, upon request. 23C.22.060 Remedies
A. Compliance with Second-Response Ordinance. The Host shall comply with the Second Response Ordinance (BMC Chapter 13.48). The Host shall be prohibited from operating Short-Term Rentals for one year upon issuance of a third violation affidavit.

B. Violation of any provision of this Chapter is punishable as set forth in Chapters 1.20 and 1.28.

C. Violation of any provision of this Chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance subject to abatement under Chapters 1.24, 1.26 and 23B.64.

D. In any enforcement action by the City, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; provided that, pursuant to Government Code Section 38773.5, attorneys’ fees shall only be available in an action or proceeding in which the City has elected, at the commencement of such action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attorneys’ fees. In no action or proceeding shall an award of

7 attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party exceed the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the City in the action or proceeding.

E. Any resident of the City may bring a private action for injunctive or other relief to prevent or remedy a public nuisance as defined in this Chapter, or to prevent or remedy any other violation of this Chapter. No action may be brought under this subdivision unless and until the prospective plaintiff has given the City and the prospective defendant(s) at least 30 days written notice of the alleged public nuisance and the City has failed to initiate proceedings within that period, or after initiation, has failed to diligently prosecute. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.

F. Any occurrence at a Short-Term Rental unit that constitutes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of a neighborhood, such as excessive noise or traffic, obstruction of public streets by crowds or vehicles, public intoxication, the service to or consumption of alcohol by minors, fights, disturbances of the peace, litter or other similar conditions, constitutes a public nuisance.

G. It shall be a public nuisance for any STR Transient of a Short-Term Rental unit where an event is taking place to refuse access to, or interfere with access by, Fire Department or other City personnel responding to an emergency call or investigating a situation.

H. Notwithstanding any provision of Chapter 13.48 to the contrary, a public nuisance as defined in this Section shall be subject to remedies set forth in Section 23C.22.060. (Ord. 7521-NS § 1 (part), 2017) I. A violation of this Chapter by a Host Owner who offers or rents a rent controlled unit, multiple ADU’s, multiple Accessory Buildings, or a Golden Duplex, may be reported to the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board for investigation by the Board. Upon report of a violation to the Rent Stabilization Board, the Board is required to provide a written report of the investigation within 30 days. Where a violation is found, the Rent Board will immediately provide the written report supporting its finding of a violation to the City Attorney’s office for remedial action by the City.

J. The City may issue and serve administrative subpoenas as necessary to obtain specific information regarding Short-Term Rentals located in the City, including but not limited to, the names of the persons responsible for each such listing, the address of each such listing, the length of stay for each such listing and the price paid for each stay, to determine whether the STR and related listing complies with this Chapter. Any subpoena issued pursuant to this section shall not require the production of information sooner than 30 days

8 from the date of service. A person or entity that has been served with an administrative subpoena may seek judicial review during that 30 day period.

Cecilia Lunaparra
Councilmember, District 7

ACTION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra
Subject: Condemning the University of California’s Anti-Labor Actions and Legal Tactics

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution Condemning the University of California’s Anti-Labor Actions and Legal Tactics

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In April and May of 2024, workers and students at college campuses around the country, including University of California (UC) campuses statewide, conducted non- violent peace demonstrations. The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) Local 4811, representing 48,000 academic workers at all 11 UC campuses, alleges that, in response to these nonviolent protests, the UC enacted police violence upon workers, students, and others, unilaterally changed campus and workplace policies in order to discipline and arrest them, and failed to prevent armed right-wing counter-protesters from enacting physical violence against them1.

UAW Local 4811, which represents many of the workers who were allegedly harmed by the UC’s actions, filed Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges against the UC. On May 20, following a strike authorization vote with 79% of participating membership voting “Yes”, UAW Local 4811 began a “stand-up strike” at UC campuses around the state. The UC administration asked the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to end the strike twice. Both times, PERB found no legal reason for doing so. Instead, PERB issued a complaint against the UC alleging serious unfair labor practices.

UAW Local 4811 alleges that, after the UC’s two previous attempts to halt the strike, it went “forum shopping,” which is the practice of pursuing a more advantageous legal venue in order to secure a desired outcome.2 They sought a temporary injunction against the strike from Orange County Superior Court Judge Randall J. Sherman, 1 uaw4811.org/2024-ulp-charges
2 latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-07/uc-seeks-to-halt-strike-takes-academic-workers-to-court

24

appointed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, attempting to usurp PERB’s authority over such matters. Legal scholars have compared the UC’s actions to those of corporations like Amazon, Starbucks, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s, which use the court system to undermine the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and bedrock labor laws by seeking out conservative-leaning judges.3 Such cases do not just harm workers who are directly employed by the companies involved in the litigation, they also set precedents that can erode the rights of countless workers around the country.

Similarly, legal scholars have warned that the impact of the UC’s attacks on long- standing labor law and PERB’s jurisdiction could be felt by hundreds of thousands of public sector workers.4
These events have had a significant impact on workers and students in Berkeley, who have witnessed their coworkers, classmates, and community members across the state brutalized and retaliated against by their own employer and university. Moreover, the UC’s anti-worker actions in other parts of the state will have a direct material impact on their employees in Berkeley, both at UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Berkeley has a long history of campus activism and labor organizing. As the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, the City of Berkeley has a duty to make it clear to all employers who do business in our city that anti-labor actions and attacks on free speech will not be tolerated.

BACKGROUND
UAW Local 4811 filed or amended Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges against the UC on the following dates5:

May 3, 2024: On May 1, 2024, an armed group of counter-protesters attacked nonviolent protesters at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), hitting them with sticks, spraying them with bear spray, and pelting them with bottles and fireworks, forcing many people, including members of UAW Local 4811, to seek medical care or hospitalization. Though UCLA and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) were on notice of the attacks, they deliberately failed to respond. The following day, on May 2, 2024, UCLA called in LAPD riot police to arrest 200 peaceful student protesters and academic workers exercising their legal right to demonstrate nonviolently, many of whom had survived the previous night’s violence from counter-protesters without any police intervention. The UC employed police violence or allowed violence to be used against students, faculty, and academic workers exercising their right to free speech; and. Since then, the UC made unilateral and dramatic changes to long-standing policies on protest and use of force, then used these changed policies to arrest and discipline hundreds of students and academic workers across the state. 3 nytimes.com/2024/02/15/business/economy/amazon-labor-nlrb.html 4 x.com/veenadubal/status/1798109232862249346
5 uaw4811.org/2024-ulp-charges

May 10, 2024: On May 6, 2024 the UC summoned the police at the University of California San Diego to forcibly eject and arrest UAW Local 4811 members engaged in peaceful protest. The UC's conduct constituted retaliation and discrimination against UAW Local 4811 members for engaging in protected concerted protest activity, in violation of the Higher Education Employee- Employer Relations Act (HEERA).

May 17, 2024: On May 16, 2024 the UC called at least twenty law enforcement agencies to forcibly eject and arrest peaceful protestors at the University of California Irvine. Such escalation and use of outside law enforcement constitutes a unilateral change to the University's workplace speech policy in violation of HEERA.

May 21, 2024: On May 9, 2024, Michael Drake, the President of the UC, unilaterally issued a new discipline policy that newly mandates that any employee arrested by police or cited for violating a university policy must go through the employee disciplinary process. This sweeping new policy was announced and implemented without any advance notice to UAW Local 4811 or an opportunity to bargain, another violation of HEERA.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
None.

FISCAL IMPACTS
Minimal staff time is required to send copies of the resolution to state and national leaders.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra (510) 981-7170
Attachments:

1. Resolution Condemning the University of California’s Anti-Labor Actions and Legal Tactics

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

RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-LABOR

ACTIONS AND LEGAL TACTICS
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley stands with organized labor and respects the labor rights of all workers as demonstrated in Resolution No. 54,533-N.S., which adopted the Labor Bill of Rights as a statement of City of Berkeley policy1; and WHEREAS, the University of California (UC) is the largest employer in the City of Berkeley and the City of Berkeley has a vested interest in protecting the rights of all UC workers; and
WHEREAS, the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) Local 4811 represents 48,000 academic student employees, graduate student researchers, academic researchers, and postdoctoral researchers from all 11 UC campuses; and
WHEREAS, UAW Local 4811 filed Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges2 against the UC, citing management’s retaliation and discrimination against workers and students for nonviolently exercising their First Amendment Rights, the UC’s failure to protect its workers and students from violence by police and right-wing counter-protesters, and UC President Michael Drake’s unilateral changes to UC policy for the purposes of arresting and disciplining workers and students without giving advance notice to UAW Local 4811 or allowing the union to bargain over these changes; and WHEREAS, 79% of participating union members voted in favor of authorizing a strike over the ULP charges, initiating a stand-up strike beginning on May 20, 20243; and WHEREAS, the UC twice sought an injunction against the strike from the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), the regulatory body with the “exclusive initial jurisdiction” on questions of public sector labor law, and PERB twice found no legal basis for halting the strike;4 and
WHEREAS, PERB issued a thorough complaint against the UC alleging serious unfair labor practices5, prompting the UC to reject it and seek a temporary injunction against the strike from the Orange County Superior Court; and
1 berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting- attachments/5.%20Labor%20Bill%20of%20Rights_%20Resolution%20No.%2054533.pdf 2 uaw4811.org/2024-ulp-charges
3 dailybruin.com/2024/05/15/united-auto-workers-local-4811-votes-to-authorize-strike 4 latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-07/uc-seeks-to-halt-strike-takes-academic-workers-to-court 5 drive.google.com/file/d/1D0VpwqREl_D7RgNd87DPUDnZj9BRRfZF/view

WHEREAS, Noah Zatz, a Professor of Law at UCLA, wrote that “decades of labor law rejects” the UC’s claims that the strike is illegal;6 and WHEREAS, Veena Dubal, a Professor of Law at UC Irvine, compared the UC’s actions to those of union-busting megacorporations, stating that both were “attempting to undermine the bodies governing labor law;”7 and
WHEREAS, by undermining PERB, the UC has attempted to undermine the foundation of public sector labor law, which could have far-reaching impacts on the rights of hundreds of thousands of public sector employees;8 and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley condemns the UC’s ULPs against its employees; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Berkeley decries the UC’s anti-union legal tactics that undermine the labor rights of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Berkeley reaffirms its support for the rights of all workers to be safe from physical and mental harm in their workplaces; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Berkeley opposes all forms of illegal retaliation against employees for exercising their First Amendment rights; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Berkeley urges the UC to participate in PERB’s resolution process9 and resolve the ULPs, as offered by PERB and accepted by UAW Local 4811; and
FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED, that upon passage, a copy of this Resolution be sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, Regents of the University of California, the President of the University of California Michael Drake, the Chancellor of the University of California Berkeley Richard Lyons, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, State Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.
6 dailybruin.com/2024/05/16/op-ed-uc-offers-deceptive-claims-about-illegality-of-strike-in-letter-to-union- members
7 x.com/veenadubal/status/1798109232862249346
8 uaw4811.org/updates/gcdo8fb8xj2v80z791r0acsfhlpc93
9 uaw4811.org/updates/uc-refuses

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
July 9, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: LPO NOD: 1401 Le Roy Avenue, #LMSAP2024-0002

INTRODUCTION
The attached Landmarks Preservation Commission Notice of Decision (NOD) is presented to the Mayor and City Council pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code/Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (BMC/LPO) 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/Commission) approved a Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) to make alterations to the subject City Landmark property. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period, which began on June 25, 2024.

BACKGROUND
BMC/LPO Section 3.24.300 allows City Council to review any action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission in granting or denying a Structural Alteration Permit. For Council to review the decision on its merits, Council must appeal the NOD. To do so, a Council member must move this Information Item to Action and then move to set the matter for hearing on its own. Such action must be taken within 15 days of the mailing of the Notice of Decision, or by July 9, 2024. 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.

25

LPC NOD: 1401 Le Roy Avenue/#LMSAP2024-0002 INFORMATION CALENDAR July 9, 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY & 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 certify or appeal the decision, 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 action.

CONTACT PERSON
Fatema Crane, Principal Planner/LPC Secretary; Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7410
Reina Kapadia, AICP, Senior Planner; Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7485
Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – 1401 Le Roy Avenue, #LMSAP2024-0002

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: May 2, 2024
DATE NOTICE MAILED: June 24, 2024
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: July 9, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): July 10, 20241 1401 Le Roy Avenue – John Galen Howard House
Structural Alteration Permit (#LMSAP2024-0002) to alter the roofing material and to complete an exterior façade restoration at a City Landmark property.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the Structural Alteration Permit request.  Property Owner: Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
1401 Le Roy Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94708
 Project Applicant & Architect: Denise Hall Montgomery, Architect Denise Hall Montgomery Architecture
1769 Alcatraz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94703
ZONING DISTRICT: Single Family Residential, Hillside Overlay (R-1H) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from further 1 Pursuant to BMC Chapter 3.24, 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.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2024-0002
1401 Le Roy Avenue
Mailed: June 24, 2024

environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation.

The application materials for this project is available online at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/zoning-projects or https://permits.cityofberkeley.info/CitizenAccess/Default.aspx

FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPLICATION MATERIALS ARE

ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE
COMMISSION VOTE: 5-0-0-4
YES: CRANDALL, FINACOM, LINVILL, SCHWARTZ, TWU
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: ENCHILL, LEUSCHNER, MONTGOMERY (due to recusal), ORBUCH 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. 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. 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 $1,500. This fee may be reduced to $500 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. Signatures collected per the filing requirement in BMC Section 3.24.300.A may be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee, so long as the signers are qualified. The individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2024-0002
1401 Le Roy Avenue
Mailed: June 24, 2024

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 $5,520.

3. 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).

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

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.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2024-0002
1401 Le Roy Avenue
Mailed: June 24, 2024

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.

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, Reina Kapadia, at (510) 981-7485 or [email protected]. All project application materials may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, 3 rd Fl., during regular business hours.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Project Plans
ATTEST:

Fatema Crane, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Property Owner: Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
Project Applicant & Architect: Denise Hall Montgomery, Architect

A t t a c h m e n t 1, Part 2
D R A F T F i n d i n g s a n d C o n d i t i o n s

1401 Le Roy Avenue – John Galen Howard House
Structural Alteration Permit (#LMSAP2024-0002) to alter the roofing material and to complete an exterior façade restoration at a City Landmark property.

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 (SOI) for Rehabilitation, the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley makes the following findings:

1. The proposed project does not involve a change of use. The property will retain its historic single-family residential use.

2. The historic character of the property will be preserved and retained. No spaces or spatial relationships will be altered as part of this project. Distinctive materials will be replaced in kind only where deteriorated. No distinctive features will be permanently removed as part of the project.

3. No changes that are part of the project create a false sense of history and no conjectural features or elements are proposed. The restoration includes the replacement of deteriorated features to match the original in material, detail, and profile. The only change that is part of the project is the introduction of a new roofing material. The new standing seam and sheet metal roofing material, as designed, expresses itself as a contemporary material that does not attempt to mimic a historic material, while integrating harmoniously with the historic roof design.

4. The change to the property that has acquired significance in its own right is the 1927 library addition designed by architect Julia Morgan. The form of this addition is not affected by this project and only the deteriorated exterior features (i.e., leaded glass

1401 LE ROY AVENUE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - Findings and Conditions

windows and library balcony) will be replaced in kind. The physical form and spatial relationship of the addition to the original residence will not be impacted by the project.

5. Distinctive characteristics of the property will be preserved. Only those distinctive materials, features, and finishes that are deteriorated beyond repair will be replaced (to match the historic condition) in order to preserve the craftsmanship that characterizes the property.

6. The project carefully identifies which historic features are deteriorated and as a first approach, proposes repairs to the reparable features (e.g., wood and leaded glass windows). As a second approach, the project proposes to replace only those features which are deteriorated beyond repair (i.e., window frames, sashes, and trims; wood shake siding; and one balcony). These are designed to match the old in design, color, texture, and materials.

7. The only chemical treatment that is part of the project includes application of a fire- retardant coating to the restored exterior wood shakes. This treatment is not visible and will not impact the appearance of the material or the property as a whole. Additionally, standard conditions of Structural Alteration Permit approval would require any chemical or physical treatments to be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

8. The project does not have the potential to affect any archaeological resources because the project proposal does not necessitate any excavation.

9. No new additions or new construction are part of the project scope. The only exterior alteration would be the introduction of a new, contemporary roofing material (sheet and standing-seam metal), which has been selected for its fire-resistance and architectural compatibility with the building design. The installation has been carefully designed to be setback from the roof edge so as not to detract from the scale, proportions, and appearance of the roof historic form. While the low-pitched gable roof is a character- defining feature, the existing tar-and-gravel roof covering is not a character-contributing historic material. The proposed metal roofing is found to be a compatible material with the First Bay Tradition style of the residence because: its thin profile and setback placement will continue the low-pitched historic appearance of the roof; the deep tones and matte finish are harmonious with the patina that the redwood siding will weather into; and the linear shape of the standing seams and the flat metal panels echo the straight lines found in the ribbon coursing of the wood shingle pattern of the exterior facades.

10.No new additions or new construction are a part of this project. Should the new roofing material be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

1401 LE ROY AVENUE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - Findings and Conditions

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE

1. As required by Section 3.24.260 of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the Commission finds that the proposed work is appropriate for and consistent with the purposes of the Ordinance, and will preserve the characteristics and features specified in the designation for this property. Specifically:

A. The proposed project will not adversely affect the architectural design of the City Landmark. It has been carefully designed to preserve existing historic features and materials that are in good condition and replace only those materials which are deteriorated, in a manner to match the historic materials and details. This project achieves the applicant’s objectives to ensure longevity of the historic property and increase insulation and fire proofing without adversely affecting any of the exterior architectural features of the landmark.

B. The project extends the lifespan of the historic landmark through appropriate preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation, without adversely affecting the special character or any of the historical, architectural, and aesthetic interest and value of the landmark and its site.

1401 LE ROY AVENUE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - Findings and Conditions

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
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 permittee agrees as a condition of approval of this application to indemnify, protect, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless, the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the approval of this application, any actions taken by the City related to this entitlement, or any environmental review conducted under the

1401 LE ROY AVENUE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - Findings and Conditions

California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 210000 et seq., for this entitlement and related actions. The indemnification shall include any Claims that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the permittee, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents. The permittee’s duty to defend the City shall not apply in those instances when the permittee has asserted the Claims, although the permittee shall still have a duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City. (City Attorney).

6. Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected. The project applicant and project construction contractor shall notify the City Planning Department within 24 hours. The City will again contact any tribes who have requested consultation under AB 52, as well as contact a qualified archaeologist, to evaluate the resources and situation and provide recommendations. If it is determined that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. If the resource cannot be avoided, additional measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource and to address tribal concerns may be required.

7. Archaeological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f), “provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” should be instituted.

Therefore:

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

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

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

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

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

1401 LE ROY AVENUE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - Findings and Conditions

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

9. Paleontological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction) In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP 1995,1996]). The qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
The following additional conditions are attached to this Permit:

10. No changes can be made to these approved plans without prior approval.

11. CITY PERMITS . This Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) approval is contingent upon approval of the requisite Use Permit and Public Work Permit for the project scope.

12. PLANS COMPLIANCE. Construction and building permit plans shall substantially conform to the Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) project plans dated/received March 26, 2024.

13. 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 shall be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

1401 LE ROY AVENUE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - Findings and Conditions

14. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used.

15. 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.

16. CLEAR GLASS. All glass is assumed to be clear glass. Any proposed glass that is not clear glass, or includes signage, shall be indicated on all drawings, and shall be reviewed for approval by Landmarks staff.

17. DETAILS. Prior to Landmarks plan checker sign-off of the Building Permit set of drawings, the applicant shall submit window, door, base, and trim details for review and approval by the Landmarks plan checker.

18. SIGNAGE. Prior to Landmarks plan checker sign-off of the building permit set of drawings, the applicant shall submit complete signage details, including colors, materials, letter heights, dimensions, placement on building, and installation details. All materials will be matte unless otherwise noted. All non-temporary signage and awnings not previously approved and not listed in this application are prohibited.

19. 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.

20. LANDSCAPE PLANS. Prior to Landmarks plan checker sign-off of the Building Permit set of drawings, the applicant shall submit a Landscape plan including the number, location, and species of all proposed plantings, and which existing plantings shall be removed. The applicant shall provide irrigation for all landscaped areas or provide drought tolerant plant palette. This shall be called out on Landscape building permit drawings.

21. LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION. The applicant shall provide irrigation for all landscaped areas. This shall be called out on Landscape building permit drawings. (Add alternative per R-district requirement)

22. CURB CUTS. All curbs and curb cuts shall be constructed per the standards and specifications of the Public Works Department. Curb cuts no longer utilized shall be restored per the Public Works Department specifications.

23. 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.

24. 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.

1401 LE ROY AVENUE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - Findings and Conditions

25. All building permit drawings and subsequent construction shall substantially conform to the approved plans as outlined in Condition #1. Any modifications must be reviewed by the Landmarks plan checker to determine whether the modification requires approval.

26. 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.

62'
(E) SETBACK
23'-10"
(E) SETBACK
9'-9"
(E) SETBACK
50'-9"
(E) SETBACK

GENERAL

INFORMATION
A0.0 FROM GOOGLE MAPS - NTS

GENERAL NOTES

VICINITY MAP

DRAWING INDEX
A0.0GENERAL INFORMATION, SITE PLANS
SHEET NO. & TITLE

SUBMISSION & DATE

FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING / DEMO & PROPOSED
PROJECT ADDRESS:1401 LE ROY AVENUE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:058 224400100
DESCRIPTION OF WORK:

THE APPLICATION IS FOR

1. REPLACE OF SELECT WINDOWS;

2. RESTORE LEADED GLASS WINDOWS;

3. NEW METAL ROOFING W/ INSULATION

4. REPLACE SHAKE SHINGLES
THE TOTAL FOOTPRINT AND AREA OF THE BUILDING IS UNCHANGED.

OCCUPANCY:RESIDENTIAL R-3
CONSTRUCTION:TYPE VB
ZONING:R-1H
GENERAL PLAN AREA:LDR
TABULATION FORM:

EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ.

DWELLING UNITS111
PARKING SPACES22
FRONT YARD SETBACK 23'10"NO CHANGE

SIDE YARD SETBACK
LEFT9'9"NO CHANGE
RIGHT 50'9"NO CHANGE
REAR YARD SETBACK 62'0"NO CHANGE
BUILDING HT. - STORIES 3NO CHANGE 3
AVERAGE 24'10"NO CHANGE 28'0"
MAXIMUM 31'3"NO CHANGE 35'0"
LOT AREA20,298 SF NO CHANGE
GROSS FLOOR AREA 4,063 SFNO CHANGE
BUILDING FOOTPRINT 2,014 SFNO CHANGE
LOT COVERAGE10%NO CHANGE

SITE PLAN

FROM SANDBORN MAPS & TAX ASSESSORS PARCEL MAP
N
1/16" = 1'0" (@ 24 x 36) 1/32" = 1'0" (@11 x 17)

1. PERMIT B2023-01935 ISSUED 4/18/23 APPROVED TO ADD SOLAR PANELS.

A2.1

1.REPLACE SELECT WINDOWS, TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING MATERIAL AND COLOR

2.RESTORE LEADED GLASS WINDOWS

3.INSTALL NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING WITH INSULATION

4.REPLACE REDWOOD SHAKES WITH NEW REDWOOD SHAKES W/ FIRE RETARDANT

5.RESTORE ROOF FASCIA AND GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING MATERIAL AND COLOR

6. RETROFIT LIBRARY BALCONY AND REPLACE GUARDRAIL
N

PROJECT SITE
1401 LeRoy Avenue

1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXECUTE THE WORK OF THIS PROJECT IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CODE EDITIONS; 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC), 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), 2022 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE (CBHC), 2022 CMC, 2022 CPC, 2022 CFC & 2022 CEC AS AMENDED BY THE CITY OF BERKELEY AND 2022 TITLE 24 ENERGY STANDARDS. THE CBC IS BASED ON THE 2022 IBC, 2022 UMC, 2022 UPC, 2022 IFC & 2022 NEC. THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE ALL NOTICES AND COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, LAWS, ORDINANCES AND ORDERS BY ANY PUBLIC AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PROJECT.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT IN A TIMELY FASHION ANY

DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICABLE CODES AND THE DRAWINGS OF WHICH THE CONTRACTOR IS OR BECOMES AWARE.

2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STUDY THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND REPORT TO THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING ALL INCONSISTENCIES AND OMISSIONS HE FINDS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE AND PROJECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. IF THE CONTRACTOR PROCEEDS WITH ANY OF THE

WORK WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ARCHITECT, WHERE SUCH INSTRUCTIONS ARE REQUIRED

BY THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE GOOD AT HIS OWN COST ANY RESULTING ERROR, DAMAGE, OR DEFECTS.

3. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON DRAWINGS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIMENSIONS SCALED FROM DRAWINGS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. IF A DIMENSION(S) HAS BEEN

OMITTED THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT IN A TIMELY FASHION.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS OF ALL PROJECT COMPONENTS.

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION CLEARANCES OF ALL ITEMS,

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, AND CABINET WORK, TO BE INSTALLED IN THE PROJECT.

5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING, MAINTAINING AND SUPERVISING

ALL SAFETY PRECAUTION PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION WITH WORK, AND FOR MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE INSURANCE TO PROTECT THE CONTRACTOR, THE OWNER AND THE ARCHITECT.

6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, THE PUBLIC AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE OR INJURY DUE TO HIS NEGLECT.

7. THE ARCHITECT WILL ASSIST THE OWNER IN SUBMITTING PLANS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION; ARCHITECT WILL ANSWER BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S PLAN CHECK COMMENTS AND RE SUBMIT AS REQUIRED. THE OWNER WILL SECURE AND PAY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT. CONTRACTOR WILL PAY FOR ALL OTHER PERMITS (INCLUDING ANY REQUIRED SIDEWALK SHED PERMITS, PARKING OR DUMPSTER PERMITS),

LICENSES, INSPECTIONS AND THE LIKE REQUIRED TO EFFECT THE WORK OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS THROUGH RECEIPT OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

8. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF APPLICABLE UTILITIES, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO GAS, WATER, POWER, SEWER, TELEPHONE, AND CABLE TELEVISION,

DETERMINE EXACT LOCATIONS AND AVAILABILITY OF UTILITIES, AND DETERMINE CONDITION OF EXISTING SERVICE PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADVISE ARCHITECT AND

OWNER OF UNANTICIPATED CHANGES TO THE EXISTING SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE

SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION AND OPERATION OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT AND OWNER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION.

9. CONTRACTOR SHALL ERECT AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY BARRICADES AND DUST-PROOF

PARTITIONS AS NEEDED FOR PROTECTION AGAINST NUISANCE AND ACCIDENT, AND SHALL

CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF HIS WORK AND THE OWNER'S PROPERTY FROM DAMAGE OR LOSS ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OF THIS PROJECT.

10. IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SITE, WORK IN PROGRESS, STORED MATERIALS ON PROPERTY SHALL

BE PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR FROM DAMAGE ARISING FROM THE WORK AND FROM

NORMAL USE OF THE SITE DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORK WHETHER BY THE CONTRACTOR OR ANY OTHER PARTY. ALL ITEMS DAMAGED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PROTECTION SHALL BE FULLY RESTORED TO THEIR PRIOR CONDITION BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.

11. PARTITION DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. OTHER

COMPONENTS ARE DIMENSIONED TO DIMENSION POINTS SHOWN ON DETAILS, OR AS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.

12. NO PART OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE OVERLOADED BEYOND ITS SAFE CARRYING CAPACITY

BY THE PLACING OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, TOOLS, MACHINERY OR ANY OTHER ITEMS DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONTRACTOR'S WORK.

13. AT THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN HIS AND THE

SURROUNDING AREA, REMOVE ALL WASTE MATERIALS AND RUBBISH FROM THE PROJECT AS WELL AS HIS OR HER TOOLS, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY AND SURPLUS MATERIALS. THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE PUTTY AND PAINT FROM ALL GLASS, MIRRORS, AND WASH AND POLISH SAME; REMOVE ALL LABELS, TAGS, GREASE, DIRT, STAINS, ETC. AND CLEAN ALL FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RESTORING THEM TO THE ORIGINAL FINISH.

14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A CURRENT COPY OF THE CBC & CRC ON SITE.

15. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURITY OF THE SITE,

CONSTRUCTION-IN-PROGRESS, AND STORED MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT, WHETHER ON- OR OFF-SITE.

16. THE OWNER SHALL PAY FOR TESTING OF ANY MATERIALS DISCOVERED ON THE SITE BY THE

ARCHITECT, OWNER OR CONTRACTOR SUSPECTED OF CONTAINING TOXIC SUBSTANCES REQUIRING SPECIAL REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL. CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT RESULTING FROM

THE DISCOVERY, TESTING, OR REMOVAL OF SUCH MATERIALS (IF ANY) SHALL BE EFFECTED BY A CHANGE ORDER.

17. GENERAL CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL WORK PROVIDED BY ANY AND ALL SUBCONTRACTOR'S. GENERAL NOTES THAT REFER TO "CONTRACTOR" INCLUDE ALL WORK PROVIDED BY SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL

GRADES, DIMENSIONS, AND CONDITIONS IN FIELD PRIOR TO THE START OF PROJECT AND AT

APPROPRIATE TIMES DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION BEFORE RELATED PROJECT PHASES.

18. EACH SUBCONTRACTOR IS CONSIDERED A SPECIALIST IN HIS RESPECTIVE FIELD AND SHALL,

PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF HIS BID AND THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK, NOTIFY THE

CONTRACTOR OF ANY WORK CALLED OUT IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS WHICH CANNOT BE EXECUTED AS INDICATED OR CANNOT BE FULLY GUARANTEED. THE CONTRACTOR WILL THEN NOTIFY THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID.

19. THE ARCHITECT HAS MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT EXISTING CONCEALED CONDITIONS ARE STANDARD. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE EXPECTED TO PERFORM THE NECESSARY WORK TO COMPLETE THE INDICATED CONSTRUCTION. IN THE EVENT THAT DEMOLITION REVEALS

UNEXPECTED CONDITIONS, THE CONTRACTOR MUST INFORM THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT OF ANTICIPATED CHANGE ORDERS IN ADVANCE.

20. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE SAMPLES OF REQUESTED SUBMITTALS AND OF ALL PROPOSED MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW. THE ARCHITECT WILL REQUIRE FIVE WORKING DAYS FOR REVIEW OF ALL SUBMITTALS INCLUDING SHOP DRAWINGS. SHOP DRAWINGS

AND MATERIALS TO THE ARCHITECT WILL HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. BY SUBMITTING SHOP DRAWINGS AND SUBMITTALS TO THE ARCHITECT, THE

CONTRACTOR REPRESENTS THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS DETERMINED AND VERIFIED MATERIAL,

FIELD MEASUREMENTS, AND FIELD CONSTRUCTION RELATED THERETO, AND HAS CHECKED AND

COORDINATED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN SUCH SUBMITTALS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WORK AND OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE ARCHITECT'S REVIEW OF SUBMITTALS AND SHOP DRAWINGS IS FOR CONFIRMATION OF DESIGN INTENT ONLY.

21. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PERMITS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING, PARKING, SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE AND/OR SEWER WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

22. THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS INTEND TO DESCRIBE A FINISHED PROJECT READY FOR LEGAL USE.

ABBREVIATIONS
&
L
@
CL
#
d
ACOUS.

ADJ.

APPROX.

A.F.F.

ALT.

ALUM.

A.B.

BD.

BITUM.

BLDG.

BLK.

BLK'G.

B.O.T.

CLG.

C.T.

CLK'G.

CLR.

CONC.

CONN.

CONSTR.

C.J.

CONT.

CTSK.

CMU
D
DBL.

DET./DTL.

D.F.

DIA.

DIM.

DN.

DWG.

EA.

ELEC.

ELEV.

E.P.

EQ.
(E)
EXP.JT.

EXT.

F.D.

F.E.

F.F.

F.F.E.

FIN.

FL.

F.O.C.

F.O.F.

F.O.M.

F.O.S.

F.O.SH.

FT.

FTG.

FURR.

GA.

G.C.

GL.

GSM.

GYP. BD./
GWB.

H
H.B.

H.C.

HDWD.

HDWR.

HORIZ.

HR.

HW
IN.

INTM.

INSUL.

INT.

JOINT

LAMINATE
LIGHT

MACHINE BOLT

MAXIMUM

MECHANICAL

MEMBRANE
METAL

MANUFACTURER

MINIMUM

MISCELLANEOUS

MASONRY OPENING

MOUNTED

MULLION
NEW
NORTH

NOT IN CONTRACT
NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE

ON CENTER

OWNER FURNISHED,

CONTRACTOR INSTALLED

PLASTIC LAMINATE

PLYWOOD

PRESSURE-TREATED

PAINTED

PARTITION

QUARRY TILE
RISER
RADIUS

REFRIGERATOR

REINFORCED

REQUIRED

RESILIENT
ROOM

ROUGH OPENING

REDWOOD

RAINWATER LEADER
SELF ADHERED SHEET MEMB.

SQUARE FEET
SHEET

SQUARE INCH

SIMILAR

SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWING

SEE MECHANICAL DRAWING

SPECIFICATIONS
SQUARE

STAINLESS STEEL

STANDARD
STEEL

STORAGE

SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWING

TELEPHONE

TONGUE AND GROOVE
TREAD
THICK

TYPICAL
TOP OF

TOP OF CONCRETE

TOP OF OUTRIGGER

TOP OF PLATE

TOP OF SLAB

TOP OF TRUSS

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

VERTICAL

VERIFY IN FIELD

VERTICAL GRAIN
WIDTH
WITH
WOOD
WINDOW

WITHOUT

WATERPROOF

WESTERN RED CEDAR
JT.

LAM.

LT.

M.B.

MAX.

MECH.

MEMB.

MET./MTL.

MFR.

MIN.

MISC.

M.O.

MTD.

MUL.
(N)
N
N.I.C.

NO.

N.T.S.

O.C.

O.F.C.I.

P. LAM.

PLYWD.

P.T.

PTD.

PTN.

Q.T.

R.

RAD.

REF.

REINF.

REQ.

RESIL.

RM.

R.O.

RWD.

RWL.

SASM
SQ. FT.

SHT.

SQ. IN.

SIM.

S.L.D.

S.M.D.

SPEC.

SQ.

S.S.

STD.

STL.

STOR.

S.S.D.

TEL.

T&G
T.

THK.

TYP.

T.O.

T.O.C.

T.O.O.

T.O.P.

T.O.S.

T.O.T.

U.O.N.

VERT.

V.I.F.

V.G.

W
W/
WD.

WDW
W/O
WP
WRC
AND
ANGLE
AT

CENTER LINE

POUND OR NUMBER
PENNY

ACOUSTIC

ADJUSTABLE

APPROXIMATE

ABOVE FINISH FLOOR

ALTERNATE

ALUMINUM

ANCHOR BOLT
BOARD

BITUMINOUS

BUILDING
BLOCK

BLOCKING

BOTTOM OF TRUSS

CEILING

CERAMIC TILE

CAULKING
CLEAR

CONCRETE

CONNECTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONTROL JOINT

CONTINUOUS

COUNTERSUNK

CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
DEPTH
DOUBLE
DETAIL

DOUGLAS FIR

DIAMETER

DIMENSION
DOWN

DRAWING
EACH

ELECTRICAL

ELEVATION

ELECTRICAL PANEL
EQUAL

EXISTING

EXPANSION JOINT

EXTERIOR

FLOOR DRAIN

FIRE EXTINGUISER

FINISH FLOOR

FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION
FINISH
FLOOR

FACE OF CONCRETE

FACE OF FINISH

FACE OF MASONRY

FACE OF STUD

FACE OF SHEATHING
FOOT

FOOTING

FURRING
GAUGE

GENERAL CONTRACTOR
GLASS

GALVANIZED SHEET METAL

GYPSUM WALL BOARD
HEIGHT

HOSE BIB

HOLLOW CORE

HARDWOOD

HARDWARE

HORIZONTAL
HOUR

HARDWOOD
INCH

INTERMEDIATE

INSULATION

INTERIOR

SYMBOL LEGEND

ELEVATION/SECTION

INTERIOR ELEVATION

ELEVATION/CONTROL POINT
WINDOW
DOOR

WALL/ROOF TYPE

ALIGN FINISH FACES

REVISION NUMBER

SEE DOOR SCHEDULE

SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE

REVISION

DETAIL NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

DETAIL NUMBER
DETAIL

SHEET NUMBER

DETAIL NUMBER

FLOOR NUMBER
A
101
A
C
DB
2 A8.1
2 A4.1
2 A4.1 101

ROOM NUMBER

SEE FINISH SCHEDULE

FLOOR NUMBER

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FIXTURE TAG
SEE PLUMBING & MECH. SCHEDULE
WD-01FINISH TAG
P-01
X
6 A
& INTERIOR ELEVATIONS

SCOPE OF WORK
MOISTURE CONTENT OF BUILDING MATERIALS. BUILDING MATERIALS WITH VISIBLE SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED. WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING SHALL NOT BE ENCLOSED WHEN THE FRAMING MEMBERS EXCEED 19 PERCENT MOISTURE CONTENT. MOISTURE CONTENT SHALL BE VERIFIED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:

1. MOISTURE CONTENT SHALL BE DETERMINED WITH EITHER A PROBE-TYPE OR CONTACT-TYPE MOISTURE METER. EQUIVALENT MOISTURE VERIFICATION METHODS MAY

BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF BERKELEY AND SHALL SATISFY REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN CALGREEN SECTION 101.8.

2. MOISTURE READINGS SHALL BE TAKEN AT A POINT 2 FEET TO 4 FEET FROM THE GRADE STAMPED END OF EACH PIECE TO BE VERIFIED.

3. AT LEAST THREE RANDOM MOISTURE READINGS SHALL BE PERFORMED ON WALL

AND FLOOR FRAMING WITH DOCUMENTATION ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY OF BERKELEY PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL TO ENCLOSE THE WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING.

INSULATION PRODUCTS. INSULATION PRODUCTS WHICH ARE VISIBLY WET OR HAVE A

HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT SHALL BE REPLACED OR ALLOWED TO DRY PRIOR TO ENCLOSURE IN WALL OR FLOOR CAVITIES. WET-APPLIED INSULATION PRODUCTS

SHALL FOLLOW THE MANUFACTURES' DRYING RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO ENCLOSURE.

GREEN BUILDING NOTES

RELATED INFORMATION

TABULATION FORM
EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS - EXISTING & PROPOSEDA3.0
A3.1
EXTERIOR DETAILS - ROOFA8.1
A0.6SCHEDULES & WALL TYPES
SECOND FLOOR PLAN EXISTING / DEMO & PROPOSEDA2.2
1 ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF DENISE HALL MONTGOMERY, ARCHITECT.

Greenwald & Bach
Residence
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
denise hall montgomery
1769 alcatraz avenue
berkeley, ca 94703
t 510.547.3040
c 510.504.9394
[email protected]
architecture
DATE:SCALE:

JOB: DRAWN BY:
23003

26.MAR.2024
dhm/ma
Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
[email protected]
[email protected]

AS NOTED
Kelsey Holmes Foster
Verdant Structural Engineers, Inc.
1101 8th St. #180,
Berkeley, CA
t 510 528 5394
[email protected]
SITE PLAN EXISTINGA1.0
BASEMENT FLOOR PROPOSEDA2.0
ROOF PLAN EXISTING / DEMOA2.3
ROOF PLAN PROPOSEDA2.4
EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS - EXISTING & PROPOSEDA3.2
EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS - EXISTING & PROPOSEDA3.3

EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS - EXISTING & PROPOSED
EXTERIOR DETAILS - WINDOWSA8.3
EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS - EXISTING & PROPOSEDA3.4
A0.31SITE PHOTOS
A0.3SITE PHOTOS
EXTERIOR DETAILS - WALLA8.2

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE
THE AUTHORITY OF USE OF THE CBHC IS VESTED IN SECTIONS 18950 THROUGH 18961 OF THE HELTH AND SAFETY CODE. SECTION 18954. STATES "THE BUILDING

DEPARTMENT OF EVERY CITY OR COUNTY SHALL APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF

ALTERNATIVE BUILDING STANDARDS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE CHBC BOARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 18959.5 IN PERMITTING REPAIRS, ALTERATIONS

AND ADDITIONS NECESSARY FOR PRESERVATION, RESTORATION, REHABILITATION, MOVING OR CONTINUED USE OF AN HISTORICAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. A STATE

AGENCY SHALL APPLY THE ALTERNATIVE BUILDING REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE CHBC BOARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 18959.5 IN PERMITTING REPAIRS, ALTERATIONS

AND ADDITIONS NECESSARY FOR PRESERVATION, RESTORATION, REHABILITATION, MOVING OR CONTINUED USE OF AN HISTORICAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE." X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X 26.MAR.2024 STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT
A0.7 MATERIAL PALETTEX
X
X
X
LeRoy Ave
Rose St
AR

TCETIHC
L

DESNECI
A
S
F
C

AINROFIL
TATE
O
C28288

DENISEHAL

YREMOGTNOM
L
6/30/2025

RENEWAL
DATE
EXTERIOR DETAILS - LIBRARY BALCONYA8.4X
Attachment 1, Part 3

SITE PHOTOS
A0.3

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF DENISE HALL MONTGOMERY, ARCHITECT.

Greenwald & Bach
Residence
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
denise hall montgomery
1769 alcatraz avenue
berkeley, ca 94703
t 510.547.3040
c 510.504.9394
[email protected]
architecture
DATE:SCALE:

JOB: DRAWN BY:
23003

26.MAR.2024
dhm/ma
Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
[email protected]
[email protected]

AS NOTED
Kelsey Holmes Foster
Verdant Structural Engineers, Inc.
1101 8th St. #180,
Berkeley, CA
t 510 528 5394
[email protected]
AR

TCETIHC
L

DESNECI
A
S
F
C

AINROFIL
TATE
O
C28288

DENISEHAL

YREMOGTNOM
L
6/30/2025

RENEWAL
DATE
SUBJECT PROPERTY : NORTH WEST CORNER FACADE
SUBJECT PROPERTY : NORTH FRONT FACADE SUBJECT PROPERTY : EAST SIDE FACADE SUBJECT PROPERTY : WEST FRONT FACADESUBJECT PROPERTY : SOUTH SIDE FACADE

SITE PHOTOS
A0.31

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF DENISE HALL MONTGOMERY, ARCHITECT.

Greenwald & Bach
Residence
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
denise hall montgomery
1769 alcatraz avenue
berkeley, ca 94703
t 510.547.3040
c 510.504.9394
[email protected]
architecture
DATE:SCALE:

JOB: DRAWN BY:
23003

26.MAR.2024
dhm/ma
Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
[email protected]
[email protected]

AS NOTED
Kelsey Holmes Foster
Verdant Structural Engineers, Inc.
1101 8th St. #180,
Berkeley, CA
t 510 528 5394
[email protected]
AR

TCETIHC
L

DESNECI
A
S
F
C

AINROFIL
TATE
O
C28288

DENISEHAL

YREMOGTNOM
L
6/30/2025

RENEWAL
DATE
SUBJECT PROPERTY :SOUTH INTERIOR FACADE
SUBJECT PROPERTY : EAST INTERIOR FACADE

STUD PER SCHEDULE, S.S.D.

STUD SIZE WIDTH
A4 - 2x4 @ 16" O.C. 43
4"
A6 - 2x6 @ 16" O.C. 634"
5/8" TYPE 'X' GYP. BD. U.O.N.

SEE ELEVS FOR TYPICAL FINISHES

INSTALLATION

INTERIOR PARTITION
--
A
X C
A
X C

1. INSTALL R-13 FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION @ ALL 2X4
EXTERIOR WALLS. INSTALL R-19 FIBERGLASS BATT
INSULATION @ ALL 2X6 EXTERIOR WALLS.

WALL ASSEMBLY NOTES:

R-13 @ 2x4 WALLS
R-21 @ 2x6 WALLS

FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION

EXTERIOR WALL, TYP
--
INT.EXT.STUD SIZE WIDTH
A4 - 2x4 @ 16" O.C. 5 1/2"
A6 - 2x6 @ 16" O.C. 7 1/2"
5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. BD.

EXISTING PLASTER FINISH
(N) MINERAL WOOL BAT INSULATION
R-14 @ 2X4 WALLS
R-22 @2X6 WALLS
(N) 7/16" LP "FLAMEBLOCK" SHEATHING

PYROTITE FACING INTERIOR
(N) REDWOOD SHAKES TO MATCH EXISTING

FIN FLR

FIN FLR

DOOR HD
6'-8" AFF

SCHEDULES &

WALL TYPES
A0.6

1. VERIFY ALL WALL THICKNESSES IN FIELD PRIOR TO ORDER.

2. VERIFY ALL R.O. AND FRAME DIMS WITH PROPRIETARY DOOR FRAME MANUFACTURER'S STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.

3. DIMENSIONS OF ALL DOOR STILE AND RAILS ARE FROM LEAF EDGE TO PANEL DAYLIGHT EDGE, TYP.

4. ALL GLASS DOOR PANELS SHALL BE CLEAR TEMPERED GLASS, U.O.N.

5. SEE HARDWARE SCHEDULES FOR DOOR HARDWARE GROUPS.

6. PROVIDE LOW-E INSULATED DOUBLE GLAZING FOR LITES IN ALL EXTERIOR DOORS, U.O.N.

DOOR SCHEDULEWINDOW SCHEDULE

WALL TYPES

1. ALL DOORS RECEIVE 2 HINGES, LATCHSET OR

LOCKSET, FLOOR STOP, WALL BUMPER IF

APPLICABLE, CLOSER OR HOLD OPEN AS
NOTED.

PTD: PAINTED
CLR: CLEAR SEALED
ST/SL: STAINED & SEALED
SGC: STAIN GRADE CEDAR
PGW: PAINT GRADE WOOD
SGDF: PAINT GRADE DOUG. FIR
PRWT: PRIMED WHITE
BRZ AL: BRONZE ANODIZED ALUMINUM
SGM: HOLLOW METAL
GALV: GALVANIZED
AL: ALUMINUM
WD: WOOD
ST. STL: STAINLESS STEEL
GL: GLAZED
SN: SATIN NICKEL

2. HARDWARE TYPE::

A. SALVAGE & PRESERVE EXISITNG
B. PRIVACY LOCK
C. SECURITY LOCK

HARDWARE SCHEDULEGENERAL DOOR NOTES

WINDOW TYPES

DOOR TYPES

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF DENISE HALL MONTGOMERY, ARCHITECT.

Greenwald & Bach
Residence
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
denise hall montgomery
1769 alcatraz avenue
berkeley, ca 94703
t 510.547.3040
c 510.504.9394
[email protected]
architecture
DATE:SCALE:

JOB: DRAWN BY:
23003

26.MAR.2024
dhm/ma
Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
[email protected]
[email protected]

AS NOTED
Kelsey Holmes Foster
Verdant Structural Engineers, Inc.
1101 8th St. #180,
Berkeley, CA
t 510 528 5394
[email protected]
AR

TCETIHC
L

DESNECI
A
S
F
C

AINROFIL
TATE
O
C28288

DENISEHAL

YREMOGTNOM
L
6/30/2025

RENEWAL
DATE

1. VERIFY QUANTITY OF WINDOWS WITH FLOOR PLANS.

2. VERIFY DIRECTION OF SWING / ACTION WITH ELEVATIONS

3. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON WINDOW TYPE DIAGRAMS ARE FRAME OPENING, U.O.N.

4. VERIFY ALL ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS IN FIELD PRIOR TO WINDOW FABRICATION.

5. PROVIDE SAFETY GLAZING AS REQUIRED PER CBC 2406.4

GENERAL WINDOW NOTES

6. ALL EXTERIOR GLAZING TO BE DOUBLE-PANED, CLEAR, LOW-E INSULATED GLAZING UNITS, U.O.N.

7. ALL OPERABLE WINDOWS TO BE "ROTO" STYLE.

8. T = TEMPERED GLAZING

9. PROVIDE 4" OPENING RESTRICTORS FOR OPERABLE WINDOWS W/ SILL BELOW 42"

10. CONFIRM FINAL FINISH W/ ARCHITECT

1. REPAIRS TO ANY PORTION OF A QUALIFIED HISTORICAL BUILDING OR

PROPERTY MAY BE IN-KIND WITH HISTORICAL MATERIALS AND THE USE

OF ORIGINAL OR EXISTING HISTORICAL METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF THE CHBC, PER CHBC 8-105

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE
a. HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN
b. HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE REPLACED
c. HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE RESTORED
d. NON-HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN
e. NON-HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE REPLACED
f. HISTORIC DOOR TO BE RESTORED
g. HISTORIC DOOR TO BE REPLACED
h. HISTORIC DOOR TO REMAIN
j. NON-HISTORIC DOOR TO REMAIN

CONSERVATION STATUS KEY NOTE

1. LEADED GLASS PULLING AWAY FROM SASH AND GLASS

2. WATER DAMAGE

3. DRY ROT

4. OPERABILITY DAMAGED

5. REPLACE TO MATCH

CONSERVATION ISSUE KEY NOTE

MATERIAL PALETTE
A0.7

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF DENISE HALL MONTGOMERY, ARCHITECT.

Greenwald & Bach
Residence
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
denise hall montgomery
1769 alcatraz avenue
berkeley, ca 94703
t 510.547.3040
c 510.504.9394
[email protected]
architecture
DATE:SCALE:

JOB: DRAWN BY:
23003

26.MAR.2024
dhm/ma
Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
[email protected]
[email protected]

AS NOTED
Kelsey Holmes Foster
Verdant Structural Engineers, Inc.
1101 8th St. #180,
Berkeley, CA
t 510 528 5394
[email protected]
AR

TCETIHC
L

DESNECI
A
S
F
C

AINROFIL
TATE
O
C28288

DENISEHAL

YREMOGTNOM
L
6/30/2025

RENEWAL
DATE
EXTERIOR FINISHES:

REDWOOD SHAKES TO MATCH EXISTING
INTERIOR FINISHES:

LEADED GLASS WINDOW RESTORATION TO

MATCH EXISTING WHITE SASH AND FRAME
EXTERIOR FINISHES:

WINDOW RESTORATION TO MATCH EXISTING GREEN

SASH AND REDWOOD FRAME
WINDOW REPLACEMENT:

NEW CUSTOM MARVIN DOUBLE HUNG PRIMED

WOOD WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING
EXTERIOR: GREEN SASH AND REDWOOD FRAME
INTERIOR: WHITE SASH AND FRAME
EXTERIOR FINISHES:

STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF IN PINE GREEN OR MEDIUM BRONZE GUARDRAIL:

LIBRARY BALCONY GUARDRAIL TO MATCH

INTERIOR TOWER STAIR GUARDRAIL
WINDOW REPLACEMENT:

NEW CUSTOM WOOD WINDOW SASH TO

ACCOMMODATE LEADED GLASS AND NEW

DOUBLE PANE GLASS
EXTERIOR: GREEN SASH AND REDWOOD FRAME
INTERIOR: WHITE SASH AND FRAME

001

CRAWL SPACE
002

UTILITY
003
STAIR 1
004

STORAGE
007

KITCHENETTE
008
ROOM
010
BEDROOM 1
006
DINING
005
STAIR 2
009

VESTIBULE
011
BATH 1
E10
07 E11
E12
E13E14
C9
C8
E15

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF DENISE HALL MONTGOMERY, ARCHITECT.

Greenwald & Bach
Residence
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
denise hall montgomery
1769 alcatraz avenue
berkeley, ca 94703
t 510.547.3040
c 510.504.9394
[email protected]
architecture
DATE:SCALE:

JOB: DRAWN BY:
23003

26.MAR.2024
dhm/ma
Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
[email protected]
[email protected]

AS NOTED
Kelsey Holmes Foster
Verdant Structural Engineers, Inc.
1101 8th St. #180,
Berkeley, CA
t 510 528 5394
[email protected]

BASEMENT FLOOR
PLAN

PROPOSED
A2.0 1BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED - NO CHANGE
1/4" = 1'-0" @ 24x36; 1/8" = 1'-0" @ 11x17
N

1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD FRAMING, U.O.N.

2. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN FIELD. CONTRACTOR TO BRING ALL DISCREPANCIES TO THE

ARCHITECT'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND FABRICATION OR BEAR THE COST OF CORRECTION.
1 SHEET NOTES
KEY

GENERAL PLAN NOTES
(E) WALL / COMPONENT TO BE REMOVED
(E) WALL TO REMAIN
(N) WALL
(E) OR (N) BUILDING ELEMENT ABOVE
xxxxxxxxxxxx
2 A3.1
2 A3.0
2 A3.3
4 A3.2
2A3.2
4A3.1
4A3.0
4 A3.3
AR

TCETIHC
L

DESNECI
A
S
F
C

AINROFIL
TATE
O
C28288

DENISEHAL

YREMOGTNOM
L
6/30/2025

RENEWAL
DATE

101

BREAKFAST
102
LAUNDRY103
1/2 BATH
104

KITCHEN
105
PANTRY
107
DINING
108
FOYER
110
1/2 BATH
117
PORCH
109
HALL
111
STAIR 4
113
VESTIBULE 1
114

ELEVATOR
115
VESTIBULE 2
112
STUDY
116

LIVING ROOM
100

BREEZEWAY
B1
C1
C2
E1
E2E3
04 05
06 B2
E20E21E22
E23
003
STAIR 1
106
STAIR 3
A4A3A2A1

FIRST FLOOR
PLAN

EXISTING/DEMO
& PROPOSED
A2.1 1FIRST FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED - NO CHANGE
1/4" = 1'-0" @ 24x36; 1/8" = 1'-0" @ 11x17
N

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF DENISE HALL MONTGOMERY, ARCHITECT.

Greenwald & Bach
Residence
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
denise hall montgomery
1769 alcatraz avenue
berkeley, ca 94703
t 510.547.3040
c 510.504.9394
[email protected]
architecture
DATE:SCALE:

JOB: DRAWN BY:
23003

26.MAR.2024
dhm/ma
Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
[email protected]
[email protected]

AS NOTED
Kelsey Holmes Foster
Verdant Structural Engineers, Inc.
1101 8th St. #180,
Berkeley, CA
t 510 528 5394
[email protected]
AR

TCETIHC
L

DESNECI
A
S
F
C

AINROFIL
TATE
O
C28288

DENISEHAL

YREMOGTNOM
L
6/30/2025

RENEWAL
DATE

1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD FRAMING, U.O.N.

2. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN FIELD. CONTRACTOR TO BRING ALL DISCREPANCIES TO THE

ARCHITECT'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND FABRICATION OR BEAR THE COST OF CORRECTION.
1 SHEET NOTES
KEY

GENERAL PLAN NOTES
(E) WALL / COMPONENT TO BE REMOVED
(E) WALL TO REMAIN
(N) WALL
(E) OR (N) BUILDING ELEMENT ABOVE
1 A3.1
3 A3.1
1 A3.3
xxxxxxxxxxxx
3 A3.2
1A3.2
3A3.1
1A3.0
3 A3.3

200

LIBRARY
201
BALCONY 3
205
BATH 2
206
CLOSET
202
HALL
REAR
203
CLOSET
204
BEDROOM 2
213
BALCONY 1
210
BATH 4
211
CLOSET208
CLOSET 209
BEDROOM 4
207

UPPER HALL
217

VESTIBULE
214
BEDROOM 5
215
BATH 5
216

ELEVATOR
218
CLOSET
221
CLOSET
219
BEDROOM 3
222
BALCONY 2
220
BATH 3
212
CLOSET
0102
03 B3
C5
C7
C4C3
E7
E6
E5E4
F1G1
E30
E31
E32
111
STAIR 4
106
STAIR 3

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF DENISE HALL MONTGOMERY, ARCHITECT.

Greenwald & Bach
Residence
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
denise hall montgomery
1769 alcatraz avenue
berkeley, ca 94703
t 510.547.3040
c 510.504.9394
[email protected]
architecture
DATE:SCALE:

JOB: DRAWN BY:
23003

26.MAR.2024
dhm/ma
Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
[email protected]
[email protected]

AS NOTED
Kelsey Holmes Foster
Verdant Structural Engineers, Inc.
1101 8th St. #180,
Berkeley, CA
t 510 528 5394
[email protected]
AR

TCETIHC
L

DESNECI
A
S
F
C

AINROFIL
TATE
O
C28288

DENISEHAL

YREMOGTNOM
L
6/30/2025

RENEWAL
DATE

SECOND FLOOR
PLAN

EXISTING/DEMO
& PROPOSED
A2.2 1SECOND FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED
1/4" = 1'-0" @ 24x36; 1/8" = 1'-0" @ 11x17
N

1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD FRAMING, U.O.N.

2. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN FIELD. CONTRACTOR TO BRING ALL DISCREPANCIES TO THE

ARCHITECT'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND FABRICATION OR BEAR THE COST OF CORRECTION.
1 SHEET NOTES
KEY

GENERAL PLAN NOTES
(E) WALL / COMPONENT TO BE REMOVED
(E) WALL TO REMAIN
(N) WALL
(E) OR (N) BUILDING ELEMENT ABOVE
xxxxxxxxxxxx
1 A3.1
3 A3.1
1 A3.3
3 A3.2
1A3.2
3A3.1
1A3.0
3 A3.3
1 A8.4

7A8.1
4A8.1 1A8.1
typ
typ typ
4A8.1 1A8.1
typ typ
4 A8.1
1 A8.1
typ
typ
4 A8.1
1 A8.1
typ
typ
7A8.1
typ

ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING

HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED

WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT OF DENISE HALL MONTGOMERY, ARCHITECT.

Greenwald & Bach
Residence
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
denise hall montgomery
1769 alcatraz avenue
berkeley, ca 94703
t 510.547.3040
c 510.504.9394
[email protected]
architecture
DATE:SCALE:

JOB: DRAWN BY:
23003

26.MAR.2024
dhm/ma
Michael Greenwald & Ronna Bach
1401 Le Roy Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94708
[email protected]
[email protected]

AS NOTED
Kelsey Holmes Foster
Verdant Structural Engineers, Inc.
1101 8th St. #180,
Berkeley, CA
t 510 528 5394
[email protected]

ROOF PLAN

PROPOSED
A2.4 1ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED
1/4" = 1'-0" @ 24x36; 1/8" = 1'-0" @ 11x17
N

1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD FRAMING, U.O.N.

2. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN FIELD. CONTRACTOR TO BRING ALL DISCREPANCIES TO THE

ARCHITECT'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND FABRICATION OR BEAR THE COST OF CORRECTION.

SHEET NOTES
KEY

GENERAL PLAN NOTES
(E) WALL / COMPONENT TO BE REMOVED
(E) WALL TO REMAIN
(E) OR (N) BUILDING ELEMENT ABOVE

NEW INSULATED, STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF

SHADED AREA INDICATES EXTENT OF ROOF INSULATION
(N) INSULATED ROOF

NEW SHEET METAL ROOF
AR

TCETIHC
L

DESNECI
A
S
F
C

AINROFIL
TATE
O
C28288

DENISEHAL

YREMOGTNOM
L
6/30/2025

RENEWAL
DATE
1 1
2 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
1 1
1

Communications

All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900

Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/

To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”

2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting

3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF