Berkeley City Council
October 15, 2024

4 Scientific evidence has established that combustion, procurement and transportation produce significant greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming and climate change. Human activities releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere cause increases in worldwide average temperature, which contribute to melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of ocean water, drought conditions, increase in vegetative fuel, and length of fire seasons. Alameda County, in which Berkeley is located, has significant levels of some greenhouse gases like ozone, which is also an air pollutant that impacts public health1. Ozone is formed when NOx and VOCs chemically react in the sun . As a coastal city located on the San Francisco Bay, Berkeley is experiencing the repercussions of climate change due excessive greenhouse gas emissions. Rising sea levels have caused significant coastal erosion and have increased impacts to infrastructure during extreme tides.

Scientific evidence also suggests storms are growing with higher intensity due to climate change and will be followed by an increased frequency of dry periods. By 2100, average temperatures in the San Francisco Bay Area are expected to increase up to 11o, bringing 6-10 additional heat waves to Berkeley each year. According to historical records, Bay Area sea level has risen 8 inches over the last century and the pace of sea level rise has increased since 2011. While regional variability exists, the median increase for the San Francisco Bay is expected to reach almost 1 ft by 20502 under a low risk model, while 2.7 ft is projected under an extreme risk scenario. Such climate change events are expected to increase the risk of flooding in low-lying areas of Berkeley, while hillside communities face increased risk of wildfires.
b. Summary
Local climatic conditions of periods of limited rainfall, high temperature and/or low humidity particularly between mid-July and mid-October, and high winds along with existing building construction create periodic extremely hazardous fire conditions that adversely affect the acceleration intensity and size of fires in the City. The same climatic conditions may result in the concurrent occurrence of one or more fires, which may spread in the more populated areas of the City without adequate fire department personnel to protect against and control such a situation. Throughout the rest of the year, the marine weather environment is characterized by higher humidity and lower overall prevailing temperatures, resulting in a higher overall moisture content in building construction materials and slower drying of building materials and assemblies once wet or humidified.

Berkeley is susceptible to the impacts of climate change, including sea level rise, increased average temperatures, and reduced air quality.

2. Geological Conditions
a. Discussion
1 California Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA
2 Griggs, G., Cayan, D., Tebaldi, C., Fricker, H., & Árvai, J. (2017). Rising Seas in California. California Ocean Science Trust, (April), 71. Retrieved from http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising- seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf

5 The City of Berkeley is in a region of high seismic activity and is traversed by the Hayward fault. It has the San Andreas earthquake fault to the west and the Calaveras earthquake fault to the east. All three faults are known to be active as evidenced by the damaging earthquakes they have produced in the last 100 years and can, therefore, be
expected to do the same in the future. Of primary concern to Berkeley is the Hayward Fault, which has been estimated to be capable of earthquakes exceeding a magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale. It extends through many residential areas and passes through a small business district and the University of California. A large number of
underground utilities cross the fault, including major water supply and natural gas lines. Intensified damage during an earthquake may be expected in liquefaction zones along the Bay west of Interstate 80 and in known slide areas, as well as hillside areas (occupied mainly by dwellings) located within or near the fault zone; some areas are steep and have been subjected to slides.

The waterfront areas and areas in the Berkeley flatlands immediately adjacent to creeks and water streams present a major potential for soil liquefaction hazard. The

Eastshore Freeway may liquefy and fail under heavy shaking or it may be inundated by a tsunami. The north hill area is most susceptible to landslides because of the presence of soft and unconsolidated sediments, extensive water content in the ground and the steepness of slopes.

Great potential damage can be related to the likely collapse of freeway overpasses.

In the event of a major earthquake, Berkeley's firefighting capability could be significantly affected by loss of its main water supply. There is also the strong possibility of inundation due to failure of water reservoirs in the hill area. Summit Reservoir at the Kensington border in Berkeley and Berryman Reservoir North have recently been replaced by steel tanks. Berryman Reservoir South has received a seismic upgrade.

Additional potential situations following an earthquake include broken natural gas mains and ensuing fire in the streets, building fires, as the result of broken service connections, the need for rescues for collapsed structures, and the rendering of first aid
and other medical attention to a large number of people. b. Summary
Local geological conditions include high seismic activity and large concentrations of
residential type buildings as well as a major freeway. Since the City of Berkeley is located in a densely populated area having buildings and structures constructed over and near a vast array of fault systems capable of producing major earthquakes, the modifications cited herein are intended to better limit property damage as a result of a seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency.

3. Topographical Conditions
a. Discussion

6 The City of Berkeley has many homes built throughout the urban portion of the Berkeley Hills that are reached by narrow and often winding paved streets which hamper access for fire apparatus and escape routes for residents. In addition, many of the hillside homes are on the extreme eastern edge of the City and require longer response times for the total required firefighting force. Panoramic Way and other hill areas with narrow and winding streets may face the problem of isolation from the rest of

the City.

In the areas north and south of the University of California, there are large concentrations of apartments, rooming houses, and fraternity and sorority houses. A number of apartments in these areas are of wood frame construction and are up to five stories in height from grade level. The fire potential is moderately high due to building congestion, heights, and wood shingle roof coverings and siding. Fires can be expected

to involve large groups of buildings in these areas. It is noted that Berkeley most probably has more physically impaired people per capita than any other community in
the United States. It is estimated that 14% of the approximate population of 124,321 per the 2021 Census in Berkeley are physically impaired. Emergency egress and rescue for these people are more difficult during a fire or other life safety emergency.

The Eastshore Freeway, running along the western edge of Berkeley, is one of the most heavily used and congested freeway sections in the state. Noted impacts have included increased rates of asthma, particularly among children. The proximity of Berkeley to this freeway and its location downwind from prevailing patterns negatively affects air quality, thus increasing the impact of wood smoke and NOx emissions in Berkeley. NOx emissions are released to the air from the exhaust of motor vehicles, as well as from combusting fuel gas for appliances. Accordingly, Berkeley’s proximity to congested freeways contributes to the ambient NOx levels in the air. Exposure to NOx can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, damage the respiratory system, and aggravate respiratory diseases, particularly asthma. NOx also reacts with sunlight and other chemicals in the air to form both particulate matter and ozone, both of which are harmful when inhaled.

Berkeley’s local climatic and topographical conditions exacerbate the health impacts of pollutants in the air, including NOx. Part of the Pacific Coast Range, the Berkeley Hills, define the eastern boundary of the City and form a natural obstruction to the movement of humidified, cooler air out of the San Francisco Bay basin and the City of Berkeley into the dryer adjacent inland valleys and the interior of the State. Although these hills do not form an absolute air barrier, they do play a significant role in the creation of local microclimates. This effect is evidenced by the disparity in temperatures and relative humidity commonly experienced during periods of warm weather between communities adjacent to the San Francisco Bay / Pacific Ocean and communities in the Bay Area inland valleys only a few miles inland. This effect also contributes to trapping pollutants, including NOx, in the colder and denser air, rather than allowing them to dissipate.

The City of Berkeley is part of a densely populated metropolitan area with limited space for landfills. It is important to preserve the limited landfill space for materials which cannot

7 be diverted and to keep land-clearing debris out of landfills, where decomposition of such organic material would result in methane.
b. Summary
Local topographical conditions include hillside housing with many narrow and winding streets with slide potential for blockage in the abruptly rising Berkeley hills. These conditions create an extremely serious problem for the Fire Department when a major fire or earthquake occurs. Many situations will result in limiting or total blockage of fire department emergency vehicular traffic, overtaxed fire department personnel and a total lack of resources for the suppression of fire in buildings and structures in the City of Berkeley. In addition, under these local conditions, the presence of wood smoke can cause increased disease, including asthma, and increased deaths from heart and lung disease. The built environment also provides little space for landfills.

B. REASONABLE NECESSITY
The proposed amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code are reasonably necessary due to the local conditions set forth above because they reduce the risks to life, public safety, health, welfare and property which result from the City’s changing climate, atmospheric composition, its and location astride an active
earthquake fault. They are further justified for the reasons set forth below.

In further amending the California Green Building Standards Code adopted as the Berkeley G r e e n Code with local amendments, the City proposes to make certain substantive modifications whose effect is to impose more stringent requirements locally than are mandated by the California Building Standards Code. These are:
(1) Provisions for Zero NO x Emission Buildings to reduce indoor air pollution. (Berkeley Green Code Chapter 19.37 Section 19.37.040).

These more stringent local requirements are reasonably necessary to address risks created by local conditions set forth above for
the following reasons:
 The provisions for Zero NOx Emission Buildings made by Chapter 19.37 Section

19.37.040 will reduce known adverse human health impacts related to exposure to binary compounds of nitrogen and oxygen and will do so by requiring that all new buildings contain Zero NOx appliances and mechanically ventilated kitchens.
 The provisions for Zero NOx Zero Emission Buildings made by Chapter 19.37 will have the effect of reducing the emission of ozone, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, because NOx reacts in sunlight with other volatile organic compounds to create ozone, a powerful GHG with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 520.

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

ACTION CALENDAR
October 15, 2024
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Harrison
Subject: Resolution: Opposition to Police Brutality and Use of Force on Nonviolent Protesters

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

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
No final action was taken by the Public Safety Committee. Item is automatically returning to the Council agenda pursuant to the time limit for items referred to policy committees.

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

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

Opposition to Police Brutality and Use of Force on Nonviolent Protesters

ACTION CALENDAR
October 15, 2024
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]
COVID-19 pandemic and until such time that the City Council removes this prohibition.2 The City’s recent suspension of the local COVID emergency does not mean that the COVID-19 pandemic is over, nor does it overturn the Council’s 2020 pepper spray and smoke prohibition policy.

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

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

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

Opposition to Police Brutality and Use of Force on Nonviolent Protesters

ACTION CALENDAR
October 15, 2024
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]
complete loss of sight, as well as bone and skull fractures, brain injuries, the rupture of internal organs and hemorrhaging, punctured hearts and lungs from broken ribs, damage to genitalia, and psychological trauma” by less-lethal munitions. 6 These weapons also include hard foam, rubberized buckshot, and CS gas. Amnesty International also states that “at least 53 people died from projectiles fired by security forces, according to a peer-reviewed study based on medical literature worldwide between 1990 and June 2017. It also concluded that 300 of the 1,984 people injured suffered permanent disability.” All less-lethal munitions can still be lethal, and should not be used for crowd control in Berkeley by UCPD or mutual aid agencies.

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

Opposition to Police Brutality and Use of Force on Nonviolent Protesters

ACTION CALENDAR
October 15, 2024
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]
Use of less-lethal weapons in an indiscriminate manner against a demonstration that is non-violent, or even mixed, is a denial of First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. In fact, it is tantamount to collective punishment, a denial of due process.

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENTS
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-N.S.

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

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

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

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

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

ACTION CALENDAR
October 15, 2024
1 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author)
Subject: Community Safety Plans for a Safe and Resilient Berkeley

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager to create four strategic, single-subject Community Safety Plans to effectively reduce Gun Violence, Sexual Assault, Retail Theft, and Traffic Violence.

Return Plans to the City Council for review and approval.

SUMMARY STATEMENT
While crime rates in Berkeley remain far below the historic peaks of the 1990s, crime has been trending upward here and nationwide, and use of firearms has increased significantly since 2017 – reflective of a surge in gun purchases/availability that began with the Trump years and spiked during the pandemic. In fact, between 2020 and 2022, U.S. households purchased nearly 60 million guns and in 2021, more Americans died of gun-related injuries than any year on record.12
Having some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, California also has among the lowest gun death rates. Still, the United States remains an outlier as it relates to firearm possession and gun violence.

Another area where the United States far surpasses other comparable nations is traffic violence, which has reached its highest levels in two decades, killing 46,000 Americans in 2022.3 Two additional alarming trends that emerged during the pandemic were the global rise in reported sexual assault – across all age groups – and the rise of “organized” retail theft – with the San Francisco Bay Area experiencing steady increases.

To proactively address these trends, many cities across the United States are adopting formal crime/harm reduction plans, setting clear goals and identifying actionable strategies to successfully reduce community violence and harms.
1 de Visé, D. (2023, April 25). Americans bought almost 60 million guns during the pandemic. The Hill. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3960527-americans-bought-almost-60-million-guns-during-the-pandemic/ 2 Gramlich, J. (2023, April 26). What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ 3 Morris, F. (2022, September 5). Traffic fatalities in the U.S. are at their highest levels in two decades. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/05/1121144984/traffic-fatalities-in-the-u-s-are-at-their-highest-levels-in-two-decades

2 This item refers to the City Manager, working with the Department of Health, Housing and Human Services, the Berkeley Police Department, other City Departments, and community stakeholders, to produce single-subject Community Safety Plans – aligned with the City’s Reimagining Public Safety and Fair and Impartial Policing Goals, Vision Zero, and the City’s Health Status Report – among other plans and policies – to address key challenges, increase safety, and significantly reduce crime and harm across four categories: sexual assault, retail theft, traffic collisions, and gun violence.

In the future, the City Manager is encouraged to proactively initiate creation of similar plans to address persistent and/or emerging community safety challenges, and bring them to the City Council for review and approval.

BACKGROUND
Despite decades of decline, crime – and especially violent crime – trended upward with the COVID-19 pandemic. Across communities of all types, crime rates changed dramatically in 2020 with murder, assault, and gun violence reaching alarming highs. According to the Brennan Center for Justice and the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program, in 2020, murder rose nationwide by almost 30%, aggravated assault by nearly 12%, and violent crime increased by 5% overall.4 While Berkeley has fared better than many cities, Berkeley did experience an upswing in crime over the same period, as reflected in the Berkeley Police Department’s annual crime reports.5
At its very worst, crime and violence cut lives short and robs families and communities of loved ones. Less serious incidents cause individual harm and negatively impact the community’s sense of safety, wellbeing, and health, and erode public trust in government and law enforcement. Crime also impacts opportunities for economic growth, and the ability of cities and neighborhoods to attract new businesses and investments.

According to the Council on Criminal Justice, setting a clear goal is a crucial first step to reducing crime and preventing violence, and many cities have worked together to develop crime reduction plans.6 Cities and Police Departments across the United States including Boston, Phoenix, Kansas City, and Tacoma, have developed such plans. More than detailing crime response and criminal justice strategies, these plans often include holistic, educational, community, and social-services-type strategies to reduce crime as well as improvements to reporting, investigating, and otherwise responding to crime.

As Berkeley works to confront root causes of crime and implement its Reimagining Public Safety Framework – a big shift from the traditional police-centered model – it’s important to 4 Grawert, A., & Kim, N. (2022, July 12). Myths and realities: Understanding recent trends in violent crime. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myths-and-realities-understanding- recent-trends-violent-crime
5 Berkeley Police Department . (n.d.). Crime data. Berkeley Police Transparency Hub. https://bpd-transparency- initiative-berkeleypd.hub.arcgis.com/pages/crimes
6 Council on Criminal justice. (2022, January). Saving lives: Ten essential actions cities can take to reduce violence now. Council on Criminal justice. https://counciloncj.org/10-essential-actions/

3 simultaneously make tangible progress on key community safety challenges. While there are some existing frameworks for issues like gun violence – namely Berkeley’s Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Plan – and traffic violence – Berkeley’s Vision Zero – there are currently no publicly available plans for reducing sexual assault or retail theft.

Both the Gun Violence and Vision Zero plans should be updated and, as necessary, expanded to ensure they cover prevention and deterrence, so crimes and injuries don’t happen in the first place; incorporate improved reporting mechanisms, to ensure the City has a trauma-informed and welcoming approach to victims seeking to report crimes; and include best practices relating to effective investigations and the resolutions of violent incidents.

Gun Violence
Berkeley exists in the context of skyrocketing gun violence rates both regionally and nationally.

Although concentrated in South and West Berkeley, gun violence is a city-wide public health problem. Notwithstanding the recent decline between 2022 and 2023, shootings have gradually increased every year since 2017.

In response, the City has employed various community-based violence prevention strategies such as Operation Ceasefire, and most recently the Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Program (GVIPP), which relies heavily on collaboration between the community and law enforcement. The GVIPP is set to launch in October 2024 and will create opportunities for people to turn away from committing acts of violence through a four-pronged approach to intervention: place based interventions, custom notifications, street outreach and social services. As Berkeley works to confront gun violence, it would benefit from an overarching framework that details all existing programs, policies, and approaches, and how they fit together.

Sexual Assault
Evidence shows that rates of sexual violence increased during states of emergency.7 While in Berkeley, rates of sexual assault dropped in 2020 and 2021, they increased in 2022 and again 2023.8
The Berkeley Police Department has identified the UC Berkeley as well as Berkeley High campuses as particularly troublesome. In fact, according to UC Berkeley’s 2022 Annual Report on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment, between 2021 and 2022, reports of sexual assault reaches the highest levels since the annual report began in 2018, with 35.7% of cases reported 7 Walker, T. (2020, May 1). A second, silent pandemic: Sexual violence in the time of covid-19. Center for Primary Care Harvard Medical School . https://info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/perspectives/articles/sexual-violence-and- covid
8 Berkeley Police Department. (2024, March 12). 2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report. City of Berkeley. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03- 12%20Item%2001%20WORKSESSION%20%202023%20Berkeley%20Police%20Department%20Annual%20Report .pdf

4 to the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discriminations being sexual assault.9 Berkeley High has also struggled to address sexual assault on campus, with various student protests and lawsuits occurring over the administration’s handling of sexual assault. As UC Berkeley, Berkeley High, and BPD work to confront sexual assault, a holistic approach that includes an increased partnership, an evaluation of reporting options, additional outreach and programming could prove beneficial to addressing the epidemic of assault on campus, and in our community.

Retail Theft
In the last several years, article heading such as “Man steals over $4K worth of jackets from Berkeley REI,”10 “Brazen thieves take $52k in tech from Berkeley Apple Store,”11 and “Group of 7 makes off with $19,000 in North Face Goods”12 have become commonplace, as has the use of weapons and stolen vehicles in these crimes. In this regard, statistics confirm what the media reports and what residents and workers are experiencing. Between 2022 and 2023, retail theft rose by 19%, with 574 reported commercial burglaries as compared to 435 in 2022.1314 While Apple, REI, and the North Face are large retail chains, small businesses have also suffered under this new normal. Forbes reports that 90% of small business retailers nationwide have experienced theft at their store and some 83% said they believed retail theft is at least a somewhat major issue.15 In addition to suffering financial losses, retail theft puts workers in harm’s way. As Berkeley works to revitalize its downtown and commercial areas, it must offer local and small businesses, consumers, and residents a plan to ensure the safety and vitality of its commercial districts.

Traffic Violence
The United States lags far behind other comparable countries as it relates to traffic violence and fatalities, and unlike most developed nations U.S. roadways have become more deadly – especially for pedestrians and cyclists. The traffic fatality rate in the United States is around 12.8 9 University of California, Berkeley. (2023). 2022 Annual Report on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (SVSH):

Data Update. University of California, Berkeley.
https://svsh.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2022_svsh_annual_report_full_static_version_1.pdf 10 Fahmy, H. (2024, June 6). Video: Man steals over $4K worth of jackets from Berkeley Rei. KRON4. https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/video-man-steals-over-4k-worth-of-jackets-from-berkeley-rei/ 11 Raguso, E. (2024, January 26). Brazen thieves take $52K in Tech from Berkeley Apple Store. The Berkeley Scanner. https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2023/05/29/crime/berkeley-apple-store-50000-retail-theft/ 12 Raguso, E. (2024b, February 27). Group of 7 makes off with $19,000 in North Face Goods. The Berkeley Scanner. https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2024/02/27/crime/berkeley-north-face-19000-theft/ 13 Berkeley Police Department. (2024, March 12). 2023 Berkeley Police Department Annual Report. City of Berkeley. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03- 12%20Item%2001%20WORKSESSION%20%202023%20Berkeley%20Police%20Department%20Annual%20Report .pdf
14 Gecan, A. N. (2024, March 25). Serious crimes spiked in Berkeley in 2023, according to Police Data. Berkeleyside. https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/03/13/2023-crime-report-berkeley-police-department 15 Metz, J. (2024, July 10). The impact of retail theft on small businesses and states. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business-insurance/impact-retail-theft-on-small-businesses/

5 per 100,000, compared to 6.3 in New Zealand, 3.3 in Spain, and 2.0 in Norway.1617 With the adoption of seatbelts, airbags, and improved vehicle design, the U.S. has managed to create safer cars. However, the dominance of SUVs and trucks – and their increased weight and height – as well as the increased weight of electric vehicles, has come at a cost to pedestrians and cyclists. Paired with a lack of safe bike and pedestrian infrastructure, the Country continues to lag far behind other nations.

In 2019, Berkeley adopted the Vision Zero Action Plan and committed to eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries by 2028. While the City has made progress on its Vision Zero priorities, it has a long way to go to reach goals in a timely manner. On average, three people die and at least 32 sustain severe injuries on Berkeley streets every year.18 Drivers routinely travel at unsafe speeds, fail to yield at crosswalks and stop signs, make illegal turns, and injure pedestrians and cyclists. As Berkeley works to meet its Vision Zero goals, it should consider what other policies, campaigns, and partnerships it can develop to increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as those traveling in vehicles.

This item gives the City Manager an opportunity to actively engage with the community and various City departments to create holistic, actionable plans to reduce crime in Berkeley and drive down the harm the community is experiencing. By setting clear expectations related to prevention, intervention, and crime solving, the City will have a better understanding of what approaches work and which ones are less effective. While the Berkeley Police Department already has internal work-plans for crime prevention, this item asks for the development of publicly available plans to drive progress, and provide accountability Due to the complexity of crime, a city-wide approach is necessary to achieve the desired results. The City Manager’s key partner developing this series of holistic plans should be local stakeholders including various City agencies and departments, Berkeley High/BUSD, Berkeley City College and UC Berkeley, businesses, and other community partners.

The collaborative effort should include already existing frameworks to address public safety challenges as well as new recommendations which may include some or all of the following, and any other elements that arise from community and expert consultation:

1. Crime Prevention Strategies - build trust and relationships through neighborhood outreach, expand community policing and consider new gun violence prevention strategies, improve environmental design, and more

2. Reporting - assess what strategies have been successful, study and implement best practices for reporting sexual assault, including a victim-centered and trauma-informed 16 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2024, June). Fatality facts 2022: State by State. IIHS. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state 17 International Transport Forum - OECD. (n.d.) Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/norway-road-safety.pdf 18 City of Berkeley. (2021, March). Vision Zero Annual Report 2020-2021. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Vision-Zero-Annual-Report-2020-2021.pdf

6 approach, examine how to protect victim privacy, best provide resources and offer support

3. Resource Allocation - consider which communities in Berkeley are under resourced and could benefit from increased funding for youth programming, restorative justice, public health, employment and education initiatives, as well as mental health and substance use disorder treatment programs

4. Improve Clearance Rates - consider additional trainings BPD could benefit from, enhance recruitment strategies, increase oversight, judge the benefit of acquiring evidence-based processing technology or equipment

5. Partnerships - explore untapped partnerships to increase public safety, consider what stakeholders in Berkeley and across the Bay Area may be currently missing in the process

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
While the Berkeley Police Department employs innovative strategies to address issues related to public safety, the City does not currently have comprehensive plans for each crime category with stated, short and long-term goals, and specific metrics to act as roadmaps toward progress.

Beginning in 2020, the Berkeley City Council voted to reimagine or redesign its public safety system from a traditional Police-Centered Model to one that is more focused on the diverse needs of the community, committing to a transformative, equitable approach to community- centered safety. The effort, now underway, included recommendations for a non-police response team for low-level emergencies, a non-police traffic enforcement agency, the creation of a Specialized Care Unit, and more.

As the City continues to expand and improve upon the comprehensive work already underway, it can utilize the principles articulated in its Reimagining Public Safety platform to create actionable, single-subject plans to address some of the most serious and complex public safety challenges our City faces. While the plans for sexual assault and retail theft will be novel, the plans developed for gun and traffic violence will fit into Berkeley’s existing patchwork of policies and further expand on these ideas in the form of holistic, community safety plans.

ACTIONS/ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
While the City of Berkeley can continue without formal plans for each of these complex crimes and harms, it will lack strategic plans that articulate the path forward, and allow the City to measure whether the strategies employed actually work. With no plans or metrics, the City lacks the clarity needed to successfully address and reduce specific violence, crime, and other harms.

Crime reduction plans adopted by other jurisdictions rely heavily on law enforcement as the primary actors in public safety and will not be a good fit for Berkeley. The Community Safety Plans described in this item should be holistic, with a key focus on prevention and building a safe and resilient community.

7 CONSULTATION/OUTREACH OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Our office met with and consulted both the City Manager and Police Chief who expressed support for this recommendation, and for the clarity these plans can provide to both the public and the City, driving towards real progress in these key areas of public safety challenge.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley has a Strategic Plan that identifies the long-term and short-term priorities the City Government will focus on to benefit the Berkeley community. In addition to this plan, the City of Berkeley has also adopted a Zero Waste Strategic Plan as well as a Climate Action Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and more.

Successful implementation of Community Safety Plans could result in decreased crime and increased public safety.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT
The City Manager should conduct community outreach and solicit feedback from a broad set of internal and external stakeholders. Each Community Safety Plan should include a thorough analysis of the crime, tailored recommendations, and short- and long-term goals for measuring success. Plans should be evaluated for success and adjusted accordingly.

Berkeley can reduce crime and eliminate key drivers of harm in the community. Through thoughtful planning and community participation, we can ensure the safety, security, and wellbeing of all people in Berkeley.

OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION
The City Manager should work with the Berkeley Police Department and various community stakeholders to determine what success looks like for each individual Community Safety Plan, setting realistic, attainable goals and timelines.

CONTACT
Councilmember Hahn, (510) 981-7150

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
October 15, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager Subject: Civic Arts Grant Awards: Fiscal Year 2025

INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the Civic Arts Grant awards for budgets appropriated in mid- Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) & Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25). It includes Capital Projects Grants appropriated in FY24 Mid-Year Budget Update (AAO#1) and awarded as part of the FY25 Civic Arts grant cycle along with the FY25 Civic Arts Grant categories of Individual Artist Projects, Community Festivals, and Arts Programs, for a total of 113 awards detailed in Attachment 1: FY25 Civic Arts Grantees.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Civic Arts Grant award amounts (Attachment 1), as approved by the Civic Arts Commission, include two annual grant categories (FY25 Individual Artist Projects and FY25 Community Festivals), and two new categories (FY24 Capital Projects and FY25 Arts Programs). Awards in the annual Civic Arts Grant categories for FY25 totaled $44,000 for eleven (11) Individual Artist Projects and $199,680 for thirty-four (34) Community Festivals. These FY25 awards are in addition to the deployment of the second year, in the two-year cycle, of arts and cultural organizations’ General Operating Support grant funding (totaling $444,799 per year for 54 organizations).

The newly offered Arts Programs grant (funded in part with a $30,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts) included $60,000 for twelve (12) projects. In a second new grant category this year, the Capital Projects grants, $295,000 was awarded to two (2) organizations seeded with funding from the City’s FY24 AAO#1 budget cycle.

The Civic Arts program received a total of 129 grant applications across four grant categories in the recent cycle. Because the General Operating Support grant category has a two-year activity period, applicants were not required to apply again in that category. Similar to the previous grant cycle, there was high demand for Individual Artist Projects grants, with a total of 57 applications. The Community Festivals category received 43 applications, a 16% increase over the last cycle which had 37 applications.

The new Arts Programs grant category received a total of 17 applications, all from nonprofit organizations not previously funded by the City’s Civic Arts program. The

FY24 Mid-Year and FY25 Civic Arts Grant Awards INFORMATION CALENDAR October 15, 2024

FY24 Capital Projects grant category (new this year) received twelve applications from Berkeley’s arts and cultural organizations, representing a total request amount of $1,020,234.

BACKGROUND
The Civic Arts FY25 grant application period started January 8, 2024 and had staggered application deadlines for each grant category (see table below):

FY 25 Civic Arts Grant Program Category Grant Application Deadline Capital Projects February 21, 2024
Individual Artist Projects February 28, 2024
Community Festivals March 6, 2024
Arts Programs March 13, 2024
In January 2024, at the beginning of the application period, Civic Arts staff held four grant webinars (one workshop for each grant category) to inform applicants about eligibility, application requirements, and to provide instruction on using the online grants management system. All webinars were held virtually using Zoom Webinar. Recordings of the webinars were also made available on the Civic Arts website for applicants’ reference.

To evaluate the grant applications, Civic Arts staff selected panelists from a Civic Arts Commission-approved pool of potential panelists. The pool consists of individuals from the greater Bay Area who have substantial backgrounds in arts and culture and a demonstrated commitment to cultural equity. Between April 30, 2024 and July 9, 2024, staff conducted four grant review panel meetings via Zoom webinar format. Panelists independently evaluated and scored applications relative to the review criteria prior to the panel meetings, and discussed their evaluations with fellow panelists during the panel review meetings.

At the conclusion of the grant review process, the compiled panel scores were presented to the Civic Arts Commission's Grants Subcommittee. The Subcommittee determined award recommendations based on application scores, the grant program guidelines, funding criteria, and available funding. The Grants Subcommittee’s award amount recommendations were then forwarded to the full Civic Arts Commission for approval. Civic Arts staff communicated the grant award amount recommendations to all applicants via email after each Civic Arts Commission meeting. Grant award approvals took place at the following meetings, with the following commission votes:

FY24 Capital Projects Grants
 Grants Subcommittee meeting: May 6, 2024
 Civic Arts Commission Meeting award amount approval: May 22, 2024

FY24 Mid-Year and FY25 Civic Arts Grant Awards INFORMATION CALENDAR October 15, 2024

Action Item: M/S/C (Ibarra/Woo) to approve FY24 Capital Projects grant awards.

Vote: Ayes — Blecher, Ibarra, Passmore, Pineda, Woo; Nays — None; Abstain — None; Absent — Anno, Bullwinkel, Covarrubias, Crandall.

FY25 Community Festivals and FY25 Arts Programs Grants
 Grant Subcommittee meeting: June 17, 2024
 Civic Arts Commission Meeting award amount approval: June 26, 2024 Action: M/S/C (Bullwinkel/Covarrubias) to approve FY25 Community Festivals Grant Awards Scenario 1 and 2.

Vote: Ayes — Anno, Blecher, Bullwinkel, Covarrubias, Crandall, Passmore, Pineda, Woo; Nays — None; Abstain — None; Absent — Ibarra.

Action: M/S/C (Bullwinkel/Crandall) to approve FY25 Arts Programs Grant Awards.

Vote: Ayes — Anno, Blecher, Bullwinkel, Covarrubias, Crandall, Passmore, Pineda, Woo; Nays — None; Abstain — None; Absent — Ibarra.

FY25 Individual Artist Projects Grants
 Grants Subcommittee meeting: July 12, 2024
 Civic Arts Commission Meeting award amount approval: July 24, 2024 Action: M/S/C (Bullwinkel/Ibarra) to approve FY25 Arts Programs Grant Awards.

Vote: Ayes — Anno, Bachrach, Blecher, Bullwinkel, Covarrubias, Crandall, Ibarra, Pineda, Woo; Nays — None; Abstain — None; Absent — None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The Civic Arts Grants program is administered online. Applicants used a web-based grants management system to apply, and grant review panelists evaluated and scored the applications using the same system. This eliminates the use of paper applications.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Civic Arts General Operating Support grant is awarded on a two-year basis to arts organizations and includes an annual amount granted in both fiscal years; Individual Artist Projects and Community Festival grants are awarded on an annual basis and include funding for one year. Staff plans to implement the annual Civic Arts grant application and review process for Fiscal Year 2026 beginning in fall 2024. The grant cycle for FY26 will be substantially similar to this year’s cycle and will culminate with the Civic Arts Commission’s approval of the FY26 grant award amounts.

FY24 Mid-Year and FY25 Civic Arts Grant Awards INFORMATION CALENDAR October 15, 2024

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The City’s annual budget typically includes a baseline amount of $500,000 for Civic Arts Grants to Arts Organizations and Individual Artists and approximately $156,000 for Festivals. Council voted to increase Festival category funding from $158,315 to $200,315 in FY25 using $42,000 from the Mayor’s Budget. No additional funds have been added to the Community Festivals allocation for FY26, funding remains at $156,000. Civic Arts staff has applied for federal funding from the National Endowment for the Arts to offer the Arts Programs grant again in FY26; the City will be notified about award or decline of this matching grant in November 2024.

CONTACT PERSON
Hilary Amnah, Civic Arts, Office of Economic Development, 510-981-7539 Attachment:

1. FY25 Civic Arts Grantees

ATTACHMENT 1: FY25 Civic Arts Grant Awards
Applicant District Request Award
Berkeley Ballet Theatre District 1 $145,000 $145,000
Sense Object District 1 $150,000 $150,000
$295,000
Artist District Discipline Award
ChingChi Yu District 3 Dance $4,000
Cordy Joan District 5
Folk and
Traditional Arts $4,000
Craig Nagasawa District 5 Visual Arts $4,000
Isaiah Mostafa District 3 Music $4,000
Jay Lotus Allen District 3
Multidisciplinary /
Interdisciplinary $4,000
Martín Perna District 4 Music $4,000
Milani District 1 Literary Arts $4,000
Nur Yavuz District 5
Folk and
Traditional Arts $4,000
pan ellington District 4 Literary Arts $4,000
Risa Lenore District 8
Multidisciplinary /
Interdisciplinary $4,000
Yano District 4 Visual Arts $4,000
$44,000
Applicant District Request Award
ARTogether District 2 $5,000 $5,000
California Poets in the Schools District 2 $5,000 $5,000 Capacitor District 4 $5,000 $5,000
Center for Accessible Technology District 3 $5,000 $5,000 Center for Independent Living District 3 $5,000 $5,000
Cubacaribe District 7 $5,000 $5,000
Fuse Theatre Inc $5,000 $5,000
Jazzline Institute District 4 $5,000 $5,000
Mozart Youth Camerata District 7 $5,000 $5,000
Options Recovery Services District 4 $5,000 $5,000
Pacific Center for Human Growth District 4 $5,000 $5,000 South Berkeley Neighborhood Development Corporation District 3 $5,000 $5,000 $60,000
Festival District Request Award
6th Annual California Native Ways - California Indian Arts & Culture Festival District 1 $7,000 $7,000
FY25 Individual Artist Projects (11 total)
FY25 Community Festivals (34 total)
FY24 Capital Projects (2 total)
FY25 Arts Programs (12 total)

Berkeley CA Juneteenth Festival District 3 $7,000 $7,000 Berkeley Maqam Festival: Cross-Roots and Encounters District 5 $7,000 $7,000 Berkeley Poetry Festival
District 4
District 7
District 3 $7,000 $7,000
Black Women's Roots Festival District 4 $7,000 $7,000
Family Empowerment Conference $7,000 $7,000
La Peña Summer Tianguis and Community Block Party District 8 $7,000 $7,000 West Berkeley Community Print Festival District 2 $7,000 $7,000 11th annual Bay Area Book Festival District 4 $7,000 $6,300 32nd Annual Indigenous Peoples Day Powwow and Indian
Market District 4 $7,000 $6,300
Berkeley Festival of Choro 2025
District 4
District 1
District 6 $7,000 $6,300
Community Block Party District 4 $7,000 $6,300
Comunidad En La Placita District 4 $7,000 $6,300
East Bay Open Studios (EBOS) Berkeley
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
District 8 $7,000 $6,300
Legados II: Grito de liberdade
District 1
District 2
District 4 $7,000 $6,300
SF Bay Brazilian Day & Lavagem Festival 2024 District 1 $7,000 $6,300 Cesar Chavez Dolores Huerta Tribute Site District 1 $7,000 $5,600 DeFord Bailey Legacy Festival District 4 $7,000 $5,600
Dia de los Muertos District 4 $7,000 $5,600
San Francisco Mime Troupe "Free Shows in the Parks"
Berkeley
District 8
District 4
District 5
District 1 $7,000 $5,600
The Berkeley Aquatic Park Youth Festival: A Bike and Boat Parade District 2 $7,000 $5,600
Watershed Environmental Poetry Festival
District 4
District 1 $7,000 $5,600
Winter Jazzschool Community Ensemble Festival District 5 $7,000 $5,600 Capoeira: Our Life-Giving Waters District 1 $6,350 $5,080 2025 Junior Bach Festival Concerts
District 1
District 4
District 7
District 5
District 3 $7,000 $4,900

Annual Contemporary Performance Diasporas Festival District 1 $7,000 $4,900 Community Music Day District 1 $7,000 $4,900
EBCLC Community Open House & Celebration District 3 $7,000 $4,900 Forgotten Frontlines: World War II's Asia-Pacific Theater and the Road to Partition District 4 $7,000 $4,900
Growing Songs $7,000 $4,900
Ho'ōla Nā Leo: Celebrating Hawaiian Sound Healing District 1 $7,000 $4,900 North Shattuck Summer Block Party Series
District 4
District 5 $7,000 $4,900
Telegraph Second Sundays District 7 $7,000 $4,900
The Front Row Music and Arts Festival (FRMAF) District 4 $7,000 $4,900 $199,680
Applicant District Request Award
AXIS Dance Company District 1 $10,000 $10,000
Berkeley Art Center Association District 5 $10,000 $10,000 Berkeley Community Media District 4 $10,000 $10,000
Berkeley Music Group District 4 $10,000 $10,000
Berkeley Repertory Theatre District 4 $10,000 $10,000
BrasArte the Damasceno Brazilian Cultural Exchange District 1 $10,000 $10,000 California Institute for Community, Art & Nature District 4 $10,000 $10,000 Kairos Music Academy District 5 $10,000 $10,000
Left Margin LIT District 5 $10,000 $10,000
Luna Kids Dance, Inc dba Luna Dance Institute District 2 $10,000 $10,000 Anatolia Art Institute District 5 $10,000 $9,000
Berkeley Old Time Music Convention District 4 $10,000 $9,000 Berkeley Playhouse, Inc. District 8 $10,000 $9,000
Danse Lumiere District 1 $10,000 $9,000
Four Seasons Arts, Inc. District 8 $10,000 $9,000
Girls Garage District 1 $10,000 $9,000
Heyday District 1 $10,000 $9,000
Kala Art Institute District 2 $10,000 $9,000
La Peña Cultural Center District 8 $10,000 $9,000
Makers Paradise District 4 $10,000 $9,000
Poetry Flash District 1 $10,000 $9,000
Sacred and Profane, A Chamber Chorus District 1 $10,000 $9,000 The Capoeira Arts Foundation, INC (CAF) District 1 $10,000 $9,000 The Regents of the University of California at Berkeley / Cal Performances District 7 $10,000 $9,000
Ashkenaz Music & Dance Community Center District 1 $10,000 $8,000 Aurora Theatre Company District 4 $10,000 $8,000
Berkeley Choro Ensemble District 5 $10,000 $8,000
Berkeley Community Chorus & Orchestra (BCCO) District 4 $10,000 $8,000 Berkeley Juneteenth Cultural Celebrations District 3 $10,000 $8,000 Berkeley Society for the Preservation of Traditional Music dba Freight & Salvage District 4 $10,000 $8,000
David Brower Center District 4 $10,000 $8,000
FY25 General Operating Support (54 total)

Gamelan Sekar Jaya District 8 $10,000 $8,000
Mahea Uchiyama Center for International Dance District 4 $10,000 $8,000 pateldanceworks District 8 $10,000 $8,000
PlayGround District 3 $10,000 $8,000
Shawl-Anderson Modern Dance Center District 8 $10,000 $8,000 Shotgun Players District 3 $10,000 $8,000
Youth Musical Theater Company District 2 $10,000 $8,000 California Jazz Conservatory District 4 $10,000 $7,000
Cazadero Performing Arts Camp District 5 $10,000 $7,000 Central Works District 7 $10,000 $7,000
East Bay Media Center District 4 $10,000 $7,000
Holistic Honu Wellness Center District 1 $10,000 $7,000 Immersive Arts Alliance District 4 $10,000 $7,000
Inferno Theatre District 3 $10,000 $7,000
MBIRA District 4 $10,000 $7,000
Play Cafe, Inc. District 1 $10,000 $7,000
The Potters' Studio (Nara Corporation) District 1 $10,000 $7,000 Young People's Symphony Orchestra Association District 4 $10,000 $7,000 Habitot Children's Museum District 5 $9,998 $6,999
Actors Ensemble District 3 $8,000 $6,400
UC Alumni Chorus District 6 $8,000 $6,400
Berkeley Chamber Performances District 5 $6,500 $5,200
Berkeley Commonplace District 3 $6,000 $4,800
$444,799

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
October 15, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: LPO NOD: 2436-2442 Haste Street, #LMIN2024-0002

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 3.24.160, which requires that “a copy of the Notice of Decision shall be filed with the City Clerk and the City Clerk shall present said copy to the City Council at its next regular meeting.”

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC/Commission) has designated the subject property as a Structure of Merit. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period that began on October 1, 2024.

BACKGROUND
BMC/LPO Section 3.24.190 allows the Council to review any action of the Commission in granting or denying Landmark, Structure of Merit, or Historic District status. For Council to review the decision on its merits, Council must appeal the Notice of Decision.

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 October 15, 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 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.

LPO NOD/#LMIN2024-0002, 2436-2442 Haste Street INFORMATION CALENDAR October 15, 2024

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

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

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

CONTACT PERSON
Fatema Crane, Principal Planner, Planning and Development Department, 510-981- 7413
Allison Riemer, AICP, Associate Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7433 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – 2436-2442 Haste Street, #LMIN2024-0002

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: September 5, 2024
DATE NOTICE MAILED: September 30, 2024
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: October 15, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): October 16, 20241 2436-2442 Haste Street – Hutchinson Flats Building
Landmark application #LMIN2024-0002 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a multi-family building completed in 1904 (APN: 055-1881-01800)
The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the following request:
 Structure of Merit designation
Applicant: Petition of 51 Berkeley Residents
Anthony Bruce, application author
Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association
P.O. Box 1137
Berkeley, CA 94701
Property Owner: 2442 Haste Street LLC
3483 Ironwood Drive
San Ramon, CA 94582
ZONING DISTRICT: Telegraph Avenue Commercial District (C-T) 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 Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2024-0002
2436-2442 Haste Street
September 30, 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.(b)(3) Review for Exemptions.

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: 7-0-0-1 (note: one vacancy)
YES: ENCHILL, FINACOM, LEUSCHNER, MONTGOMERY, ORBUCH, PLESE,

SCHWARTZ
NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: CRANDALL
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
#LMIN2024-0002
2436-2442 Haste Street
September 30, 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 $6,000.

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 permit 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.

C. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2024-0002
2436-2442 Haste Street
September 30, 2024

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, Allison Riemer, at (510) 981-7433 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 for Approval

2. Application Materials
ATTEST:

Fatema Crane, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Application Author: Anthony Bruce, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, P.O. Box 1137, Berkeley, 94701
Property Owner: 2442 Haste Street LLC, 3483 Ironwood Dr, San Ramon, 94582
Interested Parties: Connie Hee via [email protected]; Eddy Li via [email protected]; Buddy Williams via
[email protected]; Jason Andre via
[email protected]

A t t a c h m e n t 1 , P a r t 2
F i n d i n g s
SEPTEMBER 5, 2024

2436-2442 Haste Street – Hutchinson Flats Building
Landmark application #LMIN2024-0002 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a multifamily building built in 1904 (APN: 055-1881-01800)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Structure of Merit designation of the property at 2436-2442 Haste Street – Hutchinson Flats Building

CEQA FINDINGS

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

LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORIDNANCE FINDINGS

2. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.110(B)(2)(c) of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the Landmarks Preservation Commission finds that the subject main building meets the designation criterion for Structure of Merit because it is an example of good design as an intact Colonial Revival and Classic Box style building. It retains many of the character-defining features of these styles, and has experienced limited alteration to its exterior since its estimated date of completion in 1904. The building retains the majority of the exterior materials from its period of significance; the craftsmanship involved in the construction of its design features is evident; and the aesthetic sense of its period of construction is expressed through its physical condition and appearance. It retains historical integrity through its design, original materials, and workmanship.

3. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110.B(2)(a), the Commission also finds that the Hutchinson Flats building meets the designation criterion for Structure of Merit because it is contemporary in age with the Landmark McKinley School located at 2419 Haste Street.

The two buildings are contemporary in age as the McKinley School was constructed in 1906, and the Hutchinson Flats building was constructed in 1904.

4. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110.B(2)(b), the Commission further finds that the Hutchinson Flats building meets the designation criterion for Structure of Merit because it is compatible in style with the nearby Structures of Merit Lucinda Reames Houses located

FINDINGS 2436-2442 Haste Street – Hutchinson Flats Building

at 2503 and 2509 Regent Street. The three buildings are compatible in style as all are of the Colonial Revival style.

FEATURES TO BE PRESERVED

1. This City Structure of Merit designation shall apply to the subject property and the following distinguishing features of the main building shall be preserved:
 Three-story massing
 Hipped roof and front-facing pediment gable above three-story bay  Original windows (if any)
 Wood window framing and sills
 Entry doors on the front façade
 Japanese hip roof
 Three three-story bays (located on the front and side elevations)  Two Ionic pilasters at the front left corner
 Third-floor balconette on the front elevation
 Bas-relief floral ornament within the gable
 Bas-relief ornaments in the front bay at first and second floor level  Brackets, dentils, and egg-and-dart molding
 Scroll-sawn pieces ornamenting the tops of the three bays  Front porch with its entablature, bulkheads, and three columns  Entablature of the side porch
 Narrow-gauge clapboard siding

2. Removed Features to be Restored where possible (to match historical design and conditions)
 Balustrade atop front and side porch cover and second-story roof

CITY OF BERKELEY
Ordinance #4694 N.S.

LANDMARK APPLICATION
Hutchison Flats Building
2442 Haste Street
Berkeley, California
Figure 1. Street (north) façade of the Hutchsion Flats Building. Anthony Bruce, 2021 Attachment 1, Part 3

1. Street Address: 2442 Haste Street (formerly 2436–2440 Haste Street) County: Alameda City: Berkeley ZIP: 94704

2. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 055-1881-01800 (College Homestead Association Tract, Block 6, Lot 18)
Dimensions: 50 feet x 135 feet
Cross Streets: Telegraph Avenue and Dana Street

3. Is property on the State Historic Resource Inventory? Yes, 1979 Is property on the Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey? Yes Form #: 18018

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

5. Historic Names: Hutchison Flats Building
Commonly Known Name: not known

6. Date of Construction: 1904–1905 Factual: Yes
Source of Information: City of Berkeley Application for Building Permit No. 92, November 18, 1904

7. Architect: Thomas Dean Newsom

8. Builder: either owner or day’s work

9. Style: Colonial Revival variant

10. Original Owners: George D. Hutchison (1904–1906)
Original Use: three residential flats

11. Present Owner: 2442 Haste Street LLC, [San Ramon?], California Present Occupant: tenants

12. Present Use: Residential
Current Zoning: R- Adjacent Property Zoning: R-

13. Present Condition of Property:

Exterior: Excellent Interior: unknown Grounds: Defoliated Has the property’s exterior been altered? Minimally

14. Description
Fig. 2 The Hutchison Flats. Anthony Bruce, 1970.
3 The Hutchison Flats Building is located at
2442 Haste Street, and is a tall three-story
Colonial Revival
triplex, with narrow board
siding painted a light apricot-tan (with dec -
orative trim highlighted in teal green). The
hipped roof (covered with green composition
shingles) curves and flares out at the bottom;
a roof type that was locally called a “Japa -
nese roof” at the time. The wide overhanging
eaves are supported by elongated brackets,
and an egg-and-dart
course runs along the
joining of eave and wall.

There is a pedimented gable at the top of
a three-story bay at the righthand side of the
façade (Fig. 3). The deeply inset pediment
has dentils and an elaborate floral design of
carved wood (or, perhaps, well-preserved
plaster) in the triangular space. The top floor
of the bay has overhanging scrolled square
corners; the second floor has a small triangu-
lar pediment with relief foliage (acanthus leaves) bookending a cartouche (Fig. 4); and the ground floor features a semi-circular panel with urn and flowers (Fig. 5). Each of these bas-relief designs is painted with the green paint, which accentuates them against the tan background to good effect. Also, the fact that the decoration is different on each floor reinforces the fact that each floor was a separate living space.

Fig. 3 Pediment gable above the three-story bay, with
floral motif in the center. Anthony Bruce, 2024
Fig. 4 Cartouche-and-acanthus leaves motif at the
second floor level. Anthony Bruce, 2024.

Fig. 5 Urn-
and-foral motif
on first floor.

Anthony Bruce,
2024.

4 There are three separate entrances
to the original three flats. The first floor
flat is entered from a flat-roofed porch
around on the west side. The second and
third floor are entered from two sepa-
rate front doors leading to two separate
stairways off the flat roofed front porch
(at the left on the front façade). Further-
more, the porch is reached by two sets
of stairs, perpendicular
to each other,
and the porch is divided by a waist-high
bulkhead. Each front door has a verti -
cal window in the center surrounded by
Colonial Revival style moldings. The
decorative highlight of the building is
the row of unique porch columns. Each
resembles two giant stylized chess
pieces, one upright, one upside-down,
sandwiched together with an octagonal
“wheel” of plain molding. One might
also view these columns as a stylized
rendering of the caryatids on the porch
of the Erechtheum on the Acropolis.

There are three of these columns extant; the match-
ing ones on the side porch were removed, most like -
ly when the driveway was widened. The columns are
half-height, each resting on top of a bulkhead.

Fig. 6 The front porch showing the three robust columns, as well as the bulkead that divides the porch in two for a bit of privacy.

Anthony Bruce, 2024.

Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 Two views of the por
ch columns, the front
doors, and the porch itself. A unique and whimsical design.

Anthony Bruce, 2024.

Fig. 9. The Ionic pilasters at the northeast corner of the building. Anthony Bruce, 2024.
5 The interior stairs to the third floor are
contained in a two-story flat-roofed wing
at the left. There is a corner Ionic pilaster
seeming to support the entablature. A few
feet over
to the west, a matching pilaster
finishes off the corner of the main structure.

The capitals are highly ornamented with
winged cherub faces and acanthus leaves,
all highlighted
by contrasting paint (Fig. 9).

A final ornamental touch is a small
balcony or window box underneath the
lefthand window on the third floor. It boasts
miniature balusters, corner posts with ball
finials, and decorative brackets for support.

Windows throughout the building are
mostly double-hung. Where the windows
are visible from the
street, the upper sash
is latticed, with anywhere from nine to fif-
teen lights. On the sides of the building each
floor has a number of high horizontal sin-
gle-paned windows (Fig. 10). There is also
one on the second floor at the front.

On the west side of the building, in addition
to the flat-roofed porch, there is a three-story
angled bay window toward the back (Fig. 10).

It is similar to the bay in the front, except that,
instead of a pediment gable, it is capped by a
hip roof and the
fenestration is different. The
projecting plane of the bay features a horizon -
tal sequence of three small divided-light win-
dows. There is a matching bay on the east side
of the building, also toward the back.

The rear of the building is treated in a util -
itarian manner (Fig. 11). A wooden staircase
that zig-zags across the back is supported by
ground-to-eaves wooden support posts. There
are
landings at every floor and half-floor. The
Fig. 10 The west side of the building showing the
entrance to the rear parking lot, the altered side porch with its missing columns, the horizontal windows, and
the three-story bay
. Anthony Bruce, 2024.

6 back doors open onto the landings and a
ground-to-eaves utility porch is at the left
of the façade. It is the width of the broad
roof overhang and is enclosed with vertical
tongue-in-groove. The
design of the back
elevation appears unchanged since 1904.

There is but one chimney. It most like-
ly serves the kitchen stoves and water heat-
ers, and perhaps a fireplace in the dining
rooms (a common cost-saving measure).

The chimney rises from near the center of
the building and is of clinker brick, at least
where it is visible.

The
few alterations include the remov-
al of classical balustrades on each of the
three flat roofs and the removal of porch
Fig. 11 The rear elevation of the Hutchison Flats Building.

Anthony Bruce, 2024.
columns on the west side (Fig. 12).

In 1905, George Hutchison built a one-and-a-half-story cottage in the rear of the property in the southwest
corner. It was moved to somewhere in Contra Costa County in the summer of 1948.

Perhaps the cottage was removed to create a parking lot in the rear, which is how the back yard is used today.

Fig. 12 The Hutchison Flats Building in 1939. Visible are the balustrades on top of the three flat foofs, the missing columns and bulkhead on the side porch, and the 1905 cottage still standing in the rear.

Donogh Real Estate File, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association.

Features to Be Preserved
The Hutchison Flats Building is a Colonial Revival building of unique and striking appearance.

It was obviously designed so that every individual feature might be harmonious and contribute to a rhythm that creates a dramatic whole. The exterior of the building has been maintained in fine condition over the last one hundred and twenty years, and it retains most of its original features, which are each essential to its whole. Therefore, all the features of the Hutchison Flats Building are significant, including, but not limited to:
7 The front yard is defined by a picket
fence. Until recently, their was landscaping of
both tropical plants and plants that bloomed
with white or purple blossoms. The land -
scaping was intended
to harmonize with the
building colors of white with trim of green
and purple. All that remains now is a stand
of calla lilies, small river stones, and weeds.

Concrete walkways lead to each of the two
front entrances. These walks appear to be
original, or partially original with probable
repairs of sections.

The back yard is a surface parking lot
acommodating twelve vehicles.
• the original windows
• the window framing and sills
• the entry doors
• the “Japanese” hip roof
• the the pediment gable
• the three three-story bays
• the two Ionic pilasters at the front left corner.
• the small balcony on the third floor
• the bas-relief ornament within the gable
• the bas-relief ornaments in the front bay at first and second floor level
• the brackets, dentils, and egg-and-dart molding
• the scroll-sawn pieces ornamenting the tops of the
three bays
• the front porch with its entablature, bulkheads, and three columns
• the entablature of the side porch
• the narrow-gage clapboard siding
Fug. 13 Remnants of landscaping in the front yard: calla lilies and small river stones. The concrete entry walk is typical of the time. Anthony Bruce, 2024.

Fig. 14 One of thr
ee doors that lead to the individ-
ual flats showing the center window panel and the
Colonial Revival moldings. Anthony Bruce, 2024.

15. History
The three-story Hutchison Flats Building
at 2436–38–40 Haste Street (also designated as
2442 Haste) was designed as three cottage-size
flats in 1904 by architect T. D. Newsom for
Berkeley contractor and real estate developer,
George D. Hutchison. When the building was
finished, the Hutchison family moved into one
of the upper flats (George’s wife Luela and their
18-year-old son Claude W. and their 16-year-
old daughter Lucile).

While living
there, George formed a short-
lived contracting firm with Charles T. Munson
known as Hutchison & Munson. He also built
a cottage in the rear of the property in 1905.

The Hutchison family did not stay long in the
building.

From a 1907 notice in the Berkeley
Gazette about their impending automobile trip
to Los Angeles, it is clear that they were then
living on W
ard Street. As it so happens, George
no longer owned the Haste Street flats by then;
he had sold the property to a Carrie M. Smith in
November 1906. A few years later the Hutchi -
sons had moved to Southern California, settling
in Pomona in 1913, where Geor
ge was a citrus
rancher and contractor. He lived there until his
death in 1933, after two years of ill health.

Fig. 15. The Hutchison Flats Building shown in its present day setting on Haste Street, west of the Cody’ s Books Building and east of the University’ s Rochdale Village.

Google Street V
iew photo.
8 Thomas Dean Newsom (1855–1912), the
architect of the Hutchison flats, was a mem -
ber of a California family of successful archi -
tects: the Oakland Newsoms, whose
practices
spanned the years from 1870 to the 1930s. His
brothers, Samuel L. (1852-1908) and J. Cather
(1857–1933), as the firm of Newsom & New-
som, were the most famous They are known
now for the iconic
Carson Mansion in Eureka.

They also published a series of pattern books
in the 1880s: Picturesque and Artistic Homes
of California . Other architects in the family
were brother John, who worked for a time with
Thomas and whose daughter,
Tillie, studied ar-
chitecture in the 1890s; Thomas’ son Merrill
Newsom; Samuel’s sons Sydney B. Newsom
and Noble
Newsom; and Archie Newsom, a
distant cousin. Newsom & Newsom designed
buildings up and down the state, while Thomas
opened his practice in Oakland (in about 1892)
and
stayed put. At the time of his death he was
in partnership with his son and the firm was
known as T. D. Newsom & Son.

The Newsoms came to Oakland in the early
1860s from Canada. At the time
of his death in
1912, Thomas Newsom was acknowledged as

one of Oakland’s earliest residents, as well as “one of the best known architects in this section of the state.” Another of Thomas Newsom’s Berkeley buildings that
is known to many, is the Mercier House built on a hill - side on Shattuck Avenue, just north of Cedar, in 1902.

Only an architect such as T. D. Newsom (or, per -
haps, two of his Oakland contemporaries, A. W. Smith
and A. Dodge Coplin) could have designed such a fanci-
ful—and even quirky— building as the Hutchison Flats
Building. All three of these architects pushed their cre- ative imagination to the limit, designing distinctive and unique buildings within the framework of the popular
styles of the day.

The Hutchison Flats Building is basically in the Co-
lonial Revival style, exemplified by its narrow siding, hip roof (here with flared eaves; referred to as a “Jap- anese” roof in the Bay Area at the time), and Classical ornament. Despite
its height, the building was designed
to blend with existing residences nearby. It was also sty- listically compatible with the McKinley School build -
ings (built in 1896 and 1901) that that ran through the middle of the block.

The three flats (one per floor) were designed for the
utmost in separation. The first floor flat is entered from its own
porch on the west, while the two upper flats are
entered through the front porch, But even here the side- by-side doors are reached by separate porch stairs and a waist-high bulkhead divides the porch in two.

The stair-
way to the third floor is contained in a flat roof projec - tion to the left of the porch. (All three flat roofs were once adorned with Classical balustrades.) Stepped Ionic pilasters accentuate the left corner of the façade of both the projection and the main body of the building.

Eye-catching decoration can be found at all levels
of
the façade. Pediments contain floral compositions. A
miniature balcony graces the third floor. But the build - ing’s pièce de résistance is the row of columns marching the length of the front porch, defying classification in any Classical order.

The Hutchison Flats Building is clearly a unique
design in
Berkeley. It is the best surviving example in
Berkeley of the artistic license that Thomas D. New-
som and other local turn-of-the-twentieth-century archi- tects took with existing architectural styles to create the whimsical and decorative buildings their clients desired. 9 Fig. 16 The Eugene Mercier House, 15??
Shattuck Avenue, designed by T. D. Newsom
in 1902. Anthony Bruce, 2024.

Fig. 17 The Kappa Sigma House designed
by Thomas D. Newsom for Demetrius Satoff
in 1901. It stood at 1739 Euclid Avenue until
destroyed in the 1923 Berkeley Fire.

Britton & Rey postcard, Anthony Bruce
Collection.

16. Significance
The Hutchison Flats Building is significant as the best surviving example of a turn-of-the-twentieth-centu- ry
highly personalized version of the styles of the day
(here, Colonial Revival) with the eye-catching eclec-
tic ornamentation and massing that appealed to a large
group of homebuilders. It is also the best surviving
ex- ample of the Berkeley work of
Thomas Dean New-
som, a member of the well-known California Newsom
family of architects. Additionally, the Hutchison Flats Building is significant for being not only a fine archi- tectural ex- ample of its type, but for being a pristine, intact example (minus porch balustrades and two col-
umns).

That the Hutchison Flats Building
stands today as
fine- ly as it does is also of particular consequence be- cause, whether in Alameda, Oakland, or Berkeley, it
is not of- ten that
an intact residential building of this
era can be found. More often than not, buildings have
been dimin- ished in architectural integrity, suffering from either the ravages of time and/or the often difficult challenge to maintain the original details and integrity of design and materials. With the the Hutchison Flats
Building all the remaining architectural
details have
been lovingly main- tained and accentuated.

Today the Hutchison Flats Building appears almost
as a museum artifact because the original residential set- ting of this block of Haste Street has all but vanished (save for the Glennie Davies House across the street).

Yet, the Hutchison Flats Building is architecturally
strong enough to hold its own against the massive struc- tures in its newer surroundings.

10 17. Historic Value— City: Yes Neighborhood: Yes
Architectural Value— City: Yes Neighborhood: Yes

18. Is the property endangered? Yes. There was a proposal to demolish the Hutchison Flats Building published in February 2024 in SF YIMBY.

Fig. 18 The Hutchison Flats Building.

Anthony Bruce, 2024.

19. Bibliography:

Berkeley assessment records. The Bancroft Library.

Berkeley and Oakland directories. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Ancestry.com.

Block (plat) books. Berkeley Architectural Heritage
Association.

Block Files. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association.

City of Berkeley Building Permit Application No. 92, dated November 18, 1904.

Edwards Transcript of Records for Alameda County, completion notice stating that the Hutchsion Flats Building was completed on March 6, 1905.

Ormsby Donogh Real Estate File. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association.

Samuel and Joseph Cather Newsom: Victorian Architectural Imagery in California 1878–1908.

David Gebhard, Harriette V on Breton, Robert W. Winter, exhibit catalogue, 1979.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association.

SF YIMBY, “Pre-Application For 2442 Haste Street in Southside, Berkeley” by Andrew Nelson, February 12, 2024.

Tracts maps. Alameda County Assessor’s Office.

U.S. Census and California V oter Registration records. Ancestry.com.

20. Recorder: Anthony Bruce for the the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, P.O. Box 1137, Berkeley, California 94701
Date: April 2024
11

21. Addenda:

Fig. 19 State of California Historic Resources Inventory, page 1. 12

Fig. 20 State of California Historic Resources Inventory, page 2. 13

Fig. 21 City of Berkeley Building Permit Application No. 92, November 18, 1904. 14

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
October 15, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: LPO NOD: 1614 Sixth Street/#LMSAP2024-0003

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) has approved a Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) for the subject City Landmark property. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period, which began on October 1, 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 Notice of Decision.

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 October 15, 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.

LPO NOD: 1614 Sixth Street/#LMSAP2024-0003 INFORMATION CALENDAR October 15, 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE IMPACTS
Landmark designation and discretionary alteration reviews by staff and LPC provide opportunities for the adaptive re-use and rehabilitation of historic resources within the City. The rehabilitation of these resources, rather than their removal, achieves construction and demolition waste diversion, and promotes investment in existing urban centers.

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

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

CONTACT PERSON
Fatema Crane, Principal Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7410 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMSAP2024-0003 for 1614 Sixth Street

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: August 1, 2024
DATE NOTICE MAILED: September 30, 2024
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: October 15, 2024
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): October 16, 20241 1614 Sixth Street – Charles R. Brown House
Structural Alteration Permit (#LMSAP2024-0003) to authorize construction of two new detached single-family residences on 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: 1614 Sixth Street, LLC, c/o Sean Kenmore 825 Page Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Project Applicant: Dennis O’Kelly, AIA, King O’Kelly Architects 806 Page Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
ZONING DISTRICT: Mixed Use – Residential (MU-R)
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
#LMSAP2024-0003
1614 Sixth Street
Mailed: September 30, 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from further 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 APPROVED PLANS ARE ATTACHED

TO THIS NOTICE
COMMISSION VOTE: 6-0-0-2 (note: one vacancy)
YES: Crandall, Enchill, Finacom, Montgomery, Orbuch, Twu NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: Leuschner, Schwartz
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

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2024-0003
1614 Sixth Street
Mailed: September 30, 2024

individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.
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 $6,000.

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 Structural Alteration Permit 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.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2024-0003
1614 Sixth Street
Mailed: September 30, 2024

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

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

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

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

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) 981-7410 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 and Materials Information
ATTEST:

Fatema Crane, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Applicant: Dennis O’Kelly, AIA, King O’Kelly Architects 806 Page Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Property Owner: 1614 Sixth Street, LLC, c/o Sean Kenmore 825 Page Street
Berkeley, CA 94710

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2024-0003
1614 Sixth Street
Mailed: September 30, 2024

A t t a c h m e n t 1, part 2
F i n d i n g s a n d C o n d i t i o n s
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 Email: [email protected]
1614 Sixth Street – Charles R. Brown House
Structural Alteration Permit #LMSAP2024-0003
Structural Alteration Permit to authorize construction of two new detached single-family residences on 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 project does not require a change of use. The property will retain its historic residential use.

2. The project will retain the historic Queen Anne residential character of the property and will avoid removal of those distinctive materials as well as alteration of the features that characterize the property.

3. The design of two new detached residential buildings will not resemble or replicate designs from the property’s Victorian-era historic period. These new features are contemporary in design and materials and will not result in a false sense of historical development.

4. The subject property does not feature changes that have acquired significance in their own right.

1614 SIXTH STREET STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - DRAFT Findings and Conditions

1614 SIXTH STREET STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - DRAFT Findings and Conditions

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the Charles R. Brown House property, such as Victorian- era siding materials and Queen Anne decorative details, will be fully retained and preserved with this project, in that the proposed new construction on the property is not attached to the historic building.

6. As conditioned herein, if deteriorated historic features will be affected by this request, then they would be repaired or replaced to match the materials, design, and finishes of the original items.

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

8. The project site is not known to have the potential to yield subsurface resources; the scope of proposed excavation is limited and not likely to disturb such resources if they exist. Nevertheless, as conditioned herein, actions to preserve and protect unexpected discoveries during project construction are required.

9. The proposed new buildings are designed with complimentary, high-quality materials in simplified, contemporary style employing muted colors and finishes that visually recede within the background of the Queen Anne cottage. Owing to these aspects, new work will be sufficiently differentiated from the historic design.

10.If the proposed improvements were removed in the future, they would not permanently impair the integrity or essential form of the Charles R. Brown House building because they are detached from this building.

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 project will not adversely affect the architectural design of the City Landmark Charles R. Brown House because the proposed new construction is detached and would not result in alterations to the historic building.

B. The special character of the subject property lies in its residential Queen Anne architectural design, which is emphasized by the retention of the original site plan with generous front yard setback from the street and side yard separations from the adjacent properties. The proposed new development is detached and will be located behind the historic structure, thereby retaining the design integrity of the Charles R.

Brown House as well as the siting and location of the historic residence in relation to the Sixth Street right-of-way and views therefrom. This project would not adversely affect the design, siting, or location of the Queen Anne cottage.

1614 SIXTH STREET STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - DRAFT 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”)

1614 SIXTH STREET STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - DRAFT Findings and Conditions

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 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.

1614 SIXTH STREET STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - DRAFT Findings and Conditions

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.

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 may 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 Administrative 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 June 26, 2024 and annotated for corrections.

1614 SIXTH STREET STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - DRAFT Findings and Conditions

13. PROPERTY LINE CORRECTION. Prior to submittal of any building permit for this project, the applicant shall confirm the location of the property lines and provide a boundary survey prepared and stamped by a licensed civil engineer in accordance with the requirements of the Building Official. The applicant shall correct the property lines represented on all diagrams within the project plans set so that it is consistent with the survey.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. DETAILS & WINDOWS. 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. The plans shall be revised to further differentiate the proposed siding material on the new construction from the siding on the historic house, for review and approval by Landmarks staff, in coordination with the LPC Chair as needed.

19. HISTORIC PLAQUE. A permanent, high-quality on-site plaque shall be installed within a publicly accessible location adjacent to the Sixth Street right-of-way. The primary goal of the exhibit shall be to inform the public about the history of the historic property, including its landmark status, and to acknowledge the alterations made. If deemed appropriate by staff in consultation with the Landmarks Preservation Commission Chair, the plaque may be designed consistent with the Berkeley Historical Plaque Project (berkeleyplaques.org). The placement, size, and appearance of the plaque shall be designed so as not to interfere with the ability of the property’s character-defining features to convey their significance consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. A draft of the plaque shall be submitted with the building permit for review by staff in coordination with the Landmarks Preservation Commission Chair.

The final plaque or display shall be in place prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

1614 SIXTH STREET STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - DRAFT Findings and Conditions

20. 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.

21. LANDSCAPE PLANS, including trash & recycling location. 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 are to 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. Trash and recycling storage area shall not be located in the front of the historic building or within the front yard setback of the property, and shall be screened from view from the public street, for verification by the Landmarks plan checker. The amount of driveway, parking, and walkway pavers at the north side of the historic building shall be reduced in favor of tree planting(s) in this area, for verification by the Landmarks plan checker.

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.

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

1614 SIXTH STREET STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - DRAFT Findings and Conditions

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.

VICINITY MAPS

BLOCK & LOT MAP

THIS PARCEL

PROJECT AND SITE DATA
SITE INFORMATION:

SITE ADDRESS:

PARCEL NUMBER:

LOT SIZE:

ZONING DISTRICT:

LIQUIFICATION ZONE:

FIRE ZONE:

REDEVELOPEMENT AREA:

CREEK BUFFER:

FLOOD ZONE:

BUILDING INFORMATION:

EXISTING BUILDING AREA:
(N) CONSTRUCTION BLD'G AREA:

OCCUPANCY:

CONSTRUCTION TYPE:

SPRINKLERED:

NOTE, EXISTING RESIDENCE

ON SITE TO REMAIN
1614 SIXTH STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94710
57-2117-4-1
6,500 SF

MUR - MANUFACTURING MIXED-USE
NO
1 YES
NONE
NO
0 1,747sf + 1,747sf = 3,494sf (NEW RESIDENCES)
R-3
V-B

FULL SPRINKLERED
2,704 SF (EXISTING SFR TO REMAIN)

SCOPE OF WORK

ARCHITECTURAL

THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE OCEAN VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD OF WEST

BERKELEY ALONG THE SIXTH STREET CORRIDOR BETWEEN VIRGINIA AND CEDAR STREETS.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF (2) SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE REAR OF A 50’x130’ LOT IN THE MU-R DISTRICT. THE REAR OF THIS LOT ABUTS JERONIMUS ALLEY.

THE (2) RESIDENCES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF TYPE V-B CONSTRUCTION AND ARE 3 STORIES WITH A ROOF DECK. THE BUILDINGS WILL BE FULLY

SPRINKLERED AND ALL REQUIRED FIRE RESISTANCE RATINGS WILL BE MET PER CBC TABLE 601.

BUILDING HEIGHTS CONFORM TO THE 35’ HEIGHT LIMIT (SEE SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS). REQUIRED LOT LINE SETBACKS AND BUILDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS ARE MAINTAINED (SEE PARCEL PLAN). USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET. LOT COVERAGE AND F.A.R.

REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.

BUILDING & ZONING CODE ANALYSIS
ZONING INFO: (MUR-R)
MIN. USABLE OPEN SPACE:

MAX. FLOOR AREA RATIO:
-EXISTING BLDG. F.A.R.
-NEW BLDG F.A.R.
-TOTAL F.A.R. (ALL BDLGS)
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT:
-PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT:

MIN. BLDG SEPARATION:

MAX LOT COVERAGE:

MIN. LOT LINE SETBACKS:
-REQ'D AT FRONT
EXISTING AT FRONT:
-REQ'D AT SOUTH SIDE:

PROPOSED AT SOUTH SIDE:
-REQ'D AT NORTH SIDE:

PROPOSED AT NORTH SIDE:
-REQ'D AT REAR:

PROPOSED AT REAR:

PARKING:
(PER TABLE 23.206-14)
150sf PER DWELLING UNIT

1.5 FOR BLDGS W. 50% OR > RESIDENTIAL

0.416

0.57 0.987
35' AND (3) STORIES
35' AND (3) STORIES

NO MINIMUM
100%
10'-0" (PER TABLE 23.304.3)
21'-8"
NO MINIMUM (PER TABLE 23.206-14)
3'-0"
5'-0" (PER TABLE 23.304.3)
5'-0"
5'-0" (PER TABLE 23.304.3)
5'-0"
NONE REQ'D (PER TABLE 23.322-4)

OPEN SPACE AREAS
1614 (E) RESIDENCE:

USABLE OPEN SPACE AT GRADE 512sf
1616A:

USABLE OPEN SPACE AT GRADE 282sf
OPEN-AIR ROOF DECK 360sf
1616B:

USABLE OPEN SPACE AT GRADE 228sf
OPEN-AIR ROOF DECK 360sf
TOTAL USABLE OPEN SPACE 1,742sf

LOT COVERAGE
LOT AREA 6,500sf
BUILDING FOOTPRINT:
• 1614 1,584sf
• 1616A 698sf
• 1616B 698SF

USABLE OPEN SPACE
• TOTAL AT GRADE 1,022sf
• TOTAL AT ROOF DECKS 720sf
PARKING & DRIVEWAY 1,192sf
NON-USEBALE OPEN SPACE 1,306sf

PROJECT DIRECTORY
OWNER:
1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
825 PAGE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94710
T: 415.450.0636
CONTACT: SEAN KENMORE
E: [email protected]
MEP ENGINEERS:

TBD
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING:

TBD
ARCHITECT:

KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
806 PAGE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94710
T: 415.987.4230
CONTACT: DENNIS O'KELLY
E: [email protected]
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

PLAINS OFFICE
CALIFORNIA PLA ID #6739
CONTACT: BEN WALDO
E: [email protected]
GENERAL CONTRACTOR:

TBD

ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE CODES, AMENDMENTS,

RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, LAWS, ORDERS, APPROVALS, ETC THAT ARE REQUIRED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. IN THE EVENTOF CONFLICT, THE MOST STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL COMPLY. REQUIREMENTS

INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE CURRENT APPLICABLE EDITIONS OR PUBLICATIONS OF THE FOLLOWING (OR OTHERWISE NOTED):

A. 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
B. 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
C. 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
D. 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
E. 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
F. 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
G. 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE
H. 2022 CITY OF BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE
I. ACCESSIBILITY:
. CALL-OSHA
. FEDERAL REGULATIONS & AMERICAN W/ DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)

APPLICABLE CODES

COMPLIANCE STATEMENTS
THE SUBJECT PROJECT DOES NOT INCLUDE 50 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT AND/ FILL.

NEW OR REPLACED IMPERIVOUS SURFACES < 2,500sf

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:13:40 PM
S.A.P. -

PROJECT

INFORMATION
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
2023.11.10 USE PERMIT
SAP01
1614 6th STREET RESIDENCES
STRUCTURAL ALTERATION PERMIT - REV. 1
JUNE 26, 2024

SHEET INDEX - SAP
# SHEET NAME
SAP01 S.A.P. - PROJECT INFORMATION
SAP02 S.A.P. - EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
SAP03 3D VIEWS - BEFORE & AFTER FROM 6TH STREET - S.A.P.

SAP04 3D VIEWS - BEFORE & AFTER FROM 6TH STREET - S.A.P.

SAP05 3D VIEW3D VIEWS - BEFORE & AFTER FROM JERONIMUS ALLEY SAP06 3D VIEW3D VIEWS - BEFORE & AFTER FROM JERONIMUS ALLEY SAP10 S.A.P. - VICINITY MAP
SAP11 S.A.P. - EXISTING SITE PLAN
SAP12 S.A.P. - PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SAP13 S.A.P. - LANDSCAPE PLAN
SAP14 S.A.P. - LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
SAP21 S.A.P. - FLOOR PLANS
SAP22 S.A.P. - FLOOR PLANS
SAP23 S.A.P. - FLOOR PLANS
SAP24 S.A.P. - ROOF PLANS
SAP31 S.A.P. - ELEVATIONS
SAP32 S.A.P. - ELEVATIONS
SAP33 S.A.P. - ELEVATIONS
SAP34 S.A.P. - ELEVATIONS
SAP35 S.A.P. - STREET ELEVATIONS
SAP41 S.A.P. - SECTION DRAWINGS
SAP51 S.A.P. - MATERIALS BOARD
SAP61 S.A.P. - DETAILS
SAP71 S.A.P. - ADDITIONAL 3D VIEWS
Attachment 1, Part 3

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:13:41 PM
S.A.P. - EXISTING

SITE PHOTOS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
01/09/24 USE PERMIT
SAP02

EXISTING HISTORIC BUILDING - EAST FACADE EXISTING HISTORIC BUILDING - FROM NE EXISTING HISTORIC BUILDING - NORTH FACADE EXISTING HISTORIC BUILDING - WEST FACADE VIEWS FROM 6TH STREET - FROM SE VIEWS FROM 6TH STREET - FROM EAST VIEWS FROM 6TH STREET - FROM NE VIEW FROM JERONIMUS ALLEY - FROM NORTH (CEDAR STREET DIRECTION) VIEW FROM JERONIMUS ALLEY - FROM SOUTH (VIRGINIA STREET DIRECTION)

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:13:52 PM
3D VIEWS -

BEFORE &

AFTER FROM
6TH STREET -
S.A.P.

OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
06/25/24 USE PERMIT
SAP03
1 VIEW FROM ACROSS 6TH - AFTER2 VIEW FROM ACROSS 6TH - AFTER Copy 1

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:14:30 PM
3D VIEWS -

BEFORE &

AFTER FROM
6TH STREET -
S.A.P.

OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
01/09/24 USE PERMIT
SAP04
1 VIEW FROM 6TH - SOUTH - EXISTING - S.A.P.
2 VIEW FROM 6TH - NORTH - EXISTING - S.A.P. 4 VIEW FROM 6TH - NORTH - NEW CONSTRUCTION - S.A.P. 3 VIEW FROM 6TH - SOUTH - NEW CONSTRUCTION - S.A.P.

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:14:57 PM
3D VIEW3D

VIEWS - BEFORE
& AFTER FROM

JERONIMUS
ALLEY
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
06/25/24 USE PERMIT
SAP05
1 VIEW FROM ALLEY - NORTH - AFTER2 VIEW FROM ALLEY - NORTH - BEFORE

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:15:29 PM
3D VIEW3D

VIEWS - BEFORE
& AFTER FROM

JERONIMUS
ALLEY
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
06/25/24 USE PERMIT
SAP06
1 VIEW FROM ALLEY - SOUTH - AFTER2 VIEW FROM ALLEY - SOUTH - BEFORE

SO

UTH PRO
PERTY LINE | 130.00'
EAST PROPERTY LINE | 50.00'
NO

RTH PRO
PERTY LINE | 130.00'
WEST PROPERTY LINE | 50.00'
N
TO
CEDAR
TO

VIRGINIA
APN 57-2117-3
1610 SIXTH STREET

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-4-2
1618 SIXTH STREET

WAREHOUSE

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-2
830 CEDAR STREET

MANUFACTURING - MIXED USE
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-5
1650 SIXTH STREET

STORAGE
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-18
1615 FIFTH STREET

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-15
1609 FIFTH STREET

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-16
1607 FIFTH STREET

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-14-1
1621 FIFTH STREET

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-17
1613 FIFTH STREET

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR

JERONIMUS ALLEY
APN 58-2120-23-2
1613 SIXTH STREET
LOW/MED DENSITY RES.

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: R-1A
0' 5' 10' 20' 40'
APN 57-2117-4-1
1614 SIXTH STREET

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR

EXISTING

PROPERTY

PROPOSED

RESIDENCE
1616A 6TH

PROPOSED

RESIDENCE
1616B 6TH

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK
CURB
RAMP

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:15:31 PM
S.A.P. - VICINITY
MAP
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
09/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP10
1" = 10'-0"1 VICINITY PLAN - S.A.P.

SETBACK
10' - 0"
N
APN 57-2117-4-2
1618 SIXTH STREET

WAREHOUSE

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR

SETBACK
5' - 0"

SETBACK
5' - 0"

SETBACK
5' - 0"

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

EXISTING

THERE IS NO WORK BEING

PROPOSED TO THIS BUILDING AS

PART OF THIS APPLICATION

13.21°0' 2' 4' 8' 16'
ENTRY

SIDEWALK
21' - 8"
13' - 2"
56' - 1"
TO
CEDAR
TO

VIRGINIA
SIXTH
STREET
1614 SIXTH STREET
EAST PROPERTY LINE | 50.00'
WEST PROPERTY LINE | 50.00'
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE | 130.00'
NORTH PROPERTY LINE | 130.00'
51' - 1" 52' - 1" 11' - 9"
TO
CEDAR
TO

VIRGINIA

JERONIMUS
ALLEY
APN 57-2117-3
1610 SIXTH STREET

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
E6
D13
D13
D14

AREA NOT IN CONTRACT

CONSTRUCTION LEGEND

EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION

NEW WALL CONSTRUCTION

EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING FLOOR/ROOF/CEILING TO BE

REMOVED

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:15:34 PM
S.A.P. - EXISTING

SITE PLAN
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP11
3/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN - S.A.P.

KEY NOTES
NO. TEXT
D13 REMOVE (E) CHAINLINK FENCE
D14 REMOVE (E) PICKET FENCE
E6 (E) CURB-CUT TO REMAIN

UP

SETBACK
10' - 0"
N
APN 57-2117-3
1610 SIXTH STREET

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-4-2
1618 SIXTH STREET

WAREHOUSE

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR

SETBACK
5' - 0"

SETBACK
5' - 0"

SETBACK
5' - 0"

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

EXISTING

THERE IS NO WORK BEING

PROPOSED TO THIS BUILDING AS

PART OF THIS APPLICATION

13.21°0' 2' 4' 8' 16'

ELEC & GAS
METERS

PROPOSED

DRIVEWAY

PROPOSED

DRIVEWAY

PROPOSED

DRIVEWAY

PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENCE

PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENCE

PEDESTRIAN

WALKWAY
ENTRY
ENTRY
ENTRY

SIDEWALK
FRONT
YARD
21' - 8"
13' - 2"
56' - 1"

LONG-TERM BIKE

STORAGE IN GARAGE

GARARGE

LONG-TERM BIKE

STORAGE IN GARAGE

GARARGE
TO
CEDAR
TO

VIRGINIA
SIXTH
STREET

TRASH BIN

STORAGE

TRASH BIN

STORAGE

TRASH BIN

STORAGE
1614 SIXTH STREET
1616A SIXTH
1616B SIXTH

PEDESTRIAN

WALKWAY
EAST PROPERTY LINE | 50.00'
WEST PROPERTY LINE | 50.00'
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE | 130.00'
NORTH PROPERTY LINE | 130.00'

DRIVABLE

CONCRETE PAVERS
51' - 1" 52' - 1" 11' - 9"
TO
CEDAR
TO

VIRGINIA

JERONIMUS
ALLEY

DASHED LINE INDICATES

ROOF LINE ABOVE
3' - 0"
E6

AREA NOT IN CONTRACT

CONSTRUCTION LEGEND

EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION

NEW WALL CONSTRUCTION

EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING FLOOR/ROOF/CEILING TO BE

REMOVED

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:15:37 PM
S.A.P. -

PROPOSED SITE
PLAN
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP12
3/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN - S.A.P.

KEY NOTES
NO. TEXT
E6 (E) CURB-CUT TO REMAIN

UP

XX X X X X

XXX XXX

XXX XXX

PERMEABLE PAVER (RATED TO

BE DRIVEN ON)

CONCRETE PAVERS (RATED TO

BE DRIVEN ON)
LANDSCAPED AREA w/

PERMEABLE GROUNDCOVER
(MULCHED OR SIMILAR)

LANDSCAPE LEGEND
EAST PROPERTY LINE | 50.00'
WEST PROPERTY LINE | 50.00'
1614 SIXTH STREET
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE | 130.00'
NORTH PROPERTY LINE | 130.00'
1616A SIXTH
1616B SIXTH
N
TO
CEDAR
TO

VIRGINIA

JERONIMUS
ALLEY
APN 57-2117-4-2
1618 SIXTH STREET

WAREHOUSE

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR

13.21°0' 2' 4' 8' 16'
NEW 6' WD FENCE
NEW 6' WD FENCE
NEW 6' WD FENCE
NEW 6' WD FENCE
EXISTING 42" WOOD FENCE
TO
CEDAR
TO

VIRGINIA
SIXTH
STREET
(E) RESIDENCE

TRASH BIN

STORAGE

TRASH BIN

STORAGE

TRASH BIN

STORAGE
NOTE :*SEE SHEET SAP14 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE

ALL LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER EFFICIENCY

LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (WELO) STANDARDS
THE SUBJECT PROJECT DOES NOT INCLUDE 50 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT AND/ FILL.

NEW OR REPLACED IMPERIVOUS SURFACES < 2,500sf

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:15:40 PM
S.A.P. -

LANDSCAPE
PLAN
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP13
3/16" = 1'-0"1 LANDSCAPE PLAN - S.A.P.

XX X XX X
AP
PR
AM
--
AD
--
MC
--
RC
--
AC
--
MM
--
BS
--
PJ
--
HM
--
PH
--
EK
--
EP
--
SC
--
MR
--
FC
--
WF
--
TA
--
AA
--
RS

XXX XXX

XXX XXX

TREE SCHEDULE

SYMBOL KEY DESCRIPTION SIZE SPACING HEIGHT SPREAD WUCOLS REMARKSQUANTITY

WESTERN SYCAMORE
PLATANUS RACEMOSA 'ROBERTS' 40' 30' M36" BOX

STRAWBERRY TREE
ARBUTUS MARINA 20' 12' L

JAPANESE MAPLE
ACER PALMATUM 'SEIRYU' 25' 18' M

SEE LAYOUT

SEE LAYOUT

SEE LAYOUT

UNDERSTORY SCHEDULE

SYMBOL KEY DESCRIPTION SIZE SPACING HEIGHT SPREAD WATER QUANTITY REMARKS DETAIL
DETAIL
24" BOX
24" BOX

COFFEEBERRY

RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'MOUND SAN
BRUNO'
3-4' 4-5' L1 GAL SEE PLANS

COUSIN ITT PLANT
ACACIA COGNATA 'COUSIN ITT' 2' 3'-4' L1 GAL

HONEY BUSH
MELIANTHUS MAJOR 5'-6' 6'-8' M5 GAL

SEE PLANS

SEE PLANS

MANZANITA

ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA
'HOWARD MCMINN' 5-8' 5-6' VL5 GAL SEE PLANS

ANGEL'S TRUMPET
BRUGMANSIA SP. 8-12' 8-10' M15 GAL SEE PLANS

JAPANESE ANDROMEDA
PIERIS JAPONICA 'MOUNTAIN FIRE' 4-8' 3-6' M

ISLAND ALUM ROOT
HEUCHERA MAXIMA 1'-2' 1'-2' MSEE PLANS

FOOTHILL BEARDTONGUE
PENSTEMMON HETEROPHYLLUS 18" 1-2' LSEE PLANS

SANTA BARBARA DAISY
ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUS 1'-2' 3-4' LSEE PLANS
NOTE:

ALL QUANTITIES SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR ON PLANS.

TOWER OF BELLS
ECHIUM PININANA 8-10' 1'-2' L1 GAL SEE PLANS
1'-2' 8'-15' L1 GAL SEE PLANS
3'
5' FLOWERING 3'-4' L1 GAL SEE PLANS
NOTE:

ALL QUANTITIES SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR ON PLANS. 1 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL
HEDGE TO 7' HIGH,
3-4' WIDE IN LATE
SPRING

PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE

MYRICA CALIFORNICA
20'-30'
SEE

REMARKS
10'-20'
SEE REMARKS L5 GAL 36" O.C.

SEE PLANS

CLEVELAND SAGE

SALVIA CLEVELANDII 'WINNIFRED GILMAN'

BIENNIAL

DEERGRASS

MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS

CALIFORNIA FESCUE
FESTUCA CALIFORNICA 1 GAL SEE PLANS 1'-2' 1'-2' L

WOODWARDIA FIMBRIATA
GIANT CHAIN FERN 1 GAL SEE PLANS 3-4' 4-5' M

BLACK-EYED SUSAN VINE
THUNBERGIA ALATA 2 GAL 4' O.C. CLIMBING
TO 15'

SPREADING
TO 20' M

FOXGLOVE AGAVE
AGAVE ATTENUATA 2 GAL SEE PLANS 2-4' 3-4' L

FLOWERING GOOSEBERRY
RIBES SANGUINEUM 6-10' 5-6' M5 GAL SEE PLANS
NATIVE
NATIVE
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:15:40 PM
S.A.P. -

LANDSCAPE

PLANTING

SCHEDULE
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
06/26/24 USE PERMIT
SAP14

3 4
UP 13 1
UP 10
1 UP 111
UP 12
1 2
1 N
TO
CEDAR
TO

VIRGINIA

JERONIMUS
ALLEY
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
18' - 8"
GARAGE
ENTRY
1616B

BATHROOM
ENTRY
1616A
GARAGE

BATHROOM

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
NEW 6' WD
FENCE
NEW 6' WD FENCE
NEW 6' WD FENCE
NEW 6' WD FENCE
NEW 6' WD FENCE
NEW 6' WD

FENCE & GATE
NEW 6' WD
FENCE
UP
UP

PEDESSRIAN

WALKWAY
SHARED

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
1614
(E) RESIDENCE
498sf NET THIS
LEVEL

ENTRY HALL

ENTRY HALL
498sf NET THIS
LEVEL

LONG TERM BIKE

STORAGE

LONG TERM BIKE

STORAGE

PEDESSRIAN

WALKWAY
SAP311SAP32 1
SAP33
1 SAP34
1 2
SAP41
1 SAP41
1 SAP41
Ba 2.6 2.7 C D

2.8 LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:15:42 PM
S.A.P. - FLOOR
PLANS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP213/8" = 1'-0"1 GROUND LEVEL PLANS - S.A.P.

S
S
S
+42"
+42"
S
S
3 4
UP 13 1
UP 10
1 UP 111
UP 12
1 2
1 BEDROOM
18' - 8"
N
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
CLOSET

BATHROOM BEDROOM

BATHROOM

BATHROOM

BEDROOMBEDROOM
CLOSET

BATHROOM
DN
DN
UP
UP
618sf NET THIS
LEVEL
618sf NET THIS
LEVEL
10' - 10"
7' - 11"
10' - 10"
6' - 5"
SAP311SAP32 1
SAP33
1 SAP34
1 2
SAP41
2 SAP41
1 SAP41
1 SAP41
Ba 2.6 2.7 C D

2.8 LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:15:44 PM
S.A.P. - FLOOR
PLANS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP223/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL PLANS - S.A.P.

+12"
S
3 4
UP 13 1
UP 10
1 UP 111
UP 12
1 2
1 N
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'

LIVINGDININGKITCHEN

LIVINGDININGKITCHEN
PANTRY

PANTRY DN
DN
UP
UP
652sf NET THIS
LEVEL
652sf NET THIS
LEVEL
SAP311SAP32 1
SAP33
1 SAP34
1 2
SAP41
2 SAP41
1 SAP41
1 SAP41
Ba 2.6 2.7 C D

2.8 A401
2 LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:15:46 PM
S.A.P. - FLOOR
PLANS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP233/8" = 1'-0"1 THIRD LEVEL PLANS - S.A.P.

3 4
A200
3 UP 13 1
UP 10
1 UP 111
UP 12
1 2
1 18' - 8"
N
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
DN
DN

ROOF DECK

ROOF DECK
SOLAR
PANELS

OPERABLE

SKYLIGHT

OPERABLE

SKYLIGHT
360sf
360sf
17' - 10"
SAP311SAP32 1
SAP33
1 SAP34
1 2
SAP41
2 SAP41
1 SAP41
1 SAP41
Ba 2.6 2.7 C D

2.8 A401
2 SOLAR
PANELS

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:15:47 PM
S.A.P. - ROOF
PLANS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP243/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF & ROOF DECK PLANS - S.A.P.

GROUND FLOOR
0' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
3 LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
4 ROOF
35' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
2 1
1616 A
18' - 8"

NORTH PROPERTY LINE

SOUTH PROPERTY LINE
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
1616 B
35' - 0"

2.8 LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:16:02 PM
S.A.P. -

ELEVATIONS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP31
3/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION - S.A.P.

GROUND FLOOR
0' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
3 LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
4 ROOF
35' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
21 NORTH PROPERTY LINE

SOUTH PROPERTY LINE
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
18' - 8"
35' - 0"

2.8 LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:16:22 PM
S.A.P. -

ELEVATIONS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP32
3/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - S.A.P.

GROUND FLOOR
0' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
ROOF
35' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'

WEST PROPERTY LINE
B a2.62.7CD

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:16:42 PM
S.A.P. -

ELEVATIONS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP33
3/8" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - S.A.P.

GROUND FLOOR
0' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
ROOF
35' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"

WEST PROPERTY LINE
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
35' - 0"
Ba 2.6 2.7 C D

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:16:59 PM
S.A.P. -

ELEVATIONS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP34
3/8" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - S.A.P.

APN 57-2117-4-2
1618 SIXTH STREET

WAREHOUSE

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-4-1
1616 A & B PROPOSED HOUSES
0' 4' 8' 16' 32'
APN 57-2117-3
1610 SIXTH STREET

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-2
830 CEDAR STREET

MANUFACTURING - MIXED USE
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-5
1650 SIXTH STREET

STORAGE
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR

SUBJECT

PROPERTY
15' - 7"
13' - 1"
31' - 10"
25' - 4"
22' - 7"
27' - 1"
APN 57-2117-4-1
1614 SIXTH STREET

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR

SUBJECT

PROPERTY
APN 57-2117-4-2
1618 SIXTH STREET

WAREHOUSE

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-3
1610 SIXTH STREET

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TYPE V-B
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-2
830 CEDAR STREET

MANUFACTURING - MIXED USE
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
APN 57-2117-5
1650 SIXTH STREET

STORAGE
ZONING DISTRICT: MUR
0' 4' 8' 16' 32'

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:17:11 PM
S.A.P. - STREET

ELEVATIONS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP35
3/32" = 1'-0"2 JERONIMUS ALLEY ELEVATIONS - S.A.P.
3/32" = 1'-0"1 SIXTH STREET ELEVATION - S.A.P.

GROUND FLOOR
0' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
ROOF
35' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
2 SAP41

KITCHEN DINING LIVING

ROOF DECK

BEDROOM BATHROOM BEDROOM

BEDROOMGARAGE
0' 2' 4' 8' 16'
35' - 0"
Ba 2.6 2.7 C D

GROUND FLOOR
0' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
3 LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
4 ROOF
35' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
21 1616A
ROOF
DECK
1616B
18' - 8"
ROOF
DECK
DINING

BATHROOM
DINING

LAUNDRY
HALL
STAIR
STAIR
HALL

LAUNDRY

BATHROOM
GARAGE
HALL

HALLGARAGE
0' 2' 4' 8' 16'
35' - 0"
1 SAP41

2.8 LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:17:12 PM
S.A.P. - SECTION

DRAWINGS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
11/06/23 USE PERMIT
SAP41
1/4" = 1'-0"1 LONG SECTION - S.A.P.
1/4" = 1'-0"2 CROSS SECTION - S.A.P.

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:17:54 PM
S.A.P. -

MATERIALS
BOARD
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
04/08/24 USE PERMIT
SAP51
CC-1
4'x8' FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE

PANELS - CHARCOAL
CC-3

FIBER CEMENT SOFFIT PANELS
PAINTED BEN MOORE "CHELSEA GREY"

ADJUSTABLE STANDOFF RAILING SYSTEM

CR LAURENCE

CLEAR TEMPERED GLAZING
CC-2

FIBER CEMENT SIDING - V-GROOVE
PAINTED BEN MOORE "GREY TINT"
S1

OUTDOOR SCONCE AT MAIN ENTRY -

BALANCE SCONCE
S2

OUTDOOR SCONCE AT NORTH &

SOUTH FACADE AND ROOF DECK

LUMENS - ATLANTIS SCONCE
MT-1

POWDER COATED ALUM CLADDING

CHELSEA GREY
MT-2

POWDER COATED ALUM STANDING

SEAM ROOFING

CHELSEA GREY
*MATCHES THE SIDING COLOR OF THE VICTORIAN
PT-2

WHITE PAINTED WOOD FENCE
ICE MIST*MATCHES TRIM COLOR OF VICTORIAN
4"x4" EXTRUDED ALUMINUM DOWNSPOT
PAINTED "GREY TINT" TO MATCH SIDING

FRONT BACKSECTION
6' - 0" MAX.
1' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"
3 1/2"
5 1/2"
3/4"
1/2"

35.00°
6' - 0"
MIN. 1/3 POST HEIGHT
2' - 6" MIN.

MIN.
6"
MIN. 3X POST WIDTH
1' - 0"
4x4 PRESSURE

TREATED
WOOD POST.

PAINT WHITE
2x4 CEDAR
NAILER. PAINT
WHITE

CONCRETE

FOOTING AT

GATE POSTS
(CAN BE

COMPACTED

SOIL AT OTHER
POSTS)

GRAVEL FOR

DRAINAGE
1x6 CEDAR
PICKET. PAINT
WHITE

ELEVATION SECTION
7" TYP.
5/8" FIBER CEMENT SIDING W/ 7"

EXPOSED SECTION V-GROOVE
JOINTS
5/8" TYPE X GYP. BD. SHEATHING
2x6 WOOD STUD EXTERIOR
WALLS
1/2" EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD

SHEATHING

SELF-ADHERED WEATHER

BARRIER (SHOW DASHED)
3/8" FURRING STRIPS
5 1/2"1/2"
5/8"
7"
GENERAL NOTE:

THE (N) FIBER CEMENT SIDING MATCHES THE 7" EXPOSED
SECTION OF THE SIDING ON THE ADJACENT VICTORIAN. THE

SIDING ON THE VICTORIAN ALSO HAS A V-GROOVE PROFILE

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:17:55 PM
S.A.P. - DETAILS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
06/20/24 USE PERMIT
SAP61
3/4" = 1'-0"1 TYPICAL FENCE DETAIL
3" = 1'-0"2 SIDING PROFILE DETAILS

LICENSED ARCHITECT
STATE

OF CALIFORNIA
-
-
REN.

PROJECT
COPYRIGHT © 2023 KING O'KELLY ARCHITECTS
Dennis O'Kelly
C-37374
04 30
25 APN 57-2117-4-1
6/26/2024 6:19:00 PM
S.A.P. -
ADDITIONAL 3D
VIEWS
OWNER: 1614 SIXTH STREET, LLC
1614 6TH ST. - S.A.P. REV. 1
Project
Number
1614 6TH STREET - BERKELEY, CA
06/26/24 USE PERMIT
SAP71

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.

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

B
erkeley School Board

21. Laura Babitt
B
us Schedule Changes

22. Anne Herrick

23. Michael Eshelman
C
ease and Desist Letter

24. Yesica Prado and Gordon Gilmore on behalf of the Berkeley Homeless Union H
omeless RV Centers

25. Scott Robinson
D
erby and Warring Intersection

26. Hermine Rule
P
ublic Art Impact Fee

27. James M. Lloyd
J
ack London Square

28. Dirk Neyhart
U
nited Against Hate Week

29. Jennifer Coffey
C
ERT Training

30. Richard Schwartz
Zoni
ng Concerns

31. Jodi Carter

32. Emilie Strauss
N
atural Gas

33. Walter Wood
P
roposed Proclamation

34. The Indigenous Peoples Day Pow Wow Committee

35. Susan Louie
P
eace and Justice Commission

36. Cielo Rios
P
olice Report Request

37. Mike Vandeman