Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, January 21, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

Page 298 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 2 OF 21
-
G02

RENDERINGS
(FOR REFERENCE
ONLY)
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

San Diego, CA 92104
www.jeﬀsvitak.com
THIS DRAWING WAS PREPARED under the Architect’s
supervision, and is an “Instrument of Service” intended solely for use on this Project. The Architect’s Services are performed solely in the interest of the Architect’s Client - no obligation is assumed by the Architect for the benefit of any other entity involved in the Construction Work. The information, ideas and designs indicated - including the overall form, arrangement and composition of spaces or
building elements - constitutes the original, confidential, and unpublished Work and property of the Architect.

Possession of this Drawing confers no right or license to disclose to others the subject matter contained herein for any but authorized purposes. Unauthorized use,
reproduction or distribution in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

FRONT FACADE LOOKING FROM PRINCE ST
LIVING ROOM AND ENTRY COURTENTRY COURT A.D.U LIVING ROOM

SIDE FACADE LOOKING FROM ALLEY / EASEMENT

Page 23 of 67 ends

Page 299 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 3 OF 21
-
A100

ARCHITECTURAL

SITE PLAN
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

Copyright © 2024 by JEFF SVITAK INC.
6'-4" 7'-4" 37'-5" 7'-3" 30'-7"
16'-8" 14'-8" 29'-7" 15'-2" 29'-11"
S.Y.S.B
4'-0"
+231.33'
+229.24' +231.16'
P.L

PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
P.L

SIDEWALK
PRINCE ST.

P.L

LANDSCAPE
AREA
319 SQ FT

LANDSCAPE AREA
379 SQ FT

EXISTING DRIVEWAY
PATIO
PRINCE ST.

A.D.U

BUILDING
P.L
P.L
P.L
P.L
F.Y.S.B

BUILDING
R.Y.S.B
UNIT 2
UNIT 1
TRASH

SKYLIGHT

OPEN TO BELOW
S4
4'-9"
EASE.**
3'-0"
S.Y.S.B*
5'-0"

BUILDING OVERALL
26'-0"
S.Y.S.B3'-6"

SITE OVERALL
34'-6"
15'-1" 20'-8" DUPLEX BUILDING OVERALL
89'-4"
F.Y.S.B
15'-0"
R.O.W
12'-0"
1'-4"
6"
1'-9"
12'-1" 25'-6"

SITE OVERALL
125'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
R.Y.S.B
4'-0"
A.D.U
16'-8"
UNIT 2
44'-8"
UNIT 1
44'-8"
F.Y.S.B
15'-0"
15'-4"
27'-5"
+252.42' +254.42'
09 UNIT 1
2 STORIES
UNIT 2
2 STORIES
EASEMENT TO PARCEL 1
2710 PRINCE STREET

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
2712 PRINCE STREET

NEIGHBOR GARAGE
2700 PRINCE STREET

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
2712 PRINCE STREET (ADU)

NEIGHBOR GARAGE
3027 COLLEGE AVE.

NEIGHBOR GARAGE
3025 COLLEGE AVE.
03 07
02 07
03 03
08 09
06 10
11 NEIGHBOR BUILDING
2700 PRINCE STREET

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
3025 COLLEGE AVE.

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
3027 COLLEGE AVE.

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
3037 COLLEGE AVE.
03 03

AREA FOR SOLAR

PV SYSTEM

AREA FOR SOLAR

PV SYSTEM
1111
11 12 P.L

COURTYARD

OPEN TO BELOW

SKYLIGHT

LANDSCAPE

EXISTING DRIVEWAY

COURTYARD

OPEN TO BELOW

COURTYARD

OPEN TO BELOW

COURTYARD

OPEN TO BELOWATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
18'-2 5/8"
E2
E2
E2
PRINCE ST.

P.L
P.L
P.L
P.L
P.L
4'-9 1/8"EASE.**
3'-0"
EASE.* 5'-0"
26'-4 3/4"
S.Y.S.B3'-3/4"
1'-4 1/8"
3'-3 1/8"
3'-10 1/8"
4'-6 3/8"
3'-3 1/8"
18'-1 1/2" 33'-6 3/4" 53'-5 1/2" F.Y.S.B
16'-7 1/8"
11'-11 5/8"
15'-5/8"
12'-8 3/4"
R.Y.S.B
54'-10 3/4"
17'-3 7/8"
09 EASEMENT TO PARCEL 1
2710 PRINCE STREET

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
2712 PRINCE STREET

NEIGHBOR GARAGE
2700 PRINCE STREET

NEIGHBOR GARAGE
3027 COLLEGE AVE.
04 05
01 03
03 06
03 EXISTING HOUSE TO BE DEMOLISHED

EXISTING GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED

FENCE WALL

EAVE PROJECTION
03 PORCH
12 EXISTING DRIVEWAY
3 3
3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN
N
0' 4' 8' 16'
SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES:

A. PARKING SPACE SHOWN IN GROUND FLOOR PLAN (SHEET N. A101).

B. TRASH/SOLID WASTE STORAGE AREA SHOWN IN FLOOR GROUND FLOOR PLAN (SHEET N. A101).

C. EASEMENT* = (1998-273924, PARCEL 3) 5' WIDE EASEMENT (3016 DEEDS 126) EASEMENT**= 3' WIDE EASEMENT (2002-273924, PARCEL 2) CARLO (1998-273924, PARCEL 2)
D. BICYCLE PARKING NOT REQUIRED, PER BMC BICYCLE PLAN, APPENDIX F

PROPERTY LINE

LANDSCAPING

EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED
PATHWAY(S) FROM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TO PUBLIC R.O.W
LEGEND:

ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN KEYNOTES:

01. GAS LINE UNDERGROUND (PER SURVEY PLANS)

02. SEWER LINE UNDERGROUND (PER SURVEY PLANS)

03. OVERHEAD WIRE (PER SURVEY PLANS)

04. GAS METER (PER SURVEY PLANS)

05. ELECTRIC METER (PER SURVEY PLANS)

06. WATER METER

07. PATHWAY(S) FROM RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO PUBLIC R.O.W

08. FENCE - BRICK WALL (5 FT. HEIGHT)

09. EXISTING TREE (TO REMAIN) - CHINAR TREE, 24" T; 12' DRIP LINE

10. NEW DRIVEWAY - BRICK PAVERS

11. FENCE - WOODEN PAINTED BOARDS (6 FT. HEIGHT)

12. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO 2710 PRINCE STREET ROOF

ROOF CAP

BRICK PAVER
ABREVIATIONS:

P.L: PROPERTY LINE
S.Y.S.B: SIDE YARD SETBACK
F.Y.S.B: FRONT YARD SETBACK
R.Y.S.B: REAR YARD SETBACK
EASE. EASEMENT
R.O.W: RIGHT OF WAY
N
0' 4' 8' 16'

Page 24 of 67 ends

Page 300 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 4 OF 21
-
A100.1

COMMUNITY

OUTREACH
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

Copyright © 2024 by JEFF SVITAK INC.
6'-4" 7'-4" 37'-5" 7'-3" 30'-7"
16'-8" 14'-8" 29'-7" 15'-2" 29'-11"
S.Y.S.B
4'-0"
+231.33'
+229.24' +231.16'
P.L

PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
P.L

SIDEWALK
PRINCE ST.

P.L

LANDSCAPE
AREA
319 SQ FT

LANDSCAPE AREA
379 SQ FT

EXISTING DRIVEWAY
PATIO
PRINCE ST.

A.D.U

BUILDING
P.L
P.L
P.L
P.L
F.Y.S.B

BUILDING
R.Y.S.B
UNIT 2
UNIT 1
TRASH

SKYLIGHT

OPEN TO BELOW
S4
4'-9"
EASE.**
3'-0"
S.Y.S.B*
5'-0"

BUILDING OVERALL
26'-0"
S.Y.S.B3'-6"

SITE OVERALL
34'-6"
15'-1" 20'-8" DUPLEX BUILDING OVERALL
89'-4"
F.Y.S.B
15'-0"
R.O.W
12'-0"
1'-4"
6"
1'-9"
12'-1" 25'-6"

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
2712 PRINCE STREET

NEIGHBOR GARAGE
2700 PRINCE STREET

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
2712 PRINCE STREET (ADU)

NEIGHBOR GARAGE
3027 COLLEGE AVE.

NEIGHBOR GARAGE
3025 COLLEGE AVE.
03 07
02 07
03 03
08 09
06 10
11 NEIGHBOR BUILDING
2700 PRINCE STREET

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
3025 COLLEGE AVE.

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
3027 COLLEGE AVE.

NEIGHBOR BUILDING
3037 COLLEGE AVE.
03 03

AREA FOR SOLAR

PV SYSTEM

AREA FOR SOLAR

PV SYSTEM
1111
11 12 P.L

COURTYARD

OPEN TO BELOW

SKYLIGHT

LANDSCAPE

EXISTING DRIVEWAY

COURTYARD

OPEN TO BELOW

COURTYARD

OPEN TO BELOW

COURTYARD

OPEN TO BELOWATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
3 3
3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
NOT TO SCALE1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH
SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES:

A. PARKING SPACE SHOWN IN GROUND FLOOR PLAN (SHEET N. A101).

B. TRASH/SOLID WASTE STORAGE AREA SHOWN IN FLOOR GROUND FLOOR PLAN (SHEET N. A101).

PROPERTY LINE

LANDSCAPING

EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED
PATHWAY(S) FROM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TO PUBLIC R.O.W
LEGEND:

ROOF

ROOF CAP

BRICK PAVER
ABREVIATIONS:

P.L: PROPERTY LINE
S.Y.S.B: SIDE YARD SETBACK
F.Y.S.B: FRONT YARD SETBACK
R.Y.S.B: REAR YARD SETBACK
EASE. EASEMENT
R.O.W: RIGHT OF WAY
N
0' 4' 8' 16'

KEYNOTES

01. GAS LINE UNDERGROUND (PER SURVEY PLANS)

02. SEWER LINE UNDERGROUND (PER SURVEY PLANS)

03. OVERHEAD WIRE (PER SURVEY PLANS)

04. GAS METER (PER SURVEY PLANS)

05. ELECTRIC METER (PER SURVEY PLANS)

06. WATER METER

07. PATHWAY(S) FROM RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO PUBLIC R.O.W

08. FENCE - BRICK WALL (5 FT. HEIGHT)

09. EXISTING TREE (TO REMAIN) - CHINAR TREE, 24" T; 12' DRIP LINE

10. NEW DRIVEWAY - BRICK PAVERS

11. FENCE - WOODEN PAINTED BOARDS (6 FT. HEIGHT)

12. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO 2710 PRINCE STREET

Page 25 of 67 ends

Page 301 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 5 OF 21
-
A101

LANDSCAPE AND

USABLE OPEN

SPACE PLAN
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

Copyright © 2024 by JEFF SVITAK INC.
14'-7" 14'-6"
10'-0"
3'-0"
15'-9"
10'-0"
10'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
12'-0"7'-5" 7'-5"
4'-0" 121'-0"
15'-0"
6'-1"6'-1"
(N) LSCP
281 sq ft

OPEN TO THE SKY OPEN TO THE SKY

OPEN TO THE SKY

OPEN TO THE SKY
A.D.U
DUPLEX BLDG.

P.L
F.Y.S.B
R.Y.S.B
DUPLEX BLDG.

UNIT 2
UNIT 1
(N) LSCP
78 sq ft
9'-7" 4'-0" 11'-5"
U.O.S
145 sq ft U.O.S
145 sq ft
(N) LSCP
242 sq ft
(N) LSCP
84 sq ft
(N) LSCP
84 sq ft
(N) LSCP
62 sq ft
(N) LSCP
62 sq ft
(N) LSCP
464 sq ft
U.O.S (S)
131 sq ft
U.O.S (S)
236 sq ft
10 08 0809
12 09 09
09 02
01 06
05 11
13 03
03 07
07 13
04 UNIT 1
2 STORIES
UNIT 2
2 STORIES
ADU
2 STORIES

ACCESS TO
UNIT 2

ACCESS TO
UNIT 1

ACCESS TO
ADU

ATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
0 sq ft
3'-3 1/4"
18'-1 5/8" 33'-6 1/2" 58'-1 1/8" 11'-11 1/2"
5'-7 3/4" 14'-3" 14'-7 1/8"
24'-4 7/8"
18'-9 1/2"
E2
226 sq ft
01 0301
14 14 SSMH
RIM=237.01
INV=229.01

EXISTING
(SF) REQUIRED (SF) NOTES
private
shared
subtotal
private
shared
subtotal
657 total

LANDSCAPED
USABLE

OPEN SPACE -
(SF)
253 (40% of
total)

LANDSCAPED
AREAS (SF) 1,571 n/a

PROPOSED (SF)
1,403
USABLE

OPEN SPACE
(SF)
2,139
327
145
184
329
300
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
145
329
184
300
3 3
3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AND USABLE OPEN SPACE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING LANDSCAPE AND USABLE OPEN SPACE PLAN N
0' 4' 8' 16'
CALCULATIONS:
* ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS AND USABLE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS PER BMC 23.304.090

BRICK WALL

WOOD FRAMED WALL

PROPERTY LINE

PLANTER / LANDSCAPING

BRICK PAVEMENT
USABLE OPEN SPACE (U.O.S)
LEGEND:

LANDSCAPE AND USABLE OPEN SPACE PLAN
KEYNOTES:

ABREVIATIONS:

U.O.S: USABLE OPEN SPACE
U.O.S (S): USABLE OPEN SPACE (SHARED)
LSCP: LANDSCAPE
G.R: GROUND SHOT
S.F: SQUARE FOOT
N: NEW OR PROPOSED
R.Y.S.B: REAR YARD SET BACK
N
0' 4' 8' 16'

01. EXISTING TREE (TO REMAIN) - CHINAR TREE, 24" T; 12' DRIP LINE

02. NEW LANDSCAPING - UTILITY EASEMENT - MULCH SURFACE

03. FENCE - BRICK WALL (5 FT. HEIGHT)

04. NEW LANDSCAPING - FRONT YARD - PLANTER + MULCH SURFACES

05. (SHARED) USABLE OPEN SPACE - LANDSCAPE
(PART OF 40% LANDSCAPING REQ)

06. ( SHARED) USABLE OPEN SPACE - BRICK PAVEMENT

07. SLIDING ENTRY DOOR - WOODEN STUD CURTAIN SYSTEM

08. USABLE OPEN SPACE - BRICK PAVEMENT

09. NEW LANDSCAPING - PATIOS - PLANTER

10. NEW LANDSCAPING - DRIVEWAY - PLANTER

11. NEW LANDSCAPING - ENTRY - PLANTER

12. NEW LANDSCAPING - SIDE YARD SETBACK - GRAVEL

13. FENCE - WOODEN PAINTED BOARDS (6 FT. HEIGHT)

14. EXISTING LANDSCAPING - TO BE REMOVED

GROUND SHOT
PATHWAY(S) FROM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TO PUBLIC R.O.W

Page 26 of 67 ends

Page 302 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 6 OF 21
-
A102

LOT COVERAGE

DIAGRAM AND

CALCULATIONS
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

S.Y.S.B
5'-0"
10'-6"
4'-0"
11'-6"
S.Y.S.B
3'-6"BLDG. OVERALL
26'-0"
R.Y.S.B
4'-0" A.D.U
16'-8"
UNIT 2
44'-8"
UNIT 1
44'-8"

SITE OVERALL
34'-6"
25'-6"
S.Y.S.B
4'-0"
6'-9" 7'-11" 6'-4" 8'-8" 15'-0" 6'-9" 8'-0" 6'-5" 8'-6" 15'-0" 15'-0" 20'-8" DUPLEX BLDG. OVERALL
89'-4"

PATIO PATIOPATIO

PATIOPATIO
PATIO
A.D.U
DUPLEX BLDG.

P.L
F.Y.S.B
R.Y.S.B
DUPLEX BLDG.

UNIT 2
UNIT 1
UNIT 1
855 sq ft
UNIT 2
859 sq ft

ATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE
ONLY)
GROSS FLOOR AREA* EXISTING UNIT 1 UNIT 2 ADU**
1ST FLOOR 855 859 227
2ND FLOOR 694 698 307
3RD FLOOR - - 264
SUBTOTAL 1,549 1,557 798
SUBTOTAL 2 798
TOTAL

LOT AREA
EXISTING UNIT 1 UNIT 2 ADU
BUILDING FOOTPRINT 1,309 855 859 0** LOT COVERAGE SUBTOTAL 24% 19.8% 19.9% 0.0%
LOT COVERAGE TOTAL 24%
1,052
3,904
subtract up to 800 sq. ft. of the ADU footprint from the total proposed lot coverage for the site (BMC Section 23.106.020(B)(4))
40%
4,312
** ADU is excluded from the calculation per BMC 23.106.020 * Gross area calculations per BMC 23.106.030
3,106
0 sq ft
3'-3 1/4"
18'-1 5/8" 33'-6 1/2" 58'-1 1/8" 11'-11 1/2"
5'-7 3/4" 14'-3" 14'-7 1/8"
24'-4 7/8"
18'-9 1/2"
E2
E2
226 sq ft
01 0301
14 14 SSMH
RIM=237.01
INV=229.01
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING LOT COVERAGE

CALCULATIONS

BRICK WALL

WOOD FRAMED WALL

PROPERTY LINE

GROSS AREA

GARAGE AREA
LEGEND:

ABREVIATIONS:

A.D.U: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
SQ. FT.: SQUARE FOOT
G.R: GROUND SHOT

EXISTING HOUSE AREA
N
0' 4' 8' 16'
N
0' 4' 8' 16'
S.Y.S.B: SIDE YARD SETBACK
F.Y.S.B: FRONT YARD SETBACK
R.Y.S.B: REAR YARD SETBACK

Page 27 of 67 ends

Page 303 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 7 OF 21
-
A103

FLOOR PLANS
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

E
W
N
EASE.*
5'-0"
26'-0"
S.Y.S.B
3'-6"
UNIT 2
44'-8"
UNIT 1
44'-8"
F.Y.S.B
15'-0"
14'-3 1/8" 6'-1" 11'-9 3/8" 11'-8"
10 1/2"
5'-8 3/4" 8'-6 1/8" 6'-1" 4'-0" 4'-6" 15'-4 7/8"
03 03
03 DNDN

BUILDING
P.L
03 GREEN ROOF

OPEN TO SKY

GREEN ROOF

OPEN TO SKY

OPEN TO SKYOPEN TO SKY

OPEN TO SKYOPEN TO SKYOPEN TO SKYOPEN TO SKY

BEDROOM

BEDROOM BEDROOM
BATH
BATH

BEDROOM

BATHBATH

OPEN ABOVE

KITCHEN
S
R.Y.S.B
4'-0"
ADU
16'-8"
25'-6" S.Y.S.B
4'-0"
10'-1 3/4" 6'-1"
10 1/2"
A.D.U
UP
F

GREEN ROOF

OPEN TO SKY
S4

ATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
E
W
NS
EASE.*
5'-0"
26'-0"
S.Y.S.B
3'-6"
R.Y.S.B
4'-0"
ADU
16'-8"
UNIT 2
44'-8"
UNIT 1
44'-8"
F.Y.S.B
15'-0"
25'-6" S.Y.S.B
4'-0"
10'-1 3/4" 6'-1"
10 1/2"
14'-3 1/8" 29'-6 3/8"
10 1/2"
14'-2 7/8" 29'-11 7/8"
DN
BATH

BEDROOM
A.D.U

BUILDING
P.L

OPEN BELOW
S4

AREA FOR SOLAR

PV SYSTEM

AREA FOR SOLAR

PV SYSTEM

OPEN BELOW

OPEN BELOW OPEN BELOW

OPEN BELOW

OPEN BELOW OPEN BELOW

SKYLIGHT

ATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
EASE.**
3'-0"
EASE.*
5'-0"
26'-0"
S.Y.S.B
3'-6"
R.Y.S.B
4'-0"
ADU
16'-8"
UNIT 2
44'-8"
UNIT 1
44'-8"
F.Y.S.B
15'-0"
SITE OVERALL 34'-6"
20'-8" DUPLEX BUILDING OVERALL
104'-4"
8'-0" 25'-6" S.Y.S.B
4'-0"
10'-6 1/4" 15'-5 3/4"
3'-9 3/8" 5'-7 1/2" 7'-3 1/8" 29'-11 5/8"
2'-7 7/8"
14'-2 7/8" 6'-4 1/4" 8'-8" 14'-3 1/2"
8 1/4"
14'-4 3/4" 6'-3 3/4" 8'-8" 14'-6 5/8"
10 1/2"
+231.33'
+232.08'
+229.28'
+230.08'
+231.16'
E
W
NS
03 03
06 01
0102
02 0606
06 W/D

LIVINGKITCHEN

BEDROOM
BATH
DINING

KITCHEN
LIVING

BEDROOM
DINING
BATH
STRG.STRG.

UPUP
A.D.U
DUPLEX BLDG.

P.L
F.Y.S.B
R.Y.S.B
DUPLEX BLDG.

UP
W/D
UNIT 2
UNIT 1
TRASH

ACCESS TO
A.D.U
F
00 LANDSCAPE

OPEN TO SKY

LANDSCAPE

OPEN TO SKY

LANDSCAPE

OPEN TO SKY

LANDSCAPE

OPEN TO SKY
COURT

OPEN TO SKY

ACCESS TO
UNIT 2

ACCESS TO
UNIT 1

LANDSCAPE
P.L
P.L
P.L
P.L

PROPOSED DRIVEWAY

LANDSCAPE

ATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)S4
3 3
3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 THIRD FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN N
0' 4' 8' 16'
N
0' 4' 8' 16'
N
0' 4' 8' 16'

01. FENCE - BRICK WALL (5 FT. HEIGHT)

02. SLIDING ENTRY DOOR - WOODEN STUD SCREEN SYSTEM

03. EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENING.

IN ACCORDANCE TO CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, S. R310.1

04. NEW ELECTRICAL METER(S)

05. TRASH/SOLID WASTE STORAGE AREA

06. FENCE - WOODEN PAINTED BOARDS (6 FT. HEIGHT)

07. BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE

08. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING

FLOOR PLANS GENERAL NOTES:

A. EASEMENT* = (1998-273924, PARCEL 3) 5' WIDE EASEMENT (3016 DEEDS 126) EASEMENT**= 3' WIDE EASEMENT (2002-273924, PARCEL 2) CARLO (1998-273924, PARCEL 2) B. BICYCLE PARKING NOT REQUIRED, PER BMC BICYCLE PLAN, APPENDIX F

PROPERTY LINE

LANDSCAPING
LEGEND:

ROOF

ROOF CAP

BRICK PAVER
FLOOR PLANS KEYNOTES:

BRICK WALL

WOOD FRAMED WALL
TILE

WOOD FLOOR
ABREVIATIONS:

A.D.U: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
SQ. FT.: SQUARE FOOT
S.Y.S.B: SIDE YARD SETBACK
F.Y.S.B: FRONT YARD SETBACK
R.Y.S.B: REAR YARD SETBACK

Page 28 of 67 ends

Page 304 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 8 OF 21
-
A104

EXISTING

BUILDING PLANS
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

GROUND FLOOR
+232.08'

AVERAGE HEIGHT
12'-7 1/8"

MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
15'-4"
MAX HEIGHT LIMIT (28')

LOWEST GRADE

AVERAGE GRADE

HIGHEST GRADE

MIDPOINT OF ROOF
P.L
R.O.W

PRINCE ST
CURB

PROPERTY LINE

BUILDING
F.Y.S.B

AVERAGE GRADE
+230.30'

AVERAGE HEIGHT
12'-5 3/8"
MAX. HEIGHT OF BUILDING
14'-1 1/8"

GROUND FLOOR
+232.08'
+240.10

AVERAGE GRADE
+230.07

LOWEST GRADE

AVERAGE GRADE

HIGHEST GRADE
MAX HEIGHT LIMIT (28')

MIDPOINT OF ROOF
P.L
R.O.W

PRINCE ST
CURB

PROPERTY LINE

BUILDING
F.Y.S.B
+-502.68'

AVERAGE GRADE

AVERAGE HEIGHT
12'-1/2"

MAX HEIGHT OF BUILDING
13'-9 7/8"

GROUND FLOOR
232.08'
MAX HEIGHT LIMIT (28')

MIDPOINT OF ROOF
P.L
S.Y.S.B
S.Y.S.B
P.L

AVERAGE GRADE
229.07'

AVERAGE HEIGHT
13'-9 1/8"

MAX HEIGHT OF BUILDING
15'-2 3/4"

GROUND FLOOR
232.08'
MAX HEIGHT LIMIT (28')

MIDPOINT OF ROOF
P.L
5' EASEMENT
S.Y.S.B
P.L
4'0"x4'6" 1'9"x4'6"1'9"x4'6"
(2) 2'0"x4'0"
4'0"x2'0"
2'8"x1'8"2'8"x1'8"5'0"x3'6"3'4"x3'6"
(2) 2'0"x4'0" 3'0"x3'0" 3'0"x4'6"

EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
CLG 8'2"
FLR 100' datum

EXISTING
PLANS
PORCH
DECK
CLG 8'2"
FLR 99.96'
CLG 8'2"
FLR 100.02'
CLG 8'2"
FLR 100.13'

GAS & ELEC
METERS

W/D ATTIC
ACCESS

SKYLIGHT
7'-10" 16'-6" 11'-10" 14'-2"
43'-3"
12'-4"2'-6"7'-5"2'-6"12'-8"
10'-5" 3'-0" 9'-3"
12'-7"2'-11"7'-2"
10'-5" 12'-7"
8'-3"
1'-5"6'-8"6'-8"3'-10"5'-6"
8'-3"
6'-6" 5'-8"

FLOOR PLAN AREA, GROSS
DWELLING 1,054 sq.ft.
1,054 sq.ft. FINISHED
PORCH 93 sq.ft.

DECK 162 sq.ft.
255 sq.ft. OTHER
1,309 sq.ft.

CLG: FINISH CEILING ABOVE
J@: BOTTOM OF VISIBLE JOIST ABOVE

VERTICAL HEIGHT FROM ELEVATION POINT
ELEVATION POINT FROM DATUM 100.00
FLR: FINISH FLOOR OR TOP OF SLAB
CLG 8'0"
FLR 99.52
LEGEND
+7'6" VERTICAL HEIGHT OR CLEARANCE
Architectural Drawings
www.asbuilt.net
(510) 245-1198
AsBuilt Notes

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. These drawings are intended for the sole use of
our Client. Information shown herein represent
only existing conditions based on visual data.

There is no design intent, design interpretation or
structural analysis. Please consult a licensed
Architect, Engineer and/or Land Surveyor for
interpretation and analysis. There is no
guarantee beyond dimensional information.

Dimensional tolerance is typically one inch for
interior and up to six inches for exterior, unless
noted otherwise. Project accuracy may be
higher.

Window sizes shown are nominal horizontal
followed by nominal vertical. For replacement
sizes, please consult a supplier or installer for
the required rough openings.

See exterior elevation drawings for head height
of windows, doors and other wall openings.

Site Plan accuracy is not guaranteed. Location of
structures shown is the result of measurements
taken to visible vertical surfaces such as fences,
retaining walls, street curbs, etc. Property
information taken from assessor's maps and/or
old subdivision maps are deemed reliable but not
guaranteed. Please consult a land surveyor or
civil engineer for certified accuracy.

Electronic files are available via email by sending
a request to <[email protected]>.

Assessor's Parcel Number:

APN 052 -1563-036-00, ALAMEDA County

REVISIONS
DATE

FILE NAME
25-JAN-2023
2708PRINCE-H 2708 PRINCE STREET

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
APN 052 -1563-036

EXISTING RESIDENCE

THESE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS ARE

NOT FOR PERMIT SUBMITTAL

PLEASE CONSULT YOUR ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER

34.50' N 85°27'00" E
125.00'
125.00'

34.50'3'
30'-0"
[ 60' R.O.W. ]
6'-0" 3'-3" 36'-0"

FACE OF CURB

DRIVEWAY

DIMENSIONS TO FENCE, TYPICAL
PRINCE
64'-6"±
69'-4"±
60'-7"±
4'-6"±
3'-3"±
3'-9"±
3'-10"±
3'-10"±
9'-11"±
17'-5"±
17'-6"±
10'-1"±
42'-10"±
42'-9"±
3'-1"±
38'-3"±
38'-0"±
8'-5"±
13'-2"±
8'-6"±
12'-10"±
15'-1"±

SUBJECT
2708 PRINCE ST
APN 052 -1563-036

NEIGHBOR
2712 PRINCE ST
APN 052 -1563-037

NEIGHBOR
2710 PRINCE ST
APN 052 -1563-026

NEIGHBOR
2700 PRINCE ST
APN 052 -1563-035

NEIGHBOR
3025 COLLEGE AVE
APN 052 -1563-034

NEIGHBOR
3027 COLLEGE AVE
APN 052 -1563-033

NEIGHBOR
3037 COLLEGE AVE
APN 052 -1563-032
STREET

SIDEWALK
7'-10"±
GARAGE
TREE
TREE

EXISTING SITE PLAN
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Architectural Drawings
www.asbuilt.net
(510) 245-1198
AsBuilt Notes

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. These drawings are intended for the sole use of
our Client. Information shown herein represent
only existing conditions based on visual data.

Dimensional tolerance is typically one inch for
interior and up to six inches for exterior, unless
noted otherwise. Project accuracy may be
higher.

Window sizes shown are nominal horizontal
followed by nominal vertical. For replacement
sizes, please consult a supplier or installer for
the required rough openings.

See exterior elevation drawings for head height
of windows, doors and other wall openings.

Electronic files are available via email by sending
a request to <[email protected]>.

Assessor's Parcel Number:

APN 052 -1563-036-00, ALAMEDA County

REVISIONS
DATE

FILE NAME
25-JAN-2023
2708PRINCE-H 2708 PRINCE STREET

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
APN 052 -1563-036

EXISTING RESIDENCE

THESE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS ARE

NOT FOR PERMIT SUBMITTAL

PLEASE CONSULT YOUR ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 SOUTH ELEVATION
NOT TO SCALE6 FLOOR PLAN
NOT TO SCALE5 SITE PLAN
0' 4' 8' 16'
0' 4' 8' 16'

BEDROOM BEDROOM

KITCHEN

LIVING ROOM

Page 29 of 67 ends

Page 305 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 9 OF 21
-
A105

PROPOSED

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

Copyright © 2024 by JEFF SVITAK INC.
+231.33'+232.08'
+245.25'
+254.42'
+262.32'
R.O.W
11'-11 3/8"
F.Y.S.B
15'-1/2"
UNIT 1
44'-5 3/8"
UNIT 2
44'-10 3/4"
ADU
16'-8"
R.Y.S.B
4'-0"
255.22'
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT +25'-4 1/4"

FINISHED FLOOR
+230.08'
26'-11 7/8" DUPLEX BUILDING OVERALL
+89'-4 1/8"
20'-8"
MAX. HEIGHT OF BUILDING +23'-8 1/8"
6'-0"
3'-0"LOWEST GRADEAVERAGE GRADEHIGHEST GRADE
MAX AVERAGE HEIGHT (28')

EXISTING TREE
10 04
07 0605
07 2ND FLOOR
ROOF

GROUND FLOOR
07 08
07 03 0303
P.L
R.O.W

PRINCE ST
CURB

PROPERTY LINE
F.Y.S.B
A.D.U
A.D.U
DUPLEX BLDG.

R.Y.S.B
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
DUPLEX BLDG.

MAX. HEIGHT OF BUILDING +24'-7 7/8"
+229.87'

AVERAGE GRADE

ATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
+231.33'+232.08'
+245.25'
+254.42'
+262.32'
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT +24'-11 5/8"
20'-8" DUPLEX BLDG. OVERALL
+104'-4 5/8"
11'-11 3/8"

FINISHED FLOOR
+230.08'
255.22'
MAX. HEIGHT OF BUILDING +24'-4 1/8"
253.21'
MAX. HEIGHT OF BUILDING +23'-7"
5'-10 5/8"
MAX AVERAGE HEIGHT (28')
10 04
06 010909 02

LOWEST GRADE

AVERAGE GRADE

HIGHEST GRADE
05 2ND FLOOR
ROOF

GROUND FLOOR
11 08
03 P.L
R.O.W

PRINCE ST
CURB

PROPERTY LINE
DUPLEX BLDG.

F.Y.S.B
A.D.U
A.D.U
R.Y.S.B
UNIT 1
UNIT 2
DUPLEX BLDG.

R.O.W
11'-11 3/8"
F.Y.S.B
15'-1/2"
UNIT 1
44'-5 3/8"
UNIT 2
44'-10 3/4"
ADU
16'-8"
R.Y.S.B
4'-0"

AVERAGE GRADE
+230.30'

ATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
+231.33'+232.08'
+245.25'
+254.42'
+262.32'
3'-0" S.Y.S.B
5'-0"
26'-1/2" S.Y.S.B
3'-5 3/8"

SITE OVERALL
34'-6"
+230.89'

AVERAGE GRADE
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT +24'-3 7/8"
255.22'
MAX. HEIGHT OF BUILDING +23'-10 1/4"
4'-3 3/8"
4'-7 5/8"
2ND FLOOR
ROOF

GROUND FLOOR
10 06
08 11
03 07
02 MAX AVERAGE HEIGHT (28')

AVERAGE GRADE
05 04
01 P.L
S.Y.S.B
S.Y.S.B
P.L

BUILDING
3'-0"S.Y.S.B
5'-0"
25'-6"S.Y.S.B
4'-0"

SITE OVERALL
34'-6"

MEZZANINE
+246.23'
ROOF
+254.32'
BUILDING HEIGHT +25'-0"

GROUND FLOOR
+229.30'
6'-0"
3'-0"

SECOND FLOOR
237.91'

AVERAGE GRADE
03 MAX HEIGHT LIMIT (25')
P.L
5' EASEMENT
S.Y.S.B
P.L
ADU

ATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
03 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 SOUTH ELEVATION
PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS KEYNOTES:

01. BRICK WALL

02. SLIDING ENTRY DOOR - WOODEN STUD SCREEN SYSTEM

03. FENCE - PAINTED WOOD, 6' HEIGHT

04. WALL - NATURAL WOOD VERTICAL SIDING

05. WOOD REVEAL

06. WOODEN STUD SCREEN SYSTEM

07. WINDOW / DOOR - ALUMINUM FRAME (COLOR: RAL 3007) AND

WOOD TRIM

08. (BEHIND) CEMENT BOARD PANEL (COLOR: RAL 3007)

09. EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENING

10. PARAPET CAP - PAINTED SHEET METAL

11. FENCE - BRICK WALL, 5' HEIGHT

0' 4' 8' 16'
0' 4' 8' 16'
0' 4' 8' 16'0' 4' 8' 16'
ABREVIATIONS:

A.D.U: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
SQ. FT.: SQUARE FOOT
S.Y.S.B: SIDE YARD SETBACK
F.Y.S.B: FRONT YARD SETBACK
R.Y.S.B: REAR YARD SETBACK

Page 30 of 67 ends

Page 306 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 10 OF 21
-
A106

STREET STRIP

ELEVATION
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

SCALE: 1/8" 1' = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED STREET STRIP ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" 1' = 1'-0"1 EXISTING STREET STRIP ELEVATION 0' 4' 8' 16'
0' 4' 8' 16'

Page 31 of 67 ends

Page 307 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 11 OF 21
-
R01

SITE SURVEY
SEAL
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

BAY AREA LAND

SURVEYING INC
3065 RICHMOND PARKWAY, SUITE 101
RICHMOND, CA 94806
(510) 223-5167
BA
LS

BOUNDARY &

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

BAY AREA LAND

SURVEYING INC
3065 RICHMOND PARKWAY, SUITE 101
RICHMOND, CA 94806
(510) 223-5167
BA
LS

BOUNDARY &

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

Page 32 of 67 ends

Page 308 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 12 OF 21
-
R02
SITE

PHOTOGRAPHS
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

PRINCE ST.

P.L
03 ATTACHED ADU
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
1 2
6 3
5 4
7 8 9

EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING HOUSE

EXISTING HOUSE

EXISTING GARAGE

EXISTING HOUSE
KEYMAP SITE PHOTOGRAPHS1 - SIDEWALK (E) 2 - SIDEWALK (W) 3 - ACROSS THE STREET (S) 4 - NEIGHBOR @ EAST SIDE 5 - NEIGHBOR @ WEST SIDE 6 - EASEMENT (S) 7 - WITHIN SITE (W) 8 - 9 - WITHIN SITE N

Page 33 of 67 ends

Page 309 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 13 OF 21
-
R03

SHADOW STUDY
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

EXISTING SHADOWJUNE 21_7:47 AM NEW SHADOWN SITE

PRINCE ST
2712 PRINCE ST
2700 PRINCE ST
3027 COLLEGE AVE
2710 PRINCE ST
3025 COLLEGE AVE
3037 COLLEGE AVE
JUNE 21_NOON EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOWN SITE

PRINCE ST
2712 PRINCE ST
2700 PRINCE ST
3027 COLLEGE AVE
2710 PRINCE ST
3025 COLLEGE AVE
3037 COLLEGE AVE

EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOWN SITE

PRINCE ST
2712 PRINCE ST
2700 PRINCE ST
2710 PRINCE ST
3025 COLLEGE AVE
3037 COLLEGE AVE
JUNE 21_6:35 PM
2716 PRINCE ST
EXISTING SHADOWDEC 21_9:21 AM NEW SHADOWN SITE EXISTING SHADOWDEC 21_NOON NEW SHADOWN SITE EXISTING SHADOWDEC 21_2:54 PM NEW SHADOWN SITE EXISTING SHADOWFEB 18_8:56 AM NEW SHADOWN SITE EXISTING SHADOWFEB 18_NOON NEW SHADOWN SITE EXISTING SHADOWFEB 18_3:51 PM NEW SHADOWN SITE

PRINCE ST
2712 PRINCE ST
2700 PRINCE ST
3027 COLLEGE AVE
2710 PRINCE ST
3025 COLLEGE AVE
3037 COLLEGE AVE

PRINCE ST
2712 PRINCE ST
2700 PRINCE ST
2710 PRINCE ST
3025 COLLEGE AVE
3037 COLLEGE AVE
APPROX. LOCATION OF WINDOWS APPROX. LOCATION OF WINDOWS APPROX. LOCATION OF WINDOWS APPROX. LOCATION OF WINDOWS APPROX. LOCATION OF WINDOWS APPROX. LOCATION OF WINDOWS APPROX. LOCATION OF WINDOWS APPROX. LOCATION OF WINDOWS APPROX. LOCATION OF WINDOWS

Page 34 of 67 ends

Page 310 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 14 OF 21
-
R04

SHADOW STUDY
- NEIGHBORS

ELEVATIONS
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 04.20.2024
Z.P.A RE-SUBMITTAL 05.17.2024
ZAB MEETING 09.12.202403
SEAL

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

JUNE 21_6:35 PM
DEC 21_2:54 PM
DEC 21_9:21 AM
FEB 18_8:56 AM

BEDROOM BEDROOMBATHBEDROOMHALLBEDROOM

LIVING ROOM BATH UNKNOWNHALL

BEDROOM BEDROOMBATHBEDROOMHALLBEDROOM

LIVING ROOM BATH UNKNOWNHALL

BEDROOM BEDROOMBATHBEDROOMHALLBEDROOM

LIVING ROOM BATH UNKNOWNHALL

BEDROOMBEDROOM LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM BEDROOM

BEDROOM

LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM

BEDROOMBEDROOM LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM BEDROOM

BEDROOM

LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOMLIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM

LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM

BEDROOMBEDROOM LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM BEDROOM

BEDROOM

LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOMLIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM
EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOWEASTERN NEIGHBORS - JUNE 21_6:35 PM EASTERN NEIGHBORS - DIC 21_2:54 PM
EASTERN NEIGHBORS - FEB 18_3:51 PM

EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOW

EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOW
WESTERN NEIGHBORS - DEC 21_9:21 AM
WESTERN NEIGHBORS - FEB 18_8:56 AM
PRINCE ST. 2712 PRINCE ST. 2712 - ADU
PRINCE ST. 2712 PRINCE ST. 2712 - ADU
PRINCE ST. 2712 PRINCE ST. 2712 - ADU
COLLEGE AVE. 3025 PRINCE ST. 2700

EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOW

EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOW
COLLEGE AVE. 3025 PRINCE ST. 2700
EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOWJUNE 21_7:47 AM
COLLEGE AVE. 3025 PRINCE ST. 2700

Page 35 of 67 ends

Page 311 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 16 OF 21
-
L1.0

LANDSCAPE
PLAN
SEAL
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

F
2 | CD8 | DM 6 | EP
6 | EE
2 | CD
6 | EP
6 | EE
2 | CD
6 | EP
6 | EE
2 | CD
6 | EP
6 | EE
2 | CD
6 | EP
6 | EE
2 | CD
6 | EP
6 | EE
2 | CD
6 | EP
6 | EE
2 | CD
3 | AC
2 | ARL
3 | LP
3| MS
2 | HM
3 | MS
2 | LB
1 | AE
2 | PC
3 | LB
1 | ARL
6 | HM
2 | MS 10 | HO
6 | HM
2 | MS 10 | HO
3 | HM3 | MS
3 | HLL
1 | ACQ
3 | HM3 | MS
3 | HLL
1 | ACQ
A.D.U.
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
F
8 | CD
8 | HO
2 | AV
8 | CD
8 | HO
2 | AV
A.D.U.
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 1,403 SF
TOTAL LAWN AREA: 0 SF
TOTAL PLANTS WITH WULCOLS PLANT FACTOR <=0.3: (88%)

I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE OPTION TO THE MWELO
□□□□□
□□□□□□
□□□□□□
revisions:
2708 PRINCE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94705

PRINCE STREET TOWNHOMES

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
16 de la Guerra Road San Rafael, CA 94903
ph:415-479-7552 www.costellokennedy.com
08-25-2024

L I CENSED
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E

ARCHITECT
03-2026
Renewal Date
Date
Signature
STATE
O
FC
A
L

IFORNI A

MATTHEW
A
.

KENNEDY
08-25-2024

THESE PLANS ARE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY

AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY BEAR

THE ARCHITECT'S SEAL AND WET SIGNATURE

A L O N G W I T H T H E G O V E R N I N G A G E N C Y ' S REVIEW SEAL OF APPROVAL AND WET SIGNATURE.

COSTELLO KENNEDY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

EXPRESSLY RESERVES COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT

AND OTHER PROPRIETARY RIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS
AND INFORMATION IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS

ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR

COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER,

NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD

PARTY,WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS

WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COSTELLO KENNEDY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.

LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L1.0

AS NOTED
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0"
0 4' 8' 16'
NORTH

SECOND FLOOR PLANTING PLAN
1/8"=1'-0"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0"
0 4' 8' 16' NORTH

GROUND FLOOR PLANTING PLAN
1/8"=1'-0"

Page 36 of 67 ends

Page 312 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 17 OF 21
-
L1.1
PLANT

SCHEDULE
SEAL
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

PRINCE STREET TOWNHOMES
c o s t e l l o
k e n n e d y

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
16 de la Guerra Road San Rafael, CA 94903
ph:415-479-7552 www.costellokennedy.com
08-25-2024

L I CENSED
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E

ARCHITECT
03-2026
Renewal Date
Date
Signature
STATE
O
FC
A
L

IFORNI A

MATTHEW
A
.

KENNEDY
08-25-2024

THESE PLANS ARE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY

AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY BEAR

THE ARCHITECT'S SEAL AND WET SIGNATURE

A L O N G W I T H T H E G O V E R N I N G A G E N C Y ' S REVIEW SEAL OF APPROVAL AND WET SIGNATURE.

COSTELLO KENNEDY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

EXPRESSLY RESERVES COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT

AND OTHER PROPRIETARY RIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS
AND INFORMATION IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS

ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR

COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER,

NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD

PARTY,WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS

WRITTEN PERMISSION OF

COSTELLO KENNEDY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.

PLANT

SCHEDULE
L1.1

AS NOTED

PLANT SCHEDULE

PLANT IMAGES
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 1,403 SF
TOTAL LAWN AREA: 0 SF
TOTAL PLANTS WITH WULCOLS PLANT FACTOR <=0.3: (88%)

I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE OPTION TO THE MWELO

Page 37 of 67 ends

Page 313 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 18 OF 21
-
L1.2

PLANTING NOTES

AND DETAILS
SEAL
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

DIRECTION OF WIND
RUBBER TREE TIES.(2) 2" DIA LODGEPOLE STAKES; INSTALLPERPENDICULAR TO PREVAILING WIND.SET CROWN 1" MIN/ 2" MAX ABOVEFINISHED GRADE.

DEPTH OF

ROOT BALL
18"
BACKFILL; SEE RECOMMENDATIONS.SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLETS;PER MANUF. 2 X DIAMETEROF ROOTBALL

ROOT BALLTREE TRUNKSTAKE TREE TIE
4"
ROOT BARRIER; INSTALL PER

MANUF SPECS
4" WATERING BERM AT EDGEOF ROOTBALL.
4"

DEPTH OF
ROOT BALL.
2 X DIAMETEROF ROOTBALL
BACKFILL; SEERECOMMENDATIONS. SET CROWN 1" MIN/ 2" MAXABOVE FINISHED GRADE.4" WATERING BERM AT EDGEOF ROOTBALL.SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZERTABLETS; PER MANUF. 2 X DIAMETEROF ROOTBALL

DEPTH OF
ROOT BALL.

BACKFILL; SEE RECOMMENDATIONS.FASTEN VINE TO WALL OR TRELLISAT 8" TO 12" INTERVALS (SEE ARCHDRAWINGS FOR ESPALLIER DETAILSSET CROWN 1" MIN/ 2" MAXABOVE FINISHED GRADE.4" WATERING BERM AT EDGEOF ROOTBALL.SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZERTABLETS; PER MANUF. 4"

VINE PLANTING DETAIL

NO SCALE

SHRUB PLANTING

NO SCALE

TREE PLANTING

NO SCALE
3 2
1 PLANTING

NOTES AND

DETAILS
L1.2
date:
scale:
sheet:
revisions:
2708 PRINCE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94705

PRINCE STREET TOWNHOMES
c o s t e l l o
k e n n e d y

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
16 de la Guerra Road San Rafael, CA 94903
ph:415-479-7552 www.costellokennedy.com
08-25-2024

L I CENSED
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E

ARCHITECT
03-2026
Renewal Date
Date
Signature
STATE
O
FC
A
L

IFORNI A

MATTHEW
A
.

KENNEDY
08-25-2024

THESE PLANS ARE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY

AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY BEAR

THE ARCHITECT'S SEAL AND WET SIGNATURE

A L O N G W I T H T H E G O V E R N I N G A G E N C Y ' S REVIEW SEAL OF APPROVAL AND WET SIGNATURE.

COSTELLO KENNEDY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

EXPRESSLY RESERVES COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT

AND OTHER PROPRIETARY RIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS
AND INFORMATION IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS

ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR

COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER,

NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD

PARTY,WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS

WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COSTELLO KENNEDY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.

AS NOTED

Page 38 of 67 ends

Page 314 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 19 OF 21
-
L1.3

PLANTING NOTES

AND DETAILS
SEAL
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

1. SEE COMPLETE SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL THAT HAS BEEN CREATED FOR THIS JOB FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

2. EXAMINE SITE OF PROPOSED WORK NOTING EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED PLANTING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. ALERT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF DISCREPANCIES.

3. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH SOUND NURSERY PRACTICE AND

SHALL INCLUDE MAINTENANCE AND WATERING OF ALL MATERIALS INSTALLED IN THIS CONTRACT UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY CLIENT OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

4. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN, AND SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

AMERICAN NURSERYMEN ASSOCIATION STANDARDS IN ALL WAYS (SEE AMERICAN

STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK SPONSORED BY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, INC, CURRENT EDITION).

5. ALL PLANTS TO BE REVIEWED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR VARIETY, SIZE AND CONDITION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

6. PLANT LIST IS FOR CONTRACTOR CONVENIENCE ONLY, VERIFY PLANT QUANTITIES WITH THE PLAN.

7. SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL BEFORE DELIVERY: SAMPLES AND CERTIFIED ANALYSES OF FERTILIZER, MINERALS AND SOIL

AMENDMENTS, STATING SOURCE, PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND QUANTITY AVAILABLE.

8. CONTRACTOR TO EXERCISE DUE CARE WHEN EXCAVATING WITHIN THE ROOT ZONE OF EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN. ALL EXCAVATION WITHIN THIS ZONE SHALL BE PERFORMED WITH HAND TOOLS. SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AROUND EXISTING TREES.

9. IN THE EVENT THAT UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION WORK OR OBSTRUCTIONS ARE

ENCOUNTERED IN ANY PLANT PIT EXCAVATION WORK TO BE DONE, ALTERNATE LOCATIONS MAY BE SELECTED BY CLIENT OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. WHERE THESE

LOCATIONS CANNOT BE CHANGED, REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTION TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN THREE (3) FEET BELOW GRADE AND NO LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES BELOW BOTTOM OF BALL OR ROOTS WHEN PLANT IS PROPERLY SET AT THE REQUIRED GRADE.

CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY FOR A RESOLUTION BEFORE CONTINUING WORK IN THAT AREA.

10. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE CLEANED AND WEEDED WITH ALL SURFACE DEBRIS

CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, CONTAMINANTS, BASEROCK LAYERS, AND STONES LARGER THAN ONE INCH IN DIAMETER TO BE REMOVED FROM SITE.

11. TO ESTABLISH PROPER SOIL FERTILITY AND TEXTURE PROVIDE SOIL SAMPLES (ONE PER 10,000 SQUARE FEET LANDSCAPED AREA AND ONE PER 50 CUBIC YARDS OF IMPORTED TOPSOIL) TO A CERTIFIED SOIL TESTING LABORATORY. TEST FOR SOIL FERTILITY,

DRAINAGE, AND TEXTURE AND PROVIDE AMENDMENT AND FERTILIZER RECOMMENDED FOR ALL AREAS TO BE PLANTED. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW TEST RESULTS WITH THE

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND WILL AMEND SOIL AND PLANTER BACKFILL AS SPECIFIED BY THE TESTING LAB.

12. PRIOR TO AMENDING SOIL, CONTRACTOR SHALL DIG SEVERAL PLANT PITS AND FILL WITH WATER TO TEST FOR DRAINAGE. IF WATER DOES NOT DRAIN WITHIN 24 HOURS, PROVIDE METHODS TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE FOR REVIEW BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

13. AMEND SOIL IN PLANTING AREAS BY APPLYING FOUR (4) CUBIC YARDS OF COMPOST/ 1,000 SF TO A DEPTH OF (6) INCHES INTO LANDSCAPE AREAS (UNLESS CONTRA-INDICATED BY A SOILS TEST). THIS SHALL BE DONE IN TWO EQUAL LAYERS TO INSURE AN EVEN DISTRIBUTION TO THE PROPER DEPTH.

14. REMAINING SOIL PREPARATION SHALL BE ON A PER PLANT BASIS ACCORDING TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

15. WHEREVER TOPSOIL IS REQUIRED TO RAISE GRADE TO FINISHED ELEVATIONS,

CONTRACTOR SHALL USE ONLY HIGH QUALITY TOPSOIL TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. INSTALL TOPSOIL AS FOLLOWS:
a. RIP SUBSURFACE AS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED
b. LAY DOWN 4” OF TOPSOIL AND ROTOTILL INTO 4” OF RIPPED SUBGRADE c. LAY DOWN REMAINING TOPSOIL

16. FERTILIZER: DROP FERTILIZER TABLETS (AGRIFORM 20-10-5 NPK, OR EQUAL) ALONGSIDE

ROOTBALL WHEN BACKFILL IS TWO-THIRDS IN PLACE, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE.
1 GALLON2 TABS (21 GRAM AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS)
5 GALLON3 TABS (21 GRAM AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS)
15 GALLON5 TABS (21 GRAM AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS)
24” BOX8 TABS (21 GRAM AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS)
36” BOX12 TABS (21 GRAM AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS)
48” BOX16 TABS (21 GRAM AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS)
60” BOX 20 TABS (21 GRAM AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS) FOR 4” POTS AND CELL-PACKS, USE OSMOCOTE 18-6-12 FORMULA AT THE

MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED APPLICATION RATE, SPREAD EVENLY THROUGHOUT THE PLANTING AREA.

17. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PLACED IN THE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANTING

PLAN AND THE APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND CLIENT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO PLANTING. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE INFORMED SEVEN (7)DAYS IN ADVANCE OF PLANTING.

18. PLANT AND STAKE ALL TREES AND SHRUBS PER PLANTING DETAILS. PLANT CROWN TO BE THREE (3) INCHES ABOVE GRADE FOR ALL SHRUBS AND TREES.

19. INSTALL THREE (3) INCH LAYER OF APPROVED MULCH IN ALL PLANTING AREAS

EXCEPT IN TURF AREAS, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUND COVERS, OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MUCH IS CONTRA-INDICATED.

SUBMIT SAMPLE FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO DELIVERY OF MULCH TO JOB SITE.

20. APPLY WEED BARRIER FABRIC TO ALL PLANTING BEDS BELOW MULCH.

21. PLANTS SHALL BE WATERED TWO TIMES, THOROUGHLY, BY HAND IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING. PLANTS DAMAGED FROM WATER STRESS BEFORE OR AFTER PLANTING WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

22. CONTRACTOR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL FINISH GRADES IN PLANTING AREAS

AND FOR ANY FINE GRADING REQUIRED FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE AND UNIFORMITY TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

23. CONTRACTOR TO GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIAL PER SPECIFICATION PACKAGE.

24. ALL POTS TO HAVE A DEDICATED IRRIGATION RISER TIED INTO AUTOMATIC

IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AND HAVE A DEDICATED DRAINLINE TIED INTO STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

25. INSTALL LINEAR ROOT BARRIER 24" DEEP WHERE TREES ARE WITHIN 5' OF

PAVEMENT

1. IRRIGATION TO BE DESIGN BUILD AND BE AN AUTOMATIC DRIP

IRRIGATION SYSTEM

2. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS ARE REQUIRED AND MUST USE

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OR SOIL MOISTURE SENSOR DATA AND PROVIDE

A RAIN SENSOR WHOSE SIGNAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE MASTER

CONTROL VALVE

3. IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS SHALL BE OF A TYPE WHICH DOES NOT LOSE

PROGRAMMING DATA IN THE EVENT THE PRIMARY POWER SOURCE IS INTERRUPTED.

4. PRESSURE REGULATORS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE IRRIGATION

SYSTEM TO ENSURE THE DYNAMIC PRESSURE OF THE SYSTEM IS WITHIN THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED PRESSURE RANGE.

5. MANUAL SHUT-OFF VALVES (SUCH AS A GATE VALVE, BALL VALVE, OR

BUTTERFLY VALVE) SHALL BE INSTALLED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE POINT OF CONNECTION OF THE WATER SUPPLY.

6. ALL IRRIGATION EMISSION DEVICES MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THE ANSI STANDARD, ASABE/ICC 802-2014. “LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SPRINKLER AND EMITTER STANDARD,” ALL SPRINKLER HEADS INSTALLED

IN THE LANDSCAPE MUST DOCUMENT A DISTRIBUTION UNIFORMITY LOW QUARTER OF 0.65 OR HIGHER USING THE PROTOCOL DEFINED IN ASABE/ICC 802-2014.

7. AREAS LESS THAN TEN (10) FEET IN WIDTH IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL BE

IRRIGATED WITH SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION OR OTHER MEANS THAT

PRODUCES NO RUNOFF OR OVERSPRAY

8. FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH LANDSCAPE AREAS OF 1,000 SQ.

FT. OR MORE, A PRIVATE SUBMETER(S) TO MEASURE LANDSCAPE WATER

USE SHALL BE INSTALLED

IRRIGATON NOTES

PLANTING NOTES
date:
scale:
sheet:
revisions:
2708 PRINCE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94705

PRINCE STREET TOWNHOMES
c o s t e l l o
k e n n e d y

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
16 de la Guerra Road San Rafael, CA 94903
ph:415-479-7552 www.costellokennedy.com
08-25-2024

L I CENSED
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E

ARCHITECT
03-2026
Renewal Date
Date
Signature
STATE
O
FC
A
L

IFORNI A

MATTHEW
A
.

KENNEDY
08-25-2024

THESE PLANS ARE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY

AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY BEAR

THE ARCHITECT'S SEAL AND WET SIGNATURE

A L O N G W I T H T H E G O V E R N I N G A G E N C Y ' S REVIEW SEAL OF APPROVAL AND WET SIGNATURE.

COSTELLO KENNEDY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

EXPRESSLY RESERVES COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT

AND OTHER PROPRIETARY RIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS
AND INFORMATION IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS

ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR

COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER,

NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD

PARTY,WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS

WRITTEN PERMISSION OF

COSTELLO KENNEDY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.

PLANTING

NOTES AND

DETAILS
L1.3

AS NOTED

Page 39 of 67 ends

Page 315 ends

ISSUED FOR: DATE:

Z.P.A SUBMITTAL
PRINCE

02.16.2024
SHEET # 20 OF 21
-
L1.4
MWELO

CHECKLIST
CALCS
SEAL
2708 PRINCE ST
BERKELEY CA 94705
APN: 052-1563-036
3037 Redwood St.

PRINCE STREET TOWNHOMES
c o s t e l l o
k e n n e d y

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
16 de la Guerra Road San Rafael, CA 94903
ph:415-479-7552 www.costellokennedy.com
08-25-2024

L I CENSED
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E

ARCHITECT
03-2026
Renewal Date
Date
Signature
STATE
O
FC
A
L

IFORNI A

MATTHEW
A
.

KENNEDY
08-25-2024

THESE PLANS ARE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY

AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY BEAR

THE ARCHITECT'S SEAL AND WET SIGNATURE

A L O N G W I T H T H E G O V E R N I N G A G E N C Y ' S REVIEW SEAL OF APPROVAL AND WET SIGNATURE.

COSTELLO KENNEDY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

EXPRESSLY RESERVES COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT

AND OTHER PROPRIETARY RIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS
AND INFORMATION IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS

ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR

COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER,

NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD

PARTY,WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS

WRITTEN PERMISSION OF

COSTELLO KENNEDY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.

MWELO

CHECKLIST
CALCS
L1.4

AS NOTED
8-25-2024

Page 40 of 67 ends

Page 316 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 41 of 67 ends

Page 317 ends

Page 42 of 67 ends

Page 318 ends

Page 43 of 67 ends

Page 319 ends

Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 2, 2
021
TO: Land Use Planning Staff
FROM: Steven Buckley, Land Use Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Housing Accountability Act & Density Bonus –
Objective Standards

QUESTION / ISSUE
State law requires the City to identify objective zoning standards for the purpose of defining housing development projects that qualify for protections under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and to define a base project for the purposes of calculating density bonuses. An issue arises in defining those projects when the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides development standards that can be modified with a use permit or administrative use permit, i.e. should all modifications be assumed to be granted when defining the qualifying or base project for these purposes?

DETERMINATION
The protections afforded by the HAA and the definition of a base project for density bonus calculations apply to a housing development project up to and including the maximum development allowed with use permits and/or administrative use permits.

BACKGROUND
The City’s zoning code distinguishes between use permits required for any construction to take place (e.g., BMC sections 23B.32.040 and 23C.08.010) and additional use permits required to modify the “base” development standards, e.g. reduced setbacks, increased height, location of parking, etc. The decision-maker responsible for determining whether to grant such modifications usually has no objective basis for adjudicating whether to approve these modifications, i.e. the zoning ordinance uniformly relies on a traditional land use permit finding of non-detriment and consistency with the General Plan and zoning district purposes. As such, adjudicative decisions are made based on qualitative aspects such as shadow impacts, view obstruction, privacy, air circulation and other “compatibility” factors.

For example, BMC section 23D.32.070 allows the Zoning Officer to issue an administrative use permit to construct a building up to 35 feet in average height, which exceeds the nominal height limit of 28 feet in the R-2A district. Despite the fact that a discretionary permit is required, the 35-foot height limit is the applicable objective standard, and a project that complies with that standard cannot be denied or reduced in density unless it fails to comply ATTACHMENT 3

Page 44 of 67 ends

Page 320 ends

Housing Accountability Act / Density Bonus Base Projects – Objective Standards August 2, 2021

Page 2 ends

with another objective development standard (or if the findings in Government Code section 65589.5(j)(1) can be made).

ANALYSIS
Effect of the HAA on Discretionary Permits
Government Code section 65589.5(j) (the most broadly applicable provisions of the HAA) states:

When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes t o disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist . . . .

The written findings must establish that “the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density” and that there is no other feasible method to mitigate that adverse impact. In the absence of such findings, the City must approve any housing development project that complies with applicable objective standards.
1 Government Code section 65589.5(h)(2) defines “housing development project” as “a use consisting of any of the following”:
(A) Residential units only.
(B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use. (C) Transitional housing or supportive housing.

Any project comprised of two or more residential units or mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use may be subject to the Housing Accountability Act, including modifications to an existing property that qualifies as a residential development project (e.g. multi-family residential additions).

1 Italicized terms are defined in the Government Code; interpretation of their meaning is also provided in the HAA .

Technical Assistance Advisory published by the State Department and Housing and Community Development. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd-memo-on- haa-final-sept2020.pdf

Page 45 of 67 ends

Page 321 ends

Housing Accountability Act / Density Bonus Base Projects – Objective Standards August 2, 2021

Page 3 ends

For purposes of the HAA, “lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing, generally understood to mean the total number of dwelling units, but also related to overall square footage, number of bedrooms, etc.

This could include a condition that directly lowers the overall number of units proposed (e.g., the development proposes 50 units, but the local government approves only 45 units). Another example would be a reduction in proposed building height that would result in the project being able to provide fewer units than originally proposed.

Therefore, the Zoning Officer, ZAB, DRC and LPC should refrain from applying subjective findings (e.g., non-detriment) to any application to construct a qualifying housing development project (including remodeling or reconfiguration of housing) if that project satisfies objective standards for permit issuance, unless specific findings for denial under the Housing Accountability Act can be made. While decision-makers retain discretion in the overall land use and design review process, i.e., whether the use is properly located or the building and site improvements are compatibly designed, the ultimate decision on density and development intensity is protected by the HAA.

Obviously, those standards that are objective or that are not subject to modification with a use permit remain in effect, e.g. maximum floor-area-ratios are generally not subject to modification, and certain design standards for commercial storefronts are numeric and enforceable as written.

Staff reports and findings for these development projects should still address the requirements of the zoning code for granting the requested permits, while also acknowledging the protections afforded by the HAA.

Effect on Density Bonus Projects
State Density Bonus Law requires local agencies to grant a density increase over “the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density” for the zoning district and the General Plan Land Use Element for qualifying housing development projects. Density bonus can include a bonus in number of units, as well as additional incentives, concessions, and/or waivers to development standards.

To implement the State Density Bonus Law, the City has developed the administrative concept of a “base project” that excludes the modified development standards available with use permits. In addition, current density bonus procedures do not account for residential density standards in the General Plan Land Use Element. This approach must be modified.

State Density Bonus Law defines “maximum allowable residential density” as:
the density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, means the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range and land use element of the general plan applicable to the project. If the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is

Page 46 of 67 ends

Page 322 ends

Housing Accountability Act / Density Bonus Base Projects – Objective Standards August 2, 2021

Page 4 ends

inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail.

This definition of maximum allowable residential density requires the City to consider the base density to be the higher densities allowed pursuant to the modified standards available with discretionary permits, i.e. all “density allowed under the zoning ordinance” must be considered in establishing the maximum allowable base residential density. 2 Furthermore, Density Bonus Law (Government Code section 65915) requires that a request for a density bonus does not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is not compliant with the HAA.

Next Steps

In order to address the need for additional objective standards, the City is undertaking studies of objective standards for a variety of development impact issues, as well as overhauling the organization and clarity of the existing zoning ordinance. The next step in the process will be studying and recommending zoning ordinance revisions, including objective design review criteria, to address the necessity of more predictable outcomes.

2 In addition, State Density Bonus Law explicitly requires the City to consider “the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan” in determining maximum allowable residential density. If the General Plan conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance, the density allowed under the General Plan must be used to calculate allowed density under State Density Bonus Law. Where the General Plan specifies a range of densities for a land use classification (as is the case in the City of Berkeley), state law requires the City to apply the maximum density in that range to determine maximum allowable residential density. However, the Berkeley General Plan does not apply the stated densities on a parcel-specific basis, so this provision is inapplicable.

Page 47 of 67 ends

Page 323 ends

Housing Accountability Act / Density Bonus Base Projects – Objective Standards August 2, 2021

Page 5 ends

Page 48 of 67 ends

Page 324 ends

Attachment 4

Z O N I N G

A D J U S T M E N T S

B O A R D
S t a f f R e p o r t
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

FOR BOARD ACTION
SEPTEMBER 12, 2024
2708 Prince Street
Use Permit #ZP2024-0024 to demolish an existing 13 foot 9-inch-tall one- story 1,052 square-foot house and accessory building (garage), and construct a new 24 foot 4-inch-tall two-story 3,118 square-foot duplex.

I. Background
A. Land Use Designations:
 General Plan: MDR– Medium Density Residential
 Zoning District: R2-A– Restricted Multiple-Family Residential B. Zoning Permits Required:
 Use Permit pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 23.326.020(B) to demolish a dwelling unit
 Use Permit pursuant to BMC Section 23.202.020(A) to construct a two-family dwelling
C. CEQA Recommendation:

It is staff’s recommendation to the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Section15000, et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (“New Construction”).

Page 49 of 67 ends

Page 325 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 2 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx D. Parties Involved:
 Applicant: Jeff Svitak, 3037 Redwood Street, San Diego  Property Owner: Linda Joseph, 2700 Prince Street, Berkeley

Page 50 of 67 ends

Page 326 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 3 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx Figure 1: Vicinity and Zoning Districts Map
Legend
Site Boundary
R-1: Single-Family Residential
R-2: Restricted Two-Family Residential
R-2A: Restricted Multiple-Family Residential
Prince Street
Woolsey Street
College Avenue

Page 51 of 67 ends

Page 327 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 4 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx Figure 2: Site Plan
Figure 3: North Elevation (Prince Street)

Page 52 of 67 ends

Page 328 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 5 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx Figure 4: West Elevation

Page 53 of 67 ends

Page 329 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 6 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx Table 1: Land Use Information
Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation Subject Property
North
Single-family dwelling
South Multi-family (4 units)
R-2A Medium Density Residential
East Single-family dwelling
R-2
(Restricted Two-
Family Residential)
Low Medium Density
ResidentialSurrounding
Properties
West
Two single-family
dwellings, two multi-
family buildings (4
units each)
R-2A Medium Density Residential
Table 2: Special Characteristics
Characteristic Applicability Explanation
Affordable Child Care Fee for
qualifying non-residential projects
(Per Resolution 66,618-N.S.)
Affordable Housing Fee for
qualifying non-residential projects
(Per Resolution 66,617-N.S.)
No
This fee applies to net newly constructed
nonresidential gross floor area over 7,500 square
feet. The project would only involve new residential
floor area, therefore the fee does not apply.

Affordable / Inclusionary
Housing Requirements
(BMC Chapter 23.328)
No
The project is a housing development project, as
defined in BMC 23.328.020a. The project would
provide 5,000 square feet or less of residential unit
floor area and is not part of a larger housing
development project, and is exempt from the
inclusionary housing provisions.

Coast Live Oak Trees
(BMC Chapter 6.52) No There are no Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees on the project site.

Creeks No No creek or culvert, as defined by BMC Chapter

17.08, exists on or within 30 feet of the project site.

Density Bonus No The project is not requesting a Density Bonus.

Historic Resources No
The Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by
Mark Hulbert (October 4, 2023, revised April 12,
2024) concluded that the property does not meet
the criteria for the California Register or City of
Berkeley Structure of Merit or Landmark.

Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
(Gov’t Code Section 65589.5(j)) Yes
The project meets the definition of a “Housing
Development Project” per Government Code
Section 65589.5(h)(2)b. The project complies with
applicable, objective general plan and zoning
standards, and thus section (j) of the Housing
Accountability Act does apply, and the project
cannot be denied at the density proposed unless
the findings for denial can be made. See Section

Page 54 of 67 ends

Page 330 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 7 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx Characteristic Applicability Explanation
V.B of this report for additional discussion on
compliance with the Housing Accountability Act.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019
(SB 330) Yes
The project meets the definition of a “Housing
Development Project” per Government Code
Section 65589.5(h)(2).b See Section V.C of this
report for additional discussion on the sections of
SB 330 that apply to the project.

Rent Controlled Units No
The subject building is a single-family dwelling and
therefore not subject to rent control provisions
pursuant to BMC Chapter 13.76. See Section III.B,
Replacement of Demolished Units.

Residential Preferred Parking
(RPP) Yes
The site is located in an RPP zone. The project is
not eligible for RPP permits per BMC Section

14.72.080(C)(1) as no permits shall be issued to
residents in newly constructed residential units.

Seismic Hazards (SHMA) No
The project site is not located within an area
susceptible to landslide/liquefaction/fault rupture as
shown on the State Seismic Hazard Zones map.c
Soil/Groundwater Contamination No
The project site is not located within the City’s
Environmental Management Area and is not on the
Cortese List.d Standard Conditions of Approval
related to hazardous materials would apply.

Transit Yes
The project area is served by the AC Transit lines
6, 7, 51B, and 79. The nearest bus stops are
approximately 400 to the south, near the
intersection of College Avenue and Woolsey Street,
and approximately 0.2 miles to the north, near the
intersection of Ashby Avenue and College Avenue.

Notes:
a. BMC 23.328.020(E) defines a "Housing Development Project" for purposes of inclusionary housing requirements as “a development project, including a Mixed-Use Residential project involving the new construction of at least one Residential Unit.

Projects with one or more buildings or projects including multiple contiguous parcels under common ownership or control shall be considered as a sole Housing Development Project and not as individual projects. b. Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2) “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following: (A) residential units only, (B) mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which at least two-thirds of the square footage is designated for residential use, and (C) transitional or supportive housing. c. California Department of Conservation. DOC Maps: Geologic Hazards. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/
d. The Cortese List is an annually updated list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant Government Code Section 65962.5.

Page 55 of 67 ends

Page 331 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 8 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx Table 3: Project Chronology
Date Action
February 16, 2024 Use Permit Application submitted
March 7, 2024 Application deemed complete
August 29, 2024 Public hearing notices mailed/posted
September 12, 2024 ZAB hearing
Table 4: R-2A Development Standards BMC Sections 23.202.090 and 23.322 Parking and Loading
Standard Existing Proposed Total Permitted/
Required
Lot Area (sq. ft.) 4,312 No change 5,000 min
Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 1,052 3,118 N/A
Dwelling
Units
Total 1 2 2 max (one dwelling unit/1,650
square-feet of lot area, and one
additional dwelling unit is allowed
for remaining lot area between
1,300 and 1,650 square feet)
Average 13’-9” 24’-4” maxBuilding
Height
(ft. - in.)
Stories 1 2 3 max
Front
(Prince Street)
16’-7” 15’ 15’ min
Rear 54’-11” 22’ 15’ min
Left Side 7’ 5’ 3.45’ min
(10 percent of the lot width per
BMC Section 23.304.030(B)(2))
Building
Setbacks
(ft. - in.)
Right Side 3’-1” 3’-6” 3.45’ min
(10 percent of the lot width per
BMC Section 23.304.030(B)(2))
Lot Coverage (%) 24 40 40 max
Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) 2,139 645 600 min (300/dwelling) Parking Automobile 1 0 1 max, 0 required
Abbreviations: sq. ft. = square feet; max. = maximum; min. = minimum; n/a = not applicable; % = percent; avg. = average, ft = feet (’), in. = inches (”)

Page 56 of 67 ends

Page 332 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 9 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx II. Project Setting
A. Neighborhood/Area Description:

The subject site is located on the south side of Prince Street, between College Avenue and Claremont Avenue. The proposed project is in a residential neighborhood that primarily consists of one- and two-story residential properties, which include single- family, duplexes, and multi-family dwellings. A church is located across the street.

B. Site Conditions:

The 4,312-square-foot lot is generally rectangular-shaped and oriented north to south, with frontage on Prince Street. The project site is relatively flat and is developed with a one-story residential building and a garage. An easement along the left side of the property provides shared 8-foot wide vehicular access to the site and the adjacent flag lot at 2710 Prince Street, with a 5-foot easement on the subject site and a 3-foot easement on the flag lot 2710 Prince Street.

III. Project Description
A. Proposed Project Details: The proposed project would demolish the existing dwelling and garage, and construct a two-story duplex. Each three-bedroom dwelling would be approximately 1,500 square feet in area. Approximately 400 square feet of shared useable open space would be located in the front setback, and each dwelling would have 145 square feet of private useable open space in patios adjacent to each dwelling.

Additional landscaping spaces would be located at the ground level between the walls of the living area, and would be open to the sky. Since those landscaping spaces would not meet the minimum dimensions for useable open space they would not count toward useable open space. An ADU would be attached at the rear of the duplex, and is shown only for reference since it is not subject to discretionary review.

B. Replacement of Demolished Units:

Government Code Section 66300(d) prohibits the demolition of residential dwelling units unless the project will create at least as many residential units as the greatest number of residential dwelling units that existed on the project site within the last five years; prohibits the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units (i.e. rent- controlled or affordable units), unless replaced according to replacement provisions therein; and does not supersede any local ordinance that reserves greater protections/provisions for lower income households or displaced households. The project proposes replacing one demolished dwelling unit with two new dwelling units.

The existing unit is not considered a “protected” unit as defined in Section 66300(d) because it was not rent-controlled or designated as affordable or occupied by lower income households, within the last five years. The dwelling unit proposed to be demolished is vacant, and is not subject to tenant relocation provisions.

Page 57 of 67 ends

Page 333 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 10 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx IV. Community Discussion
A. Neighbor/Community Concerns:

Prior to submitting this application to the city, a pre-application poster was installed on site by the applicant in February 2024. On August 29, 2024, the City mailed public hearing notices to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site, and to interested neighborhood organizations. The City also posted notices within the neighborhood at nearby three locations. At the time of writing this report, staff has received letters in opposition to the project from two parties. The rear yard of the neighbor at 3025 College Avenue is next to the proposed duplex, and they are concerned about light and air, and density impacts, and have asked the applicant to reduce the massing of the project, or break up the wall on the west elevation with architectural screens, as was done on the east elevation. The rear yard of the neighbor at 3027 College Avenue is close to the proposed ADU, and they are concerned about the ADU setbacks and the density of the project. The neighbor at 3025 College Avenue also requested a later hearing date because they would be unable to attend in person. Because the proposal is a housing development project that complies with the Housing Accountability Act, staff did not delay the hearing. Staff provided information on how to join the ZAB hearing remotely. See Attachment 4 for all correspondence.

On August 9, 2024, staff visited the home of the neighbor at 3025 College Avenue to view the existing conditions. The neighbor shared their concerns about the massing of the proposed project, the loss of light to their patio, and the impacts to the existing trees.

B. Landmark Preservation Commission / Design Review Committee Review:

This project is not subject to review by the Design Review Committee or the Landmarks Preservation Commission because it is not located in a residential district subject to design review, or a commercial or manufacturing district, and does not involve the demolition of a nonresidential building, respectively.

V. Issues and Analysis
A. CEQA Approach and Recommendation
It is staff’s recommendation that the project qualifies for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (“New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”). The project complies with this exemption because a duplex is proposed in a residential zone in an urbanized area, and is below the size threshold for this exemption. In addition, none of the exceptions to eligibility for a categorical exemption as listed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, apply to the project:

Page 58 of 67 ends

Page 334 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 11 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx  The project site is currently characterized as developed by the California Natural Diversity Database;1 therefore, it is not located in an environmentally sensitive area;  The cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time would not be significant;
 There are no “unusual circumstances” at the project site that would result in significant environmental effects;
 There are no eligible or designated scenic highways within the City of Berkeley; 2 therefore, the project site is not in view of a state scenic highway;  The site is not included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5;3 and
 The project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The CEQA determination is made by ZAB, as the decision-making body.

B. Housing Accountability Act Analysis:

Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), California Government Code Section 65589.5(j), when a proposed housing development complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, but a local agency proposes to deny the project or approve it only if the density is reduced, the agency must base its decision on written findings supported by substantial evidence that:

1. The development would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety 4 unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and

2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density.

The project is a “housing development project” consisting of all residential uses. As shown in Table 4 above, the project complies with the zoning standards. The ZAB has the discretion to approve, deny, or modify the request according to the zoning findings, provided the action does not reduce the project density or effectively deny the project by making it infeasible, unless the ZAB is also able to make the required findings for denial set forth under Section 65589.5(j), above.
1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database. Available:
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/?tool=cnddbqv
2 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Program’s Scenic Highway System List. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways 3 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ 4 A “specific, adverse impact” means “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”

Page 59 of 67 ends

Page 335 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 12 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx Staff is not aware of specific adverse impacts that could occur with the construction of the project.

C. Housing Crisis Act of 2019 – Senate Bill (SB) 330:

The Housing Crisis Act, also known as Senate Bill 330, seeks to boost homebuilding throughout the State with a focus on urbanized zones by expediting the approval process for and suspending or eliminating restrictions on housing development. A “housing development project” can include any of the following: residential units only; mixed use consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which at least two-thirds of the square-footage is designated residential, and transitional or supportive housing.

Sections of SB 330 that apply to the proposed project include the following:

1. Government Code Section 65905.5(a) states that if a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in affect at the time an application is deemed complete, then the city shall not conduct more than five hearings in connection with the approval of that housing development project. This includes all public hearings in connection with the approval of the housing development project and any continuances of such public hearings. The city must consider and either approve or disapprove the project at any of the five hearings consistent with applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920)).

The September 12, 2024 ZAB hearing represents the first public hearing for the proposed project since the project was deemed complete. The City can hold up to four additional public hearings on this project, if needed. One of those hearings must be reserved for any possible appeal to the City Council.

2. Government Code Section 65913.10(a) requires that the City determine whether the proposed development project site is a historic site at the time the application for the housing development project is deemed complete. The determination as to whether the parcel is a historic site must remain valid during the pendency of the housing development project, unless any archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources are encountered during any grading, site disturbance, or building alteration activities.

As discussed in an historic resource evaluation prepared for the project on October 4, 2023, and revised April 12, 2024, the property does not appear to be historically significant, and therefore is not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or as a City of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit.

3. Government Code Section 65950(a)(5) requires a public agency to approve or disapprove a project within 60 days from the determination that the project is exempt from the CEQA. Should ZAB determine the application is categorically exempt from CEQA at the September 12, 2024 public hearing, the application must be approved or disapproved by November 11, 2024.

Page 60 of 67 ends

Page 336 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 13 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx D. Elimination of Dwelling Units through Demolition:

1. BMC Section 23.326.020(B) allows the ZAB to approve a Use Permit to eliminate or demolish a dwelling unit only if the elimination of the dwelling unit would not be materially detrimental to the housing needs and public interest of any affected neighborhood or the City. The project would replace one dwelling unit with two dwelling units. The increase in the number of housing units would help meet the City’s need for additional housing and Regional Housing Needs Assessment target, and thus the Finding under BMC Section 23.326.020(B) would be met. The project would also provide housing in proximity to regional transit, bicycle facilities, retail, and services, therefore reducing vehicle miles traveled, and air quality and greenhouse gas emission impacts. The proposed project would not be materially detrimental to the housing needs and public interest of the affected neighborhood and the City.

2. The project is compliant with all provisions of Government Code Section 66300(d) for the demolition and replacement of residential units.

3. BMC Section 23.326.030(B) allows the ZAB to approve the demolition of a single dwelling unit provided that the building was not removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act during the proceeding five years and there have been no verified cases of harassment, or threatened or actual eviction during the immediately preceding three years. Rent Stabilization Board staff reviewed the property records and determined that the existing units have not been removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act at any time during the preceding five years, and there is no record of any verified cases of harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction. (Attachment 5)

4. The dwelling proposed to be demolished is vacant, and is not subject to tenant relocation provisions pursuant to BMC Chapter 23.326.

VI. Other Considerations (Zoning and Land Use Considerations) The following analyses of conformance with district purposes, and the 2002 General Plan goals and policies are provided for informational purposes only, to provide context, because the proposed project is HAA-compliant. See section V.B for discussion of the HAA. All permits are subject to the General Non-Detriment findings discussed in section VI.B.

A. District Purpose:

Pursuant to BMC Section 23.202.090(A), the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the R-2A District because the proposed project would help maintain the medium-density residential concentration of the existing neighborhood through the development of a duplex on a single lot. The proposed project would provide usable open space beyond the 300-square-foot minimum per dwelling unit required in the R-2A District, and would not conflict with any of the principles of the district purpose.

Page 61 of 67 ends

Page 337 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 14 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx B. General Non-Detriment Finding:

BMC Section 23.406.040(E) states that before the ZAB approves an application for a Use Permit, it must find that the project, under the circumstances of this particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City.

1. Shadows: The applicant submitted shadow studies documenting sun angles at different three times throughout the day during the summer and winter solstice. New shadows would affect dwellings at the following locations:
 3025 College Avenue, west of the project site, casting new shadows on the summer solstice two hours after sunrise.
 2712 Prince Street, east of the project site, casting new shadows on the summer solstice two hours before sunset.
 2700 Prince Street and 3025 College Avenue, west of the project site, casting new shadows on the winter solstice two hours after sunrise.  2712 Prince Street, east of the project site, casting new shadows on the winter solstice two hours before sunset.

Though the project will create new shadow impacts on neighboring residences, the projected impacts would be in line with what is be expected within a built urban environment. The shadow impacts from the project on adjacent residential uses would be reasonable and not detrimental.

2. Air: The proposed project would be consistent with the existing development and building-to-building separation pattern, or air, in this R-2A District neighborhood.

Because the project would meet the required setbacks, the project would not unreasonably obstruct air.

3. Views: The view corridor as defined in BMC Section 23.502.020 (Glossary) includes views of the Berkeley Hills, San Francisco Bay, Mt. Tamalpais, or a significant landmark such as the campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, or any other views that substantially enhances the value and enjoyment of real property. The project’s proposed location is in a generally flat neighborhood, developed with one- to two- story buildings, and includes some mature vegetation that obscures these views from off-street angles. Because significant views are generally not available in this neighborhood due to grade, current development patterns, and mature vegetation, the proposed project would not create detrimental impacts to views.

Page 62 of 67 ends

Page 338 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 15 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx

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

C. General Plan Consistency:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Policy H-19 Regional Housing Needs: Encourage adequate housing production to meet City needs and the City’s share of regional housing needs.

7. Policy EM-5 “Green” Buildings : Promote and encourage compliance with “green” building standards. (Also see Policies EM-8, EM-26, EM-35, EM-36, and UD-6.)

8. Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings.

Staff Analysis: The proposed replacement of one single-family dwelling with a duplex would be consistent with neighboring land uses. The proposed size and design would be compatible with the existing scale and design characteristics of the neighborhood, and would be consistent with zoning requirements. Since the project is consistent with

Page 63 of 67 ends

Page 339 ends

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2708 PRINCE STREET
September 12, 2024 Page 16 of 16
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Prince\2708\ZP2024-0024\5-FINAL PUBLIC REPORTS + ATTACHMENTS [WORD]\2024-09-12 ZAB\2024-09-12_ZAB_SR_2708 Prince_final.docx zoning requirements, shadow impacts would not be detrimental. By adding two dwellings, the project would support regional housing needs. The project would be subject to standard conditions of approval that promote sustainable building design, including solar PV systems.

VII. Recommendation
Because of the project’s consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and minimal impact on surrounding properties, staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board:

1. FIND that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (“New Construction”); and

2. APPROVE Use Permit ZP2024-0024 pursuant to Section 23.406.040(D) and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1).

Attachments:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Project Plans, received August 26, 2024

3. Notice of Public Hearing

4. Correspondence Received

5. Email from Rent Stabilization Board staff, dated August 1, 2024 Staff Planner: Allison Riemer, [email protected], (510) 981-7433

Page 64 of 67 ends

Page 340 ends

Page 65 of 67 ends

Page 341 ends

Administrative Record
This attachment is on file and available for review at
the City Clerk Department, or can be accessed from
the City Council Website. Copies of the attachment
are available upon request.

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

The City of Berkeley’s Website
http://www.berkeleyca.gov
Attachment 5-6

Page 342 ends

Page 343 ends

Attachment 7

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
ZAB APPEAL: 2708 PRINCE STREET, USE PERMIT #ZP2024-0024 The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2025 at 6:00 P.M. a public hearing will be conducted to consider an appeal of a decision by the Zoning Adjustments Board to APPROVE Zoning Permit #ZP2024-0024 to demolish a single-family home and accessory building (garage), and construct a 2-story (24 feet in height) 3,118 square-foot duplex.

The hearing will be held on, January 21, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

For further information, please contact Allison Riemer, Project Planner at (510) 981-7433 or email [email protected]
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of January 9, 2025. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to
[email protected] in order to ensure
delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Communications to the Berkeley City Council 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 the City Council, 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 City Clerk. 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 City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information. __________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Mailed by: January 7, 2025
Noticed Pursuant to: Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.404.040(B), Public Hearing Notice NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny(Code Civ. Proc. 1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5) an appeal, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, no lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny or approve a Zoning Adjustments Board decision may

Page 66 of 67 ends

Page 344 ends

Attachment 7
be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Zoning Adjustments Board decision, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

If you challenge the above 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 City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.

Page 67 of 67 ends

Page 345 ends

Page 346 ends

Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani

ACTION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor Adena Ishii and Members of the City Council FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author)
SUBJECT: Expanding Homeownership Opportunities for Middle-Income Earners

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager to develop modifications to Berkeley Municipal Code Title 21 (Subdivisions) and refer to the City Manager and Planning Commission to develop modifications to Title 23 (Zoning) to enhance ownership opportunities for middle housing–in alignment with unanimous Council direction for a Middle Housing Ordinance and allowances under Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023 (S.B. 684, Caballero).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
High Housing Costs Are Harming Berkeley’s Middle Income Earners Like Nurses, Firefighters, and Teachers. The nine-county Bay Area region is facing an acute shortage of homes affordable for working families, reflecting the broader statewide shortage of 3.5 million homes across California.1 In the Bay Area, only one new home is added for every 3.5 jobs created, exacerbating the housing shortage.2 In Berkeley, the median sale price of a home is $1.4 million, a figure that places immense strain on low-, moderate-, and middle-income households. As a result, California has the second-lowest homeownership rate in the nation, reflecting the growing affordability gap.3 The Bay Area is among the most expensive housing 1 Woetzel, J., Mischke, J., Peloquin, S., and Weisfield, D. (2016, October). A Toolkit to Close California’s Housing Gap: 3.5 Million Homes by 2025. McKinsey Global Institute, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured- insights/urbanization/closing-californias-housing-gap
2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (2018). Vital Signs. http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/ 3 iProperty Management. (2022, October). Home Ownership Rates By State. https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/homeownership-rate-by-state

Page 1 of 5 ends

Page 347 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
2 markets in the U.S., with prices roughly 2.5 to 3.5 times higher than the national median. For a Bay Area family to afford the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance payments on a median- priced home of $1.4 million, they would need to earn more than $300,000 annually, assuming they can make a 20 percent down payment.4 This cost barrier means that many public employees, including nurses, firefighters, and teachers, cannot afford to buy homes. While the Berkeley Unified School District is planning to develop more than 100 units of teacher housing, the demand still outpaces the supply. According to a 2017 Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) survey, 69 percent of teachers and staff believed that high housing costs would impact their ability to remain in their BUSD positions.5 Since most teachers are not classified as low- income, they do not qualify for affordable housing units. With few subsidies available, middle- income families often must rely on the private market for housing in the Bay Area, further deepening the affordability crisis.

Middle Housing Ownership Options Can Give Middle Income Earners the Opportunity to Stay in Berkeley and Build Wealth. Many Americans, particularly middle income and younger households, are increasingly seeking smaller, more affordable, and diverse homeownership options as single family home prices continue to rise.6 Middle housing options—including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes—can provide a more attainable entry point to homeownership for middle- and lower-income families in Berkeley. According to the U.S.

Census American Community Survey, median household income for middle housing types was much lower than for single-family homes, as shown in Exhibit 1.7 This pattern suggests that smaller multifamily housing can offer more affordable options for a wider range of income levels.

The data underscore the potential of middle housing to provide affordable homeownership opportunities, helping middle-income families stay in Berkeley and build wealth in a challenging housing market.
4 Prakash, Anushka. (2024, February). Home Buyers Need to Earn $47,000 More Than in 2020. Zillow. https://www.zillow.com/research/buyers-income-needed-33755/ 5 Berkeley Unified School District. (2017). Board of Education Approves Berkeley Adult School Parking Lot as Site for Educator Housing. https://www.berkeleyschools.net/2021/02/board-of-education-approves- berkeley-adult-school-parking-lot-as-site-for-educator-housing/ 6 Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2021).The State of the Nation’s Housing. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_State_Nations_Housing_202

1.pdf
7 American Community Survey. (2017-2022). Public Use Microdata Set. US Census.

Page 2 of 5 ends

Page 348 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
3 Exhibit 1: Median Household Income for Middle Housing Types is Significantly Lower than Median Household Income for Single-Family Homes
Source: American Community Survey, 2017-2022, as analyzed by Darrell Owens

BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 684 Creates Opportunity to Enhance Ownership Options for Middle-Income Earners. . . In 2023, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 684 (Caballero) to address the shortage of homeownership opportunities across the state.8 This bill mandates that local agencies review, in a ministerial (non-discretionary) manner, parcel maps or tentative and final maps for housing development projects that meet specific criteria.9 Key site and project criteria of SB 684 include:
● The subdivision results in 10 or fewer parcels.
● The development includes no more than 10 residential units. ● The area is zoned for multi-family development and is less than five acres. ● The project was not created under the ministerial subdivision authority in Senate Bill 9 (Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 66411.7).
● The subdivision must not create new lots smaller than 600 square feet, unless the local agency has approved smaller minimum parcel sizes.
● The resulting housing will be simple ownership lots, part of a common interest development or cooperative or owned by a community land trust. ● The housing development must meet specific affordability criteria, providing either the projected number of low- or very-low-income units for the parcel, or if not listed in the Housing Element, must comply with the maximum allowable residential density. 8 Caballero, Anna. (2024). Senate Bill 684.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB684 9 Sarjapur, Melinda. (2024). SB 684–How to Apply New State Law Allowing Ministerial Approval for up to 10-Lot Subdivisions on Small Lots
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f2c2d67c58236227115e0de/t/66a3d0be22486b760b9eb302/1722 011839196/Casita-Coalition-Reuben-Junius-Rose-SB-684-final-memo-0725204.pdf

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 349 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
4 ● The average total floor area cannot exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet.

Projects must comply with objective zoning, design and subdivision criteria that do not conflict with SB 684. Additionally, a local agency may not apply certain standards, such as:
● Density standards that would prohibit low-income housing. ● Minimum lot size requirements, beyond the 600 square foot minimum. ● Additional setbacks between the units, beyond those required by the Building Code. ● Enclosed or covered parking
● Side and rear setbacks greater than those allowable under Senate Bill 9 (four feet for new structures)
● Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) limits that are less than the following:
○ For 3 to 7 units, a FAR that is less than 1.0
○ For 8 to 10 units, a FAR that is less than 1.25
. . . Requiring Berkeley to Amend the Municipal Code to Enhance Availability of SB 684 Ownership Options, Given Council Direction for a Middle Housing Ordinance. In a 2022 study, the Terner Center published research that indicated that lack of clarity around subdivision is a driving force for developers abandoning ownership models in favor of more predictable and less-risky rental development.10 To address the Bay Area’s housing crisis and promote more affordable ownership opportunities, amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code are needed to allow for the development of middle housing ownership opportunities through subdivision of parcels. By creating more diverse housing options, Berkeley can attract and retain a diverse workforce, lower housing costs, and increase affordability for a wider range of residents.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Amending the Berkeley Municipal Code to align with unanimous Council direction for a Middle Housing Ordinance and Senate Bill 684 is essential to addressing the city’s acute housing affordability crisis. Berkeley’s current median home price of $1.4 million creates insurmountable barriers for middle-income families who are critical to the community’s functioning. Senate Bill 684 offers a framework to streamline the approval of small-scale housing developments, ensuring affordability while expanding ownership opportunities. By modifying Title 21 and potentially Title 23 to enable greater middle housing ownership options, Berkeley can expand entry-level homeownership opportunities for middle-income earners. These changes will support a more equitable housing market, foster a diverse workforce, and align with Berkeley’s broader goals of sustainable and inclusive growth.
10 Garcia, Alameldin, Metcalf, and Fulton. (2022, December). Unlocking the Potential of Missing Middle Housing. UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/2022/12/Missing-Middle-Brief-December-2022.pdf

Page 4 of 5 ends

Page 350 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
5 FISCAL IMPACTS
Staff time to amend various sections of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Creating denser, smaller-scale housing options maximizes land use efficiency, reduces the need for long commutes, and promotes walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods. This can significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions by reducing reliance on cars and encouraging more energy-efficient housing designs. Additionally, utilizing existing infrastructure for compact development minimizes environmental impacts associated with new construction on undeveloped land, preserving green space and biodiversity.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (510) 981-8100

Page 5 of 5 ends

Page 351 ends

Page 352 ends

Brent Blackaby
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]

ACTION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Blackaby (Author), Mayor Ishii (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Reaffirming Berkeley as a Sanctuary City

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution reaffirming Berkeley as a Sanctuary City and asking the City Clerk to send a copy to each City Department Director, requesting they inform their staff of the City’s Sanctuary City standing and the City’s policies and procedures regarding staff interaction with U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) related to enforcement of federal immigration law.

Additionally, refer to the City Attorney to explore the possibility of pledging the City’s legal support to help “sensitive sites” defend themselves against civil litigation.

Additionally, the Mayor will create a taskforce of Councilmembers, Community Based Organizations (CBOs), immigration and civil rights organizations, faith leaders, legal experts, school and university officials, and community activists to continually assess threats to Berkeley’s immigrant communities and participate in the process of codifying Berkeley’s Sanctuary protections through a city ordinance.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In light of the incoming Trump administration’s threats of mass deportations and plans to rescind the long-standing federal policy restricting ICE arrests in sensitive areas such as schools, after-school programs, hospitals, community health centers, and places of worship, it is incumbent upon the City of Berkeley to reaffirm to the community its status as a Sanctuary City and to reassert policies and procedures to guide and support staff should ICE officials contact city officials or visit city offices to ask questions, collect information, or request assistance with arresting any undocumented or naturalized resident or visitor beyond what is legally required.

Sanctuary is fundamentally about public safety: the need for everyone in the community to feel safe. When all community members, documented or undocumented, are able to

Page 1 of 9 ends

Page 353 ends

Reaffirming Berkeley as a Sanctuary City

ACTION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025

Page 2 ends

attend school and after-school programs, hospitals and health centers, and places of worship without the threat of deportation, we promote a more educated, healthy, and thriving community. Sanctuary policies strengthen all our lives.

The City of Berkeley is an established City of Refuge and a Sanctuary City 1. In light of this ongoing status, the City applies the following restrictions on the use of City funds and resources relating to enforcement of federal immigration law:

1. No department, agency, commission, officer or employee of the City of Berkeley shall use any City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of Federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information on the status of individuals in the City of Berkeley unless required by federal law.

2. No department, agency, commission, officer or employee shall deny access to any city services or benefits to residents on the basis of their immigration status.

3. The prohibition set forth shall include but not be limited to:
a. Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigation, detention, or arrest procedures, whether public or covert, including but not limited to any such procedures in schools, after- school programs, hospitals, health centers, or places of worship, relating to alleged violations of the civil provision of federal immigration law, except as required by federal law.
b. Requesting information or data about, or disseminating information regarding, the immigration status of any individual, except as required by federal law. c. Including on any application, questionnaire or interview form used in relation to benefits, services or opportunities provided by the City of Berkeley any question regarding immigration status.

4. It is the policy of the City of Berkeley to not allow any individual or organization to enter city facilities if their presence would disrupt city operations. Because the City Council believes that ICE activities in city facilities would constitute a severe disruption to the provision of city services, any request by ICE to any City officer or employee shall be immediately assessed for legality through the City Attorney to ensure the safety of city employees and residents accessing city services and compliance with applicable state and federal laws.
1See Resolution 44,784-N.S., Resolution No. 52, 558-N.S., and Resolution 67,763-N.S. Reaffirming Berkeley’s Status as a City of Refuge. This was further refined with Resolution 68, 131-N.S. Amending of Refuge Policy Regarding Interaction with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Page 2 of 9 ends

Page 354 ends

Reaffirming Berkeley as a Sanctuary City

ACTION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025

Page 3 ends

5. Except in limited circumstances where ICE agents have a valid judicial warrant, after review and consultation with the City Manager and City Attorney, city departments, agencies, commissions, officers or employees are not required to:
● Cooperate with ICE agents
● Answer ICE agents’ questions or provide any protected data ● Comply with an ICE Administrative Warrant
● Immediately comply with a subpoena served by ICE agents ● Speak with ICE agents at all

6. City officers or employees shall not consent to a warrantless search by ICE agents of a non-public area or non-public city records.

7. If any person asks questions regarding their immigration status to City staff (while working in their official capacity), City staff shall not refer them to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or any other government agency. Instead City staff shall refer such individuals to local non-profit immigration law organizations. A list of such organizations shall be compiled and disseminated at City buildings and on the City’s website. The City Manager is also encouraged to increase and enhance partnerships with community-based organizations, legal service providers, and educational institutions to provide resources for families and City residents facing deportation or other adverse immigration actions.

8. All requests for documents or protected data by ICE to City personnel shall be immediately forwarded to the City Manager for review and consultation with the City Attorney to ensure the safety of city employees and residents, and compliance with applicable state and federal laws.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley was the first City in the Nation to declare itself a City of Refuge in 1971 (Resolution 44,784-N.S.) and the first City to support the “New Border Vision”, in 2020, to encourage Congress to expand public safety, protect human rights, and welcome people to our communities.

Berkeley reaffirmed its City of Refuge status in 1986 (Resolution No. 52,596-N.S.), 2007 (Resolution No. 63,711-N.S.), 2015 (Resolution No. 67,325-N.S.), 2016 (Resolution No. 67,598-N.S. & No. 67,763-N.S.) and 2017 (Resolution No. 68,131-N.S.).

In early 2017, a Sanctuary City Task Force was convened, which brought immigration and civil rights groups, faith leaders, legal experts, school and university officials, and community activists together to discuss ways to strengthen our City of Refuge policy, as well as support our undocumented community members.

Page 3 of 9 ends

Page 355 ends

Reaffirming Berkeley as a Sanctuary City

ACTION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025

Page 4 ends

The Sanctuary City Task Force and working groups developed resources and protocols to clarify the rights of undocumented individuals and city/community partners in the case of U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement activity.

All City of Berkeley Departments and employees of the City of Berkeley, including the Berkeley Police Department, have committed to not comply with ICE officers lacking a valid judicial warrant.

The Berkeley School Board passed a sanctuary campus policy in December 2017 which articulated restrictions on information sharing, providing access to school facilities, and collaboration with Immigration officials. Berkeley City College, UC Berkeley, and University Lutheran Chapel have adopted similar policies.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None associated with this item.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Brent Blackaby Council District 6 510-981-7160 Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 4 of 9 ends

Page 356 ends

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

REAFFIRMING BERKELEY AS A SANCTUARY CITY
WHEREAS, the residents of Berkeley have a long history and deep commitment to welcoming immigrants, refugees, and those in exile; and WHEREAS, the Berkeley community believes in protecting all of our residents and letting them know they are safe, regardless of their immigration status; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley was the first City in the Nation to declare itself a City of Refuge in 1971 (Resolution 44,784-N.S.) and the first City to support the “New Border Vision”, in 2020, to encourage Congress to expand public safety, protect human rights, and welcome people to our communities; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley reaffirmed its City of Refuge status in 1986 (Resolution No. 52,596- N.S.), 2007 (Resolution No. 63,711-N.S.), 2015 (Resolution No. 67,325-N.S.), 2016 (Resolution No. 67,598-N.S. & No. 67,763-N.S.) and 2017 (Resolution No. 68,131-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, as of 2023, 21.3% of Berkeley’s population are immigrants of varying statuses, with undocumented, DACA, and TPS holders most vulnerable to the incoming administration’s threats of discrimination and deportation; and WHEREAS, multiple studies have proven that jurisdictions that provide sanctuaries are safer and economically more prosperous compared to other jurisdictions – including a 2017 report by the Center for American Progress that shows on average there are 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary jurisdictions, the average annual income is $4,353 higher, the poverty rate is 2.3% lower, and unemployment is 1.1% lower; and
WHEREAS, in the interest of promoting public safety, it is important to create an environment in which people feel comfortable interacting with local law enforcement, not eroding that trust by permitting local police officers to assist federal immigration enforcement; and
WHEREAS, in early 2017, a Sanctuary City Task Force was convened, which brought immigration and civil rights groups, faith leaders, legal experts, school and university officials, and community activists together to discuss ways to strengthen our City of Refuge policy, as well as support our undocumented community members; and WHEREAS, the Task Force and working groups developed resources and protocols to clarify the rights of undocumented individuals and city/community partners in the case of U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement activity; and

Page 5 of 9 ends

Page 357 ends

Reaffirming Berkeley as a Sanctuary City

ACTION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025

Page 6 ends

WHEREAS, the Task Force created procedures to help City Staff act in accordance with Berkeley’s Sanctuary City status, should ICE agents contact city officials or visit city facilities or engage with city staff to collect information, or request assistance with arresting any undocumented or naturalized resident or visitor beyond what is required by federal law; and
WHEREAS, all City of Berkeley Departments and employees of the City of Berkeley, including the Berkeley Police Department, have committed to not comply with ICE officers lacking a valid judicial warrant; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley School Board passed a similar sanctuary campus policy in December 2017 which articulated restrictions on information sharing, providing access to school facilities, and collaboration with Immigration officials; and WHEREAS, the Berkeley School Board will soon consider at an upcoming meeting to reaffirm the 2017 Berkeley Unified School District Sanctuary Campus Policy (Resolution 17-050), which articulated restrictions on information sharing, providing access to school facilities, and collaborating with immigration officials; and WHEREAS, Berkeley City College, UC Berkeley, and University Lutheran Chapel have adopted similar policies; and
WHEREAS, California State Superintendent of Instruction Tony Thurmond champions the bill introduced by Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez SB 48 to Keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement Off of School Campuses, Protecting School Attendance and Funding Amid Deportation Threats; and
WHEREAS, hospitals, clinics, schools, and public transportation are key locations of direct services that immigrants rely on for basic needs and are vulnerable to deportation raids from federal immigration enforcement officers; and WHEREAS, faith communities and other Community Based Organizations (CBOs) play a vital role by protecting essential human rights and offering support to refugees and undocumented immigrants, requiring commitments from local governments to stand with these institutions and protect them from federal deportation raids or other attacks; and WHEREAS, the incoming Trump administration has campaigned on threats of mass deportation and has indicated its intent to rescind the longstanding federal policy restricting immigration enforcement activity at schools, after-school programs, hospitals, community health centers, and places of worship; and

Page 6 of 9 ends

Page 358 ends

Reaffirming Berkeley as a Sanctuary City

ACTION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025

Page 7 ends

WHEREAS, in light of the beginning of the Trump administration’s term, the City of Berkeley must remind the community and City Staff of Berkeley’s status as a Sanctuary City and a City of Refuge.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it reaffirms that the City of Berkeley is a City of Refuge and a Sanctuary City, and that the following restrictions on the use of City funds and resources shall be applied relating to enforcement of federal immigration law:

2. No department, agency, commission, officer or employee shall deny access to any city services or benefits to residents on the basis of their immigration status.

3. The prohibition set forth shall include but not be limited to:
a. Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigation, detention, or arrest procedures, including but not limited to any such procedures in schools, after-school programs, hospitals, health centers or places of worship, whether public or clandestine, relating to alleged violations of the civil provision of federal immigration law, except as required by federal law.
b. Requesting information about, or disseminating information regarding, the citizenship, immigration status, or birth country of any individual, except as required by federal law.
c. Including on any application, questionnaire or interview form used in relation to benefits, services or opportunities provided by the City of Berkeley, any question regarding immigration status.

Page 7 of 9 ends

Page 359 ends

Reaffirming Berkeley as a Sanctuary City

ACTION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025

Page 8 ends

6. City officers or employees shall not consent to a warrantless search by ICE agents of a non-public area or non-public city records.

7. If any person asks questions regarding their immigration status to City staff (while working in their official capacity), City staff shall not refer them to ICE or any other government agency. Instead, City staff shall refer such individuals to local non-profit immigration law organizations. A list of such organizations shall be compiled and disseminated at City buildings and on the City’s website. The City Manager is also encouraged to increase and enhance partnerships with community-based organizations, legal service providers, and educational institutions to provide resources for families and City residents facing deportation or other adverse immigration actions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley stands in solidarity with the Berkeley School Board, Berkeley City College, UC Berkeley, University Lutheran Chapel, and other schools, medical institutions, or places of worship that have committed to similar sanctuary policies to protect the residents of Berkeley, regardless of their immigration status.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley offers its support and protection to local CBOs and faith communities offering safety and protection to immigrants in the face of direct threats from federal agencies.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council shall refer to the City Attorney to explore the possibility of pledging the City’s legal support to help local CBOs and other “sensitive sites”, such as schools, after-school programs, hospitals, community health centers, and places of worship, defend themselves against civil litigation.

Page 8 of 9 ends

Page 360 ends

Reaffirming Berkeley as a Sanctuary City

ACTION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025

Page 9 ends

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council will collaborate with the boards of BART, AC Transit, East Bay Regional Parks District, UC and CSU systems, Peralta Community College District, and county hospital systems to ensure that the Right to Sanctuary is protected on a regional level.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley calls on other Bay Area and California cities to reaffirm their commitments to sanctuary and pass legislation that protects all California residents.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley calls on the California legislature to pass SB 48 to Keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement Off of School Campuses, Protecting School Attendance and Funding Amid Deportation Threats.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution, including any future amendments thereto, shall be transmitted to every department, agency and commission, and employee of the City of Berkeley; to our Alameda County, California, and Congressional representatives; and to the mayors of the rest of the Bay Area cities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley will continue to seek additional ways to enact protections for undocumented immigrants in our community.

Page 9 of 9 ends

Page 361 ends

Page 362 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]

ACTION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor Ishii and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Lunaparra (Author), Councilmember
Humbert (Co-sponsor)
Subject: Budget Referral: Curb Marking and Preventative Infrastructure Upgrades at High-Risk Intersections in Accordance with the New California Daylighting Law, AB 413

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $1,250,000 to the June budget process (FY26 Mid-Biennial Update) to provide the City of Berkeley Public Works Department with necessary funds for curb marking and preventative infrastructure upgrades in accordance with the new California Daylighting Law, AB 413.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In 2023, California’s legislature passed Assembly Bill 413, a state-mandated local program that prohibits stopping, standing, or parking a vehicle within 20 feet of any marked or unmarked crosswalk or 15 feet of an intersection with a curb extension. The new law applies to all relevant intersections regardless of whether they have been marked red by the City. The part of the law allowing citations to be issued even in the absence of paint or signage will go into effect on January 1, 2025. Ultimately, numerous parking spots that were previously legal will become illegal under the new law. While the state’s Daylighting legislation aims to empower municipalities to enforce traffic violations, many local governments lack the necessary capital and resources to identify and mark newly illegal parking spots effectively so that drivers are aware of the parking restrictions. Our City’s Public Works Department anticipates there are around 1,700

curbs that require painting or other forms of identification.

Daylighting is a simple and effective traffic safety approach and Councilmember Lunaparra’s office fully supports the efforts to enhance visibility at pedestrian intersections to increase traffic safety, bolstering the City’s critical Vision Zero goals.

This budget referral has two primary objectives: first, to ensure that the Public Works department has the necessary funding and staffing to paint curbs to designate no- parking zones; and second, to proactively implement preventative infrastructure that both physically prevents parking in these areas and encourages placemaking and

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 363 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] 1 California Legislature. 2023. Assembly Bill 413: An Act to Amend Section 22500 of the Vehicle Code, Relating to [Topic]. California Legislature. Accessed December 23, 2024. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB413. 2U.S. Department of Transportation. Crash Data Analysis. Accessed December 20, 2024. https://cdan.dot.gov/query.
3 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/adopted-plans/vision-zero-action-plan

Page 2 of 4 ends

multimodal mobility in Berkeley. In fact, subsection 3 of AB 413 specifically states, “Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local authority may permit parking for bicycles or motorized scooters within 20 feet of a crosswalk”,1 supporting creative approaches to preventative infrastructure while maximizing effective street space.

There is public concern that issuing citations for parking in unmarked, newly designated illegal spots due to limited staff capacity, may lead to confusion and public resentment without adequate notification. Further, not only will the ticketing be unwelcome among drivers who are not aware of the law, the illegal parking of vehicles in these newly restricted spaces will fail to achieve the desired safety benefit of daylighting. There is a critical need to support public education efforts regarding the new law and it is unrealistic to expect residents to be aware of the change without adequate public investment in curb painting and signage to communicate the new restrictions. This budget referral aims to ensure the Public Works department, in collaboration with contracted entities, has the necessary resources to complete the work identifying and marking newly illegal parking spaces, educating the public, and designing and constructing preventative infrastructure in order to maximize safety and placemaking benefits. These three approaches align with what other municipalities are doing to address the state mandate and support the larger goal of increasing safety for pedestrians and cyclists and encouraging multimodal transportation across our city.

BACKGROUND
According to The National Highway Safety Administration, there were 42,514 traffic fatalities in the United States in 2022. 23.2% of those fatalities occurred at intersections.2 Informed by the data from high volume traffic-related fatalities at intersections and the recommendation from the National Association of City Transportation Officials, the California legislature passed the California daylighting law, prohibiting parking within 20 feet of crosswalks, increasing visibility at high-risk intersections areas across the state. The summary of the assembly floor analysis indicates that 43 other states have mandated minimum parking distances from crosswalks (most of which are also set to 20 feet), and California is only one of a handful without such restrictions. This new law brings our state up to standard with a nationally recognized best practice in traffic safety.

The City of Berkeley prioritizes street safety, enshrined in the Vision Zero Action Plan, an initiative committed to eliminating traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries by 2028.3 The state daylighting law directly facilitates Berkeley’s ongoing commitment to

Page 364 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected]

1. Painting Treatment
Description Cost
Painting 918 priority intersections $550,000
Additional costs for contingency and soft costs $165,000 Suggested total to account for outreach and
education $45,000
Total $800,000

2. Preventative Infrastructure Upgrades
Estimated Cost per Intersection Amount

Page 3 of 4 ends

traffic safety and supports the work the Council, staff, and the public have enabled through policy and ballot measures. By supporting staff in completing essential curb marking and infrastructure development, we can also ensure the public better understands the ultimate goal of daylighting, which is safety. Proactively identifying curbs where parking has become illegal will mitigate the potential risk of public frustration and ultimately clarify the acute need for additional street safety measures.

Placing physical infrastructure into the street to physically prevent vehicles from parking in these newly illegal spots will further reinforce this public understanding, will reduce mistakes made by drivers, and will assist our community in achieving the desired safety benefits of daylighting by ensuring vehicles cannot park in these zones.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
According to the Public Works Department, citation revenue is expected to become available in 2026. It is essential that this revenue be allocated toward effective street safety measures, aligning with both the objectives of state law and our City’s local priorities. Since the revenue will not be available until 2026 and it is administratively infeasible to allocate citation revenue to specific funds, the fiscal impact will not directly rely on citation funds. Instead, the necessary infrastructure improvements will be funded through the general fund, proactively addressing the needs associated with this state- mandated local initiative.

The Berkeley Police Department has identified intersections based on collision data and high pedestrian volumes to receive priority treatment. The following table illustrates the breakdown of treatment cost based on the Public Works Department projections for painting the 918 priority intersections and constructing preventative infrastructure for five high-need daylighting zones.

Page 365 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7170 ● [email protected] Construction Cost (three 8’ x 20’ Hatched No
Parking Area with 36” Flexpost Delineators,
one 18’ x 20’ Bicycle Corral)
$71,000
Soft Costs/Contingency (30%) $21,000
Total Cost per Intersection $92,000
Total Cost for Five Intersections (depending
on location and impact on existing
infrastructure)
$450,000
The total projected cost amounts to $1,250,000 to complete these high-priority and time-sensitive projects associated with the state mandate.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Investing in street safety infrastructure encourages multimodal mobility across our city, limiting reliance on cars and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation — particularly the use of limited occupancy, gas-powered vehicles — is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in Berkeley.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, 510-981-7170
Sara Cerami, Chief of Staff

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 366 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

INFORMATION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: Audit Follow-up Status Update

INTRODUCTION
This item provides a status update on the audit follow-up of all recommendations since our last report in May 2024. Administrative regulations require the City Auditor to monitor the status of outstanding audit recommendations and periodically report to City Council.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
We follow up on audits to assess whether city departments implemented the audit recommendations. The Auditor’s Office issues annual follow-up audit reports to City Council on the status of our recommendations.

As of December 19, 2024, there were 58 open recommendations across five departments, as well as the Library, and Mayor and City Council. We additionally marked nine outstanding audit recommendations as implemented this follow-up period of May 15, 2024 – November 7, 2024.

Departments have implemented 42 of the 113 (37%) audit recommendations issued since 2019. 1 Figure 1. There are currently 58 open audit recommendations across 5 departments as well as the Library, and Mayor and Council.

Source: Auditor analysis

1 Since 2019, we dropped 13 audit recommendations.

Page 1 of 6 ends

Page 367 ends

Audit Follow-up Status Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
January 21, 2025

Page 2 ends

During this audit follow-up period, we closed two out of ten audits that were still open at the beginning of that time period. Audits are closed when all recommendations are implemented, or if they are older than five years. After five years, recommendations that are not implemented are marked as “dropped” on the online dashboard. This follow-up period, we closed the 2019 fire prevention inspections audit2 because it passed the five-year mark, and we dropped the 9 unimplemented recommendations. We also closed the Measure FF audit because the Fire Department implemented the all of the recommendations except one we dropped because they stated that technological limitations prevented them from implementing it and will accept the associated risk.
3 BACKGROUND
The City Auditor’s Office has a mission to promote transparency and accountability in Berkeley government. We conduct independent performance audits to evaluate city operations and programs and make recommendations to improve operations and services and ensure productive use of taxpayer funds. We focus on equitable, efficient, and effective use of city resources to achieve goals and objectives.

Following up on audit recommendations is an important part of the audit process that helps hold departments accountable for implementing agreed-upon audit recommendations. To further that goal, our office launched an online dashboard to track the status of outstanding audit recommendations in September 2022. Additional up-to-date information on each audit recommendation is available on our online dashboard on our website.

While we understand that some departments face staffing challenges that make it difficult to prioritize audit recommendations, not implementing the recommendations can mean that the City is not addressing the risks identified in audits or making needed improvements to operations or services.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
While there may be environmental impacts associated with some audit recommendations, there are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the audit follow-up process.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, (510) 981-6750

Attachment:
1: Recommendations Follow Up Report 2024

2 Fire Prevention Inspections: Insufficient Resources Strain Code Compliance 3 Spending Aligned with Ballot Measure FF and the City is Improving Internal Processes

Page 2 of 6 ends

Page 368 ends

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Annual Audit
Recommendation
Follow-Up Report

Status Update As Of
December 19, 2024

Page 3 of 6 ends

Page 369 ends

Audit Recommendation Follow-Up Report: December 19, 2024 2 Source: Auditor’s analysis
The City has continued to make progress towards implementing open audit recommendations. During this reporting period, the City has implemented nine of the outstanding recommendations.1 However, we marked 10 recommendations as dropped. We dropped the 9 outstanding recommendations from the 2019 audit, Fire Prevention Inspections: Insufficient Resources Strain Code Compliance, because the audit passed the five-year mark. We also dropped one recommendation from the Measure FF audit because the Fire Department stated that technological limitations prevented them from implementing it and they will accept the associated risk.

Figure 2. City departments and the Library implemented 9 recommendations during this reporting period.

Background
The Berkeley City Auditor’s mission is to promote transparency and accountability in Berkeley government.

Each audit report we issue includes recommendations for how the City can serve residents more equitably, efficiently, and effectively. Following up on audit recommendations in this report and on our online dashboard helps hold departments accountable for implementing the improvements they agreed to.

Additional up-to-date information on each audit recommendation is available on our online dashboard on our website.

Implementation Status of Recommendations
In our last audit follow-up report on May 14, 2024, there were 66 open recommendations. Since then, we have issued one performance audit which added nine new recommendations.

Figure 1. There are currently 58 open audit recommendations across 5 departments as well as the Library, and Mayor and City Council.

Source: Auditor’s analysis
1 The nine recommendations implemented includes two recommendations that the Library and Human Resources implemented during the previous follow-up period, but did not provide updates on the status until the current period.

Page 4 of 6 ends

Page 370 ends

Audit Recommendation Follow-Up Report: December 19, 2024 3 Audit Department Issued
Date
Implemented
Partially
Implemented
Started
Not Started
Dropped
Total
Berkeley Restaurant Inspections:

Chronically Understaffed Program Did Not
Meet Targets
Health, Housing and
Community Services 7/10/2024 0 3 5 1 0 9
Spending Aligned with Ballot Measure FF
and the City is Improving Internal
Processes
Fire
11/22/2023 5 0 0 0 1 6
Fire Prevention Inspections: Insufficient
Resources Strain Code Compliance
Fire
5/9/2019 0 0 0 0 11 11
Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained
by Staff Retention Challenges and
Delayed Hiring
City Manager, Human
Resources, Mayor and
Council
6/22/2023 3 13 7 2 0 25
Berkeley's Financial Condition FY 2012-
FY2021: Pension Liabilities and
Infrastructure Need Attention
City Manager (Budget
Office), Finance, Public
Works
5/5/2022 1 3 1 0 0 5
Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to
Manage Overtime and Security Work for
Outside Entities
Police
3/3/2022 10 2 0 0 0 12
Fleet Replacement Fund Short Millions Public Works 6/2/2021 0 11 1 0 0 12 Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and
Significantly Underfunded
Public Works 11/19/2020 3 2 0 0 0 5
Berkeley Public Library Uses Tax Funds
by the Book, But More Internal Controls
Needed
Library
8/27/2020 5 0 1 0 0 6
Domestic Violence Response: Berkeley
Needs a Comprehensive Policy to Support
City Employees
Human Resources
10/10/2019 0 4 2 0 0 6
We use the following statuses to report on the implementation of audit recommendations:

Implemented: Auditee has completely implemented the recommendation.

Partially Implemented: Auditee has implemented 50 percent or more of the recommendation.

Started: Auditee has started to address the recommendation but has not reached the 50 percent threshold.

Not Started: Auditee has not yet taken action to implement the recommendation.

Dropped: Auditee has accepted the risk to the city that the recommendation is meant to address and is unable or unwilling to implement the recommendation. Additionally, all open recommendations will be reported as dropped if they are not implemented within five years of audit issuance.

Table 1. Status of Recommendations by Audit

Page 5 of 6 ends

Page 371 ends

Mission Statement
Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government.

City Auditor
Jenny Wong

Performance Audit Team
Caitlin Palmer, Audit Manager
Erin Mullin, Audit Manger
Pauline Miller, Auditor II
Kendle Kuechle, Auditor I
Katie Wysong, Auditor I

Office of the City Auditor
Phone: (510) 981-6750
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

Page 6 of 6 ends

Page 372 ends

Communications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

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

Berkeley City CouncilJanuary 21, 2025

Berkeley City Council
January 21, 2025