Agenda packet, first session — Berkeley City Council, March 25, 2025 (part 7 of 7)

Page 1142 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

General Fund revenue and transfers increased $7,513,557 or 6.23%, from $120,635,234 in the first half of FY 2024, to $128,148,791 for the same period in FY 2025.

Notable increases during the first half of FY 2025 in comparison to the first half of FY 2024 are outlined below:

1. Secured Property Taxes $ 2,481,368

2. Property Transfer Taxes 1,861,060

3. Measure P Property Transfer Taxes 2,115,047

4. Utility User Taxes 1,246,476

5. Vehicle In Lieu Taxes 563,088

6. Interest Income 1,587,660
FY 2025 FIRST HALF GENERAL FUND REVENUE DETAILS:

Supplemental Taxes (-$469,710 less than FY 2024 Actual) During the first half of FY 2025, Supplemental Taxes totaled $727,555, which was $469,710 or

39.2% less than the $1,197,265 received for the same period in FY 2024 Secured Property Tax (+$2,481,368 more than FY 2024 Actual During the first half of FY 2025, Secured Property Tax revenues totaled $45,385,988, which was $2,481,368 or 5.78% more than the $40,237,811 received for the same period in FY 2024. This result was consistent with the County’s Certification of Assessed Valuation (received from the County in August 2024), which reflects growth of 6.39%. However, the FY 2025 Adopted Budget assumed a 5.937% increase for FY 2025, so actual Secured Property Taxes are expected to be $384,484 or 0.453% more than the Adopted Budget amount of $89,887,496.

Unsecured Property Tax (+$284,578 more than FY 2024 Actual) During the first half of FY 2025, Unsecured Property Tax revenues totaled $4,165,858, which was $284,578 or 7.33% more than the amount of $3,881,280 received for the same period in FY 2024.

This amount is greater than the County’s Certification of Assessed Valuation growth of 4.84% for FY 2025. Unsecured property taxes are payable once a year and due on August 31.

Property Transfer Tax ($1,861,060 more than FY 2024 Actual) During the first half of FY 2025, Property Transfer Tax totaled $11,917,994, which was $1,861,060 or 18.5% more than the $10,056,934 received for the same period in FY 2024.

The primary reasons for the $1,861,060 increase in Property Transfer Tax were the following:
(1) The dollar value of property sales increased by $127.1 million or 19.0%, from $667.5 million in the first half of FY 2024 to $794.6 million during the same period of FY 2025, as illustrated in Table 1 below.
(2) There were four property sales of $10 million or more, with total sales of $131.1 million in the first half of FY 2025 compared to four property sales of $10 million or more, with total sales of $74.9 million in the first half of FY 2024; and, (3) The number of property sales transactions increased by 8 or 2.0% from 406 in the first half of FY 2024 to 414 during the same period of FY 2025, as illustrated in the Table 2 below.

This increase resulted despite high mortgage rates and a decline in the money supply.

Page 3 of 17 ends

Page 1143 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 4 ends

Table 1: Property Sales In Million $
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2025 $163.3 $111.0 $79.3 $167.5 $195.4 $78.1 $794.6
FY 2024 $129.2 $152.5 $99.9 $95.7 $95.8 $94.4 $667.5
Change 34.1 -41.5 -20.6 71.8 99.6 -16.3 127.1 % Change 26.4% -27.2% -20.6% 75.0% 104.0% -17.3% 19.0% Table 2: Number of Property Sales Transactions
Measure P-Property Transfer Tax ($2,113,749 more than FY 2024 Actual) Measure P tax totaling $4,954,008 was collected during the first half of FY 2025, which was $2,113,749 or 74.4% more than the $2,840,259 collected during the same period of FY 2024.

This increase resulted primarily from the following:
(1) An increase of $168.9 million or 51.7% in the dollar value of property sales amount in the first half of FY 2025 versus those in the first half of FY 2024 as reflected in Table 3; (2) The number of property sales transactions increased by 54 or 62.1% during the first half of FY 2025, as illustrated in Table 4 below; and, (3) There were four property sales of $10 million or more totaling $131.1 million during this six-month period in FY 2025, compared to four transactions with total property sales of $74.9 million for the same period in FY 2024.

Table 3: Property Sales $1.5 million+ In Million $
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2025 $113.9 $55.9 $31.3 $123.5 $137.5 $33.3 $495.4
FY 2024 $62.8 $87.2 $48.5 $51.9 $33.6 $42.5 $326.5
Change +51.1 -31.3 -17.2 +71.6 +103.9 -9.2 +168.9 % Change +81.4% -35.9% -35.5% +138.0% +309.2% -21.6% +51.7% Table 4: Property Transactions $1.5 Million and Above
Sales Tax ($59,381 more than FY 2024 Actual )
For the first half of FY 2025, Sales Tax revenue totaled $9,364,937, which was $59,381 or 0.6% more than the $9,305,556 received for the same period in FY 2024. The City’s Sales Tax Consultant has noticed a softening of sales in several categories since the Adopted Budget was passed and has revised revenue projections in the following categories:

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2025 75 72 55 69 86 57 414
FY 2024 79 73 64 61 67 62 406
Change -4 -1 -9 +8 +19 -5 +8
% Change -.5.1% -1.4% -14.1% +13.1% +28.4% -8.1% +2.0%
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2025 31 25 10 26 34 15 141
FY 2024 18 17 12 15 12 13 87
Change +13 +8 -2 +11 +22 +2 +54
% Change +72.2% +47.1% -18.2% +73.3% +183.3% +15.4% +62.1%

Page 4 of 17 ends

Page 1144 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 5 ends

Table 5: Sales Tax Projection by Category
Category Adopted Budget Revised Projection Difference
General Retail $ 4,238,366 $4,030,688 ($207,678)
Food Products 5,560,276 5,735,139 174,863
Transportation 2,502,228 2,212,552 (289,676) Construction 1,446,252 1,523,947 77,695
Business to Business 1,953,502 1,639,895 (313,607) Miscellaneous 597,063 747,279 150,216 County Pool 3,728,930 4,014,965 286,035
State Pool 8,320 8,008 (312) County Sharing (1,011,769) (995,624) 16,145 CDTFA Administration (138,933) (144,618) (5,685) Total $18,884,235 $ 18,772,231 ($112,004)

Utility Users Taxes (+$1,246,476 more than FY 2024 Actual) Utility Users Tax revenue for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $9,047,804, which was $1,246,476 or 15.98% more than the $7,801,328 received for FY 2024. This increase of $1,246,476 resulted from increases/decreases in the following categories:

Table 6: FY25 Revenues Compared to FY24 Revenues by Utility Type Utility Type FY2025 FY 2024 $ Change % Change
Telephone $ 443,221 $515,199 $-71,978 -14.0%
Cable 458,076 475,793 - 17,717 -3.72% Cellular 896,208 881,338 14,870 1.69%
Electric 6,001,290 4,792,052 1,209,239 25.2%
Gas 1,249,009 1,136,947 112,062 9.86%
Total $9,047,804 $7,801,328 $1,246,476 15.98%
On top of significant increases in rates in 2022 and 2023, PG&E rate changes in 2024 were the following:
(1) On January 1, 2024, PG&E rates increased by about 13% across both generation and delivery;
(2) On March 1, 2024, PG&E increased delivery rates by 0.3%; (3) On April 1, 2024, PG&E rates increased by 1.4%;
(4) Natural gas prices have also increased this year. On September 1, 2024, PG&E implemented an 8.3% increase in natural gas rates.

The primary reasons PG&E has given for the rate increases are as follows:
(1) Inflation, including increases in employee and management salaries; (2) Wildfire mitigation-investing in undergrounding electric lines to reduce the risk of wildfires;
(3) Aging infrastructure that needs to be maintained and upgraded; (4) Unprecedented weather events; and,
(5) Pay off debt from the California energy crisis.

Page 5 of 17 ends

Page 1145 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 6 ends

Transient Occupancy Tax (-$166,857 less than FY 2024 Actual) The total net Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue reported for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $3,583,976 (after deducting $665,260 in TOT rebates owed), which was $166,857 or 4.45% less than the $3,750,833 (after deducting $642,939 in TOT rebates owed) received for the same period in 2024. The decline was primarily attributable to the failure of one of the six largest hotels not paying any TOT taxes in any of the six months of the fiscal year.

Short-Term Rentals (-$25,541 less than FY 2024 Actual) Short-Term Rentals revenue for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $661,730, which was $25,541 or

3.7% less than the $687,271 received for the same period in FY 2024.

Business License Taxes (-$254,045 less than FY 2024 Actual) Business license Taxes (BLT) revenue for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $1,338,857, which was $254,045 or 15.9% less than the $1,592,902 received for the same period in FY 2024.

Although it is too soon to determine if this decrease is due to a decline in growth or due to the timing of the processing of the Business License Tax receipts, as these taxes are not delinquent until March 1st. However, the following is an explanation for the $254,045 decline in the first half of FY 2025: This year, Staff made a much bigger push for businesses to renew online. As such, it appears that many businesses who used to renew extremely early in December are now planning to renew online later. In other words, rather than reporting and paying taxes in December 2024, businesses are waiting to file in January 2025 and February 2025 to avoid penalties. In addition, in FY 2025, there have been more overall license renewals but the average business license tax went down from $1,121 in FY 2024 to $775 in FY 2025.

U1 Revenues (-$53 ,444 less than FY 2024 Actual)
U1 revenues for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $128,163, which was $53,444 or 29.4% less than the $181,607 received for the same period in FY 2024.

It is too soon to determine if this decrease is due to a decline in growth or due to the timing of the processing of the U1 receipts, as these taxes are not delinquent until March 1 st. However, the push to pay online applied to U1 revenue as well as BLT, and the explanation for the decline in BLT is likely applicable to U1 revenue.

Vehicle In Lieu Taxes (+$563,088 more than FY 2024 Actual) Vehicle in Lieu Taxes (VLF) for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $9,500,999, which was $563,088 or 6.30% more than the $8,937,911 received for the same period in FY 2024. This result was consistent with the County’s Certification of Assessed Valuation (received in August 2024), which reflects growth of 6.39%. Changes in VLF revenues are based on the growth in assessed values.

However, the Adopted Budget reflects growth of 5.50%, so actual Vehicle In Lieu Taxes are expected to be $159,030 or .89% more than the Adopted Budget amount of $18,851,257.

Other Taxes (+$52,468 more than FY 2024 Actual)
Other Taxes (excluding Redemptions-Regular) for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $1,951,624 which was $52,468 or 2.76% more than the $1,899,156 received for the same period in FY 2024.

The primary reason for the increase was (1) an increase of $128,862 in Parking Lot Taxes; (2) a decline of $153,194 in BLT penalties; (3) an increase of $32,873 in BLT interest; and, (4) an increase of $43,827 in Transportation Network Company User Tax (i.e., a tax on ride sharing companies enacted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic).

Page 6 of 17 ends

Page 1146 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 7 ends

Parking Fines (-$320,386 less than FY 2024 Actual)
Parking Fines revenue for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $2,932,701, which was $320,386 or

9.85% less than the $3,253,087 received for the same period in FY 2024.

For the first half of FY 2025, ticket writing increased by 9,950 or 12.9% from 77,018 in the first half of FY 2024 to 86,968 in the same period in FY 2025, as follows:

Table 7: Parking Fines FY25 Revenues Compared to FY24 Revenues July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2025 14,221 15,033 14,744 14,872 13,308 14,790 86,968 FY 2024 12,623 14,122 13,099 13,087 12,425 11,662 77,018 Difference
1,598 911 1,645 1,785 883

3,128

9,950
% Difference 12.7% 6.5% 12.6% 13.6% 7.11% 26.8% 12.9%
Despite the 12.9% increase in ticket writing during the first half of FY 2025, revenue declined $320,386 or 9.85%. Staff believes the decline was attributable to changes in how parking fines are allowed to be collected in California. For example, towing and removal of vehicles for non- payment of parking citations is no longer allowed in California. Staff is seeing vehicles that have thousands of dollars in delinquent parking citations that customers are not paying.

Ambulance Fees (-$46,732 less than FY 2024 Actual)
Ambulance Fees revenue for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $3,768,540, which was $46,732 or

1.22% less than the $3,815,272 received for the same period in FY 2024.

Interest Income (+$1,587,660 more than FY 2024 Actual)
For the first half of FY 2025, Interest Income totaled $8,207,451, which was $1,587,660 or 24.0% more than the total of $6,619,791 received for the same period in FY 2024.This increase was primarily attributable to a slight increase in the net interest rate earned by the City in the first half of FY 2025 from a range of 2.84%-3.10% during the first half of FY 2024, to a range of 2.93%-

3.32% during the first half of FY 2025, as shown below. The FY 2025 Interest Income projection is being increased from $13.5 million to $14.3 million.

Table 8: Monthly Interest Rate Earned
FY July August Sept Oct Nov Dec
2025 3.32% 3.18% 3.04% 3.05% 2.93% 3.05%
2024 3.10% 3.02% 2.95% 2.95% 2.88% 2.84%
Indirect Cost Reimbursements (-$58,486 less than FY 2024 Actual) IDC Reimbursement (IDC) decreases result from decreases in the indirect cost allocation base (i.e., total direct salaries and wages in the fund), a decrease in the indirect cost rate or a combination of decreases or increases in both factors. IDC for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $3,200,593, which was $58,486 or 1.79% less than the $3,259,079 received for the same period in FY 2024. The decline was primarily accounted for by a decrease in IDC rates for Zero Waste, Sanitary Sewer, Permit Service Center and Street Lighting funds from 21% in the first half of FY 2024 to 18% for the same period in FY 2025, while the IDC rate for the Marina Fund increased from 17% in the first half of FY 2024 to 23% for the same period in FY 2025.

Page 7 of 17 ends

Page 1147 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 8 ends

The net decrease resulting from these changes in rates were partially offset by an increase of $1,277,203 or 8.6% in the indirect cost allocation base (total direct salaries and wages) from $14,846,041 in the first half of FY 2024 to $16,123,244 for the same period in FY 2025, creating a small decline of $58,486 or 1.79% in total IDC.

Transfers (-$1,955,001 less than FY 2024 Actual)
Transfers from other funds for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $2,090,961 which was $1,955,001 or 48.3% less than the $4,045,962 received for the same period in FY 2024. This was primarily attributable to the Transfer of $1,627,872 from the American Rescue Plan Fund (ARPA) to recover from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in FY 2024, compared to no ARPA Transfers in FY 2025; in addition, the Parking Meter Fund transfers declined from $871,144 in FY 2024 to $521,144 in FY 2025.

Other Revenues ($757,874 more than FY 2024 Actual)
Other Revenues primarily consists of licenses and permits; grants; preferential parking fees; general government charges for services; public safety charges for services; health charges for services; culture and recreation charges for services; rents and royalties; and other miscellaneous revenues that are not considered major.

Other Revenues for the first half of FY 2025 totaled $3,776,486 which was $757,874 or 25.1% more than the $3,018,612 received for the same period in FY 2024. This increase of $757,874 was primarily attributable to (1) An increase of $145, 725 in the PTP Car Sharing Permit; and, an increase of $386,136 in Mutual Aid Reimbursements in the first half of FY 2025.

General Fund Expenditures
The General Fund pays for public safety and general government functions and supports other programs and services delivered by various City departments. On June 25, 2024 the City Council adopted the FY 2025 Budget, which authorized General Fund expenditures in FY 2025 of $285.55 million. Subsequently, on December 3, 2024, the City Council approved General Fund recommended encumbered rollovers, unencumbered carryovers, and adjustments totaling $48.10 million in the Amendment to the FY 2025 Annual Appropriations Ordinance (AAO1) increasing the revised budget to $333.65 million.

General Fund expenditures incurred by departments as of December 31, 2024 are shown in the following chart along with projections regarding the expenditures likely to be incurred through June 30, 2025. The projected savings/deficit column in the chart below is an estimate of whether the department will be under or over the revised budget and their respective appropriation limit based upon the first six months of the year. Overall, General Fund expenditures are projected to be less than the current revised budget of $332.01 million by $2.24 million at the end of FY 2025 (Revised Budget minus Projected Expenses).

On average approximately 49.6% of the personnel budget has been spent halfway through the fiscal year. However, overall personnel expenditures are projected at $193.92 million, which is $9.26 million greater than the revised budget. The overage reflects increased personnel costs based upon approved labor agreements and public safety overtime offset by salary savings in other departments. Projected expenditures will fluctuate as departments either (1) fill vacant positions; (2) continue to use overtime to provide critical public safety services; (3) redirect personnel savings to cover the costs of consultants and other professional services (“non-

Page 8 of 17 ends

Page 1148 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 9 ends

personnel costs”) to mitigate vacant staff positions or (4) address vacancies or other factors that will delay the implementation of projects.

FY 2025 Mid-Year General Fund Expenditures (as of December 31, 2024) *Due to timing, FY 2025 Revised does not reflect as of December 31, 2024 all Council approved allocations included in the FY 2025 AAO1.

Explanations for significant projected savings and overages are as follows:
 Mayor and Council: $830,405: Projected savings to the Mayor and Council’s budget are due to the initial budget assumption of two full-time equivalents (FTEs) being hired at the top step of the salary range. In practice, staff were hired at various steps, which resulted in personnel cost savings.
 City Auditor’s Office: $158,168: The projected savings is primarily the result of salary savings from vacancies.
 Office of the Director of Police Accountability: $124,810: The anticipated savings are the result of a staff vacancy.
 City Manager’s Office: $176,579: Projected savings from the release of encumbrances from completed contracts and salary savings from keeping vacant positions unfilled.  City Attorney’s Office: $628,145: The projected savings results from vacancies.  City Clerk: $409,896: The projected savings are due to lower than expected election costs. However, the County invoice for the November 2024 election has not yet been received and it is feasible the cost will be more than the $1 million budget.

DEPARTMENT
FY 2025

ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 2025

REVISED
BUDGET*

YEAR TO
DATE

EXPENDED ENCUMBRANCES

AVAILABLE
BUDGET

PERSONNEL

PERCENTAGE
USED
NON-

PERSONNEL

PERCENTAGE
USED
TOTAL

PERCENTAGE
USED
FY 2025

PROJECTED

EXPENDITURES
FY 2025

PROJECTED
ENDING

BALANCE/(DEFICIT)
MAYOR AND COUNCIL 5,929,941 7,546,073 2,555,615 41,131 4,949,327 33.9% 41.8% 34.4% 6,715,668 830,405 CITY AUDITOR 3,657,880 3,978,425 1,694,488 196,112 2,087,826 45.5% 59.5% 47.5% 3,820,257 158,168 RENT STABILIZATION BOARD 0 97,372 91,667 5,705 0 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97,372 - POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 1,484,847 1,934,660 771,517 216,064 947,079 42.9% 65.5% 51.0% 1,809,850 124,810 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 14,352,199 20,391,790 9,315,949 3,978,946 7,096,896 50.7% 81.2% 65.2% 20,215,211 176,579 CITY ATTORNEY 5,612,249 7,802,788 2,767,380 662,162 4,373,246 37.7% 57.1% 44.0% 7,174,643 628,145 CITY CLERK 2,867,551 4,137,558 1,794,461 450,925 1,892,172 48.5% 59.0% 53.3% 3,727,662 409,896 FINANCE 9,302,266 10,242,676 3,846,235 861,449 5,534,992 37.1% 75.1% 46.0% 9,070,556 1,172,120 HUMAN RESOURCES 3,928,242 4,611,227 2,048,251 334,223 2,228,753 49.4% 56.7% 51.7% 4,614,256 (3,029) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1,580,760 2,178,188 740,715 324,193 1,113,279 0.0% 48.9% 48.9% 1,481,431 696,757 HEALTH, HSG & COMMUNITY SVC 31,950,903 42,797,711 15,209,270 11,994,980 15,593,461 43.8% 74.0% 63.6% 41,520,182 1,277,529

PARKS, RECREATION &
WATERFRONT 9,625,120 20,936,165 8,830,547 5,025,150 7,080,468 60.5% 68.1% 66.2% 20,737,973 198,192 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 3,745,097 6,635,901 1,993,062 1,753,033 2,889,807 41.6% 69.1% 56.5% 6,303,931 331,970 PUBLIC WORKS 7,046,368 12,421,685 3,425,914 1,945,509 7,050,262 27.6% 53.2% 43.2% 10,802,674 1,619,011 POLICE 86,427,222 84,550,453 43,719,975 894,700 39,935,777 51.0% 69.5% 52.8% 90,691,088 (6,140,635) FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES 47,108,481 52,458,169 27,729,260 4,982,301 19,746,608 57.4% 76.5% 62.4% 59,821,156 (7,362,987) NON DEPARTMENTAL 50,930,926 49,291,556 7,174,583 269,908 41,847,065 0.0% 14.7% 15.1% 41,165,147 8,126,409 GRAND TOTAL 285,550,053 332,012,398 133,708,890 33,936,491 164,367,018 49.6% 51.6% 50.5% 329,769,057 2,243,341

Page 9 of 17 ends

Page 1149 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 10 ends

 Finance: $1,172,120: Personnel vacancies significantly impacted the first half expenditures, and will continue to have some impact on the second half of the fiscal year.  Human Resources: (-$3,029): The projected shortfall is primary attributed to overtime to compensate for staffing shortages.
 Information Technology: $696,757: The projected balance is due to various Cybersecurity projects that will not be completed in FY 2025.
 Health, Housing & Community Services: $1,277,529: Projected savings due to vacancies, including difficulties in hiring specific socialized classifications.  Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront: $198,192: Projected savings are related to non- personnel expenditures expected to be delayed beyond the end of the fiscal year.  Planning: $331,970: Projected savings is primarily comprised of salary savings due to vacancies.
 Public Works: $1,619,011: Projected surplus due to salary savings and projects that will not be started by June 30, 2025.
 Police: (-$6,140,635): The main contributing factor to the projected overages in the Police Department is overtime costs.
 Fire: (-$7,362,987): The Fire Department is projected to exceed its budget for FY 2025 due to staffing challenges. The overage is primarily driven by projected overtime costs of approximately $5.39 million (or $2.14 million more than budgeted), worker compensation payment of $1.39 million and higher fringe benefits. In addition, vehicle maintenance and replacements costs are projected to be over budget by approximately $850,000.  Non-Departmental: $8,126,409: This balance includes savings of $4,739,411 from the “Workers’ Compensation Holiday” and $3,843,784 budgeted for anticipated increased labor costs offset by costs incurred for the School Board Directors stipends and remaining payments related to the COVID Hero Pay approved in FY 2024 AAO1.

FY 2025 All Funds Mid-Year Summary
All Funds Revenues
General Fund revenues make up approximately 40.51% of the FY 2025 Adopted revenues. In addition, the City receives revenues through other sources including, but not limited to, (1) special funds, which largely includes voter approved assessments that are collected for specific purposes, (2) grants that include intergovernmental revenue from the federal, state and county governments; and (3) enterprise funds that collect fees for providing services. Citywide adopted revenues total $674.95 million, which reflects an increase of 3.43% over the FY 2024 Adopted.

As of December 31, 2024, $356.83 million has been received, or 51.97%, based on a revised revenue budget of $686.61 million. Similar to the General Fund, high interest rates also negatively impact construction projects, which influences the revenues received by the Permit Service Center for example. Other revenue sources appear to be on track with projections; however, there is a great deal of uncertainty related to the receipt of federal funding.

Page 10 of 17 ends

Page 1150 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 11 ends

All Funds Expenditures
In addition to the General Fund, the City has hundreds of other funds that are largely restricted in terms of the services that the funds support. The FY 2025 Mid-Year All Funds Expenditures by Department chart on the next page shows both General Fund and Other Funds expenditures as of December 31, 2024. On an All Funds basis, the City is tracking on budget at 47.10 percent at mid-year. The City is projected to close FY 2025 with an underspending of $93.66 million based upon the revised budget as of December 31, 2024.

Page 11 of 17 ends

Page 1151 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 12 ends

FY 2025 MID-YEAR ALL FUNDS EXPENDITURES (AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2024) *FY 2025 Revised does not reflect as of December 31, 2024 all Council approved allocations included in the FY 2025 AAO #1.

Explanations for significant projected savings and overages are as follows:
 Mayor and Council: $830,405: Mayor and Council are funded by 100% General Fund.

Projected savings are from General Fund Salary Savings as noted in the previous section.
 City Auditor: $219,038: The projected savings is primarily the result of salary savings from vacancies for positions funded by General Fund and the Workers’ Compensation Fund.
 City Manager’s Office: $515,495: In addition to the $176,579 of General Fund in the previous table, additional savings will come from other funds such as the Cultural Trust Fund for the Arts budget and Measure T1 Fund for the Phase 2 project.

DEPARTMENT FY 2025

ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 2025

REVISED
BUDGET*
(as of
12/31/24)
FY 2025

EXPENDED
(as of
12/31/24)

ENCUMBRANCES
(as of 12/31/24)

AVAILABLE
BUDGET
(as of
12/31/24)
TOTAL

PERCENTAGE
USED
FY 2025

PROJECTED

EXPENDITURES
FY 2025

PROJECTED
ENDING

BALANCE/(DEFICIT)
MAYOR AND COUNCIL 5,929,941 7,546,073 2,555,615 41,131 4,949,327 $ 34.4% 6,715,668 830,405 CITY AUDITOR 3,759,532 4,080,077 1,713,933 196,112 2,170,033 $ 46.8% 3,861,039 219,038 RENT STABILIZATION BOARD 8,489,208 11,131,200 3,672,276 981,570 6,477,354 $ 41.8% 11,131,200 - POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 1,484,847 1,934,660 771,517 216,064 947,079 $ 51.0% 1,809,850 124,810 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 18,116,986 29,759,208 11,908,063 5,067,590 12,783,555 $ 57.0% 29,243,713 515,495 BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY 29,196,379 29,746,783 12,188,078 3,486,140 14,072,564 $ 52.7% 29,695,930 50,853 CITY ATTORNEY 9,290,707 12,169,189 4,352,659 1,131,452 6,685,078 $ 45.1% 11,539,517 629,672 CITY CLERK 3,518,483 4,788,490 2,263,043 450,925 2,074,522 $ 56.7% 3,855,514 932,976 FINANCE 11,823,351 12,838,872 4,820,838 956,316 7,061,718 $ 45.0% 11,476,285 1,362,587 HUMAN RESOURCES 5,993,013 6,851,787 3,145,460 426,300 3,280,026 $ 52.1% 6,706,572 145,215 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 23,471,574 27,009,191 10,264,181 2,480,085 14,264,926 $ 47.2% 20,048,420 6,960,771 HEALTH, HSG & COMMUNITY SVC 137,886,423 175,113,677 43,222,468 32,925,897 98,965,312 $ 43.5% 162,704,251 12,409,426 PARKS, RECREATION & WF 47,477,377 114,231,227 30,790,184 28,409,413 55,031,629 $ 51.8% 94,857,323 19,373,904 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 33,307,718 39,250,353 13,526,593 4,647,303 21,076,457 $ 46.3% 35,973,150 3,277,203 PUBLIC WORKS 196,515,786 330,970,448 79,965,938 63,814,672 187,189,838 43.4% 272,592,552 58,377,896 POLICE 91,311,451 91,122,096 46,217,269 1,509,166 43,395,661 $ 52.4% 96,550,571 (5,428,475) FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES 71,480,646 79,914,159 37,163,343 7,987,960 34,762,857 $ 56.5% 86,750,120 (6,835,961) NON DEPARTMENTAL 94,266,289 98,193,407 43,102,511 339,811 54,751,085$ 44.2% 97,479,644 713,763 GRAND TOTAL 793,319,711 1,076,650,897 351,643,971 155,067,906 569,939,021 47.1% 982,991,319 93,659,579

Page 12 of 17 ends

Page 1152 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 13 ends

 City Attorney: $629,672: The projected savings are a result of General Fund salary savings results due to vacancies. The CAO expects that these savings will be needed for policy priorities and responses to uncertain and rapidly shifting federal guidance.  City Clerk: $374,282: Savings from the Fair Elections Fund due to no further known election activities for the remainder of FY 2025. The Department is not anticipating any further expenditures from this fund.
 Human Resources: $145,215: While General Fund is projected to have an overage of (-$3,029), the Employee Training Fund is projected to have savings as a result of a vacancy in the Training division.
 The Office of the Director of Police Accountability: $124,810: General Fund savings due to a vacancy in the department.
 Finance: $1,362,587: Personnel vacancies for General Fund and Zero Waste funded positions significantly contributed to the anticipated to savings for the fiscal year.  Information Technology: $6,960,771: Projected due to staff vacancies in IT Cost Allocation fund. In addition, some projects were either delayed or costs were less than projected, contributing to the increase in savings for the fiscal year.  Health, Housing, & Community Services: $12,409,426: In addition to General Fund savings of $1.3 million, program expenditures pertaining to Affordable Housing Mitigation Fund, various grants, and special funds contribute to savings for the fiscal year.  Parks, Recreation & Waterfront: $19,373,904: Personnel savings due to over budgeting for program managers in FY25. Non-personnel budget surplus of $14M is made up of anticipated FY26 AAO1 capital carryover requests for the African American Holistic Resource Center, Cesar Chavez Restroom, Civic Center Plaza, D and E Dock Replacement and Tom Bates Restroom Projects.
 Planning: $3,277,203: Projected savings is primarily comprised of salary savings due to vacancies in positions funded by the General Fund, Rental Housing Safety Program, and the Permit Service Center Fund.
 Police Department: -$5,428,475: The Department projects a deficit in the General Fund of $6.14 million due to high vacancy rates causing an increase in overtime expenses and underfunded fringe benefit costs offset by savings in other funds.  Fire Department: -$6,835,961: The Department projects a deficit in the General Fund of $7.34 million due to high vacancy rates causing an increase in overtime expenses and underfunded fringe benefit costs offset by minor savings in other funds.

Next Steps:

In preparation for the year-end close, the City Manager’s Office and Finance Department will be coordinating with departments to review encumbrances and assess the feasibility of releasing some of the encumbrances before year-end; reviewing planned fourth quarter transfers among funds to determine if the transfers could be reduced and continuing to work with the public safety departments to address overtime. The actual FY 2025 year-end status will be known sometime in late December 2025 after the completion of the financial audit.

Page 13 of 17 ends

Page 1153 ends

FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025

Page 14 ends

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no impacts associated with receiving this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000 Henry Oyekanmi, Finance Director, Department of Finance, 981-7300 Angelique Tolliver, Senior Management Analyst, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000 Attachments:

1. Table: General Fund Revenue and Transfer In FY 2025 Mid-Year vs FY 2024 Mid-Year Comparison

2. Table: FY 2025 Mid-Year General Fund Expenditures (as of December 31, 2024)

3. Table: FY 2025 Mid-Year All Funds Expenditures (as of December 31, 2024)

Page 14 of 17 ends

Page 1154 ends

Attachment 1
Revenue Categories Adopted Actual Variance % Received Adopted Actual Variance %
Received Amount %
(a) (b) c=(b) - (a) ( d) = (b)/(a) (e) (f) g=(f) - (e) ( )
(f)/(g) (i) = (b) - (f) (j) = (i)/(f)
Secured Property $89,887,496 $45,385,988 ($44,501,508) 50.49% $75,664,920 $42,904,620 ($32,760,300) 56.70% 2,481,368 5.78% Redemptions -Regular 1,018,153 567,891 (450, 262) 55.78% 831,441 524,404 -307, 037 63.07% 43,487 8.29% Supplemental Taxes 3,400,000 727,555 (2, 672,445) 21.40% 2,000,000 1,197, 265 -802, 735 59.86% (469,710) -39. 23% Unsecured Property Taxes 4,648,038 4,165,858 (482, 180) 89.63% 3,516,000 3,881, 280 365,280 110. 39% 284,578 7.33% Property Transfer Tax 19,000,000 11,917,994 (7, 082,006) 62.73% 34,462,172 10,056, 934 -24, 405,238 29.18% 1,861,060 18.51% Property Transfer Tax-Measure P (New December 21, 2018) 6,199,580 4,955,306 (1, 244,274) 79.93% 14,073,750 2,840, 259 -11, 233,491 20.18% 2,115,047 74.47% Sales Taxes 18,884,235 9,364,937 (9, 519,298) 49.59% 19,016,546 9,305, 556 -9, 710,990 48.93% 59,381 0.64% Soda Taxes 1,147,387 512,817 (634, 570) 44.69% 990,210 581,705 -408, 505 58.75% (68,888) -11. 84% Utility Users Taxes 17,700,000 9,047,804 (8, 652,196) 51.12% 13,800,000 7,801, 328 -5, 998,672 56.53% 1,246,476 15.98% Transient Occupancy Taxes 7,688,065 4,249,236 (3, 438,829) 55.27% 5,000,000 4,393, 772 -606, 228 87.88% (144,536) -3. 29% Less: TOT rebates owed (3) (665,260) (642,939) (22, 321) 3.47% Short-term Rentals 1,400,000 661,730 (738, 270) 47.27% 1,000,000 687,271 -312, 729 68.73% (25,541) -3. 72% Business License Tax 23,664,000 1,338,857 (22, 325,143) 5.66% 19,000,000 1,592, 902 -17, 407,098 8.38% (254,045) -15. 95% Recreational Cannabis 18,000 19,017 1,017 105. 65% 1,400,000 76,512 -1, 323,488 5.47% (57,495) -75. 15% U1 Revenues 6,500,000 128,163 (6, 371,837) 1.97% 4,900,000 181,607 -4, 718,393 3.71% (53,444) -29. 43% Other Taxes (excluding Redemptions-Regular) 4,434,906 1,951,624 (2, 483,282) 44.01% 1,800,000 1,899, 156 99,156 105. 51% 52,468 2.76% Vehicle In-Lieu Taxes 18,851,257 9,500,999 (9, 350,258) 50.40% 15,926,168 8,937, 911 -6, 988,257 56.12% 563,088 6.30% Parking Fines-Regular Collections 5,800,000 2,932,701 (2, 867,299) 50.56% 4,326,450 3,253, 087 -1, 073,363 75.19% (320,386) -9. 85% Parking Fines-Booting Collections 0 0 0.00% - 0.00% Moving Violations 132,600 73,119 (59, 481) 55.14% 132,600 96,254 -36, 346 72.59% (23,135) -24. 04% Ambulance Fees 7,734,813 3,768,540 (3, 966,273) 48.72% 3,880,779 3,815, 272 -65, 507 98.31% (46,732) -1. 22% Interest Income 13,500,000 8,207,451 (5, 292,549) 60.80% 6,000,000 6,619, 791 619,791 110. 33% 1,587,660 23.98% Franchise Fees 1,822,528 268,424 (1, 554,104) 14.73% 1,613,283 307,634 -1, 305,649 19.07% (39,210) -12. 75% Other Revenue 8,759,495 3,776,486 (4, 983,009) 43.11% 6,729,977 3,018, 612 -3, 711,365 44.85% 757,874 25.11% IDC Reimbursement 7,031,624 3,200,593 (3, 831,031) 45.52% 5,490,000 3,259, 079 -2, 230,921 59.36% (58,486) -1. 79% Transfers 4,181,923 2,090,961 (2, 090,962) 50.00% 17,096,148 4,045, 962 -13, 050,186 23.67% (1,955,001) -48. 32% Total Revenue: $273,404,100 $128,148,791 -$145,255,309 46.87% $258,650,444 $120,635,234 -$138,015,210 46.64% $7,513,557 6.23% Notes: (1) This statement is presented on a budgetary basis (i.e., cash). (2) Current vendor no longer breaks out Regular and Booting Parking Fines Collections (3
) Includes the amount of TOT rebates paid during the period (4) Total Other Taxes includes Redemptions-Regular
General Fund Revenue and Transfer Mid Year FY 2025 vs Mid Year FY 2024 Comparison FY 2025 FY 2024 Comparision FY25 vs FY24

Page 15 of 17 ends

Page 1155 ends

Attachment 2

DEPARTMENT
FY 2025

ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 2025

REVISED
BUDGET*

YEAR TO
DATE

EXPENDED ENCUMBRANCES

AVAILABLE
BUDGET

PERSONNEL

PERCENTAGE
USED
NON-

PERSONNEL

PERCENTAGE
USED
TOTAL

PERCENTAGE
USED
FY 2025

PROJECTED

EXPENDITURES
FY 2025 PROJECTED
ENDING

PARKS, RECREATION &
WATERFRONT 9,625,120 20,936,165 8,830, 547 5,025,150 7,080,468 60.5% 68.1% 66.2% 20,737,973 198,192 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 3,745,097 6,635,901 1,993,062 1,753,033 2,889,807 41.6% 69.1% 56.5% 6,303,931 331,970 PUBLIC WORKS 7,046,368 12,421,685 3,425,914 1,945,509 7,050,262 27.6% 53.2% 43.2% 10,802,674 1,619,011 POLICE 86,427,222 84,550,453 43,719,975 894,700 39,935,777 51.0% 69.5% 52.8% 90,691,088 (6,140,635) FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES 47,108,481 52,458,169 27,729,260 4,982,301 19,746,608 57.4% 76.5% 62.4% 59,821,156 (7,362,987) NON DEPARTMENTAL 50,930,926 49,291,556 7,174,583 269,908 41,847,065 0.0% 14.7% 15.1% 41,165,147 8,126,409 GRAND TOTAL 285,550,053 332,012,398 133,708,890 33,936,491 164,367,018 49.6% 51.6% 50.5% 329,769,057 2,243,341 FY 2025 MID-YEAR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2024) *FY 2025 Revised does not reflect as of December 31, 2024 all Council approved allocations included in the FY 2025 AAO #1.

Page 16 of 17 ends

Page 1156 ends

Attachment 3
DEPARTMENT FY 2025

ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 2025

REVISED
BUDGET*
(as of 12/31/24)
FY 2025
EXPENDED (as
of 12/31/24)

ENCUMBRANCES
(as of 12/31/24)

AVAILABLE
BUDGET
(as of 12/31/24)
TOTAL

PERCENTAGE
USED
FY 2025

PROJECTED

EXPENDITURES
FY 2025 PROJECTED
ENDING

BALANCE/(DEFICIT)
MAYOR AND COUNCIL 5,929,941 7,546,073 2,555,615 41,131 4,949,327$ 34.4% 6,715,668 830,405 CITY AUDITOR 3,759,532 4,080,077 1,713,933 196,112 2,170,033$ 46.8% 3,861,039 219,038 RENT STABILIZATION BOARD 8,489,208 11,131,200 3,672,276 981,570 6,477,354$ 41.8% 11,131,200 - POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 1,484,847 1,934,660 771,517 216,064 947,079$ 51.0% 1,809,850 124,810 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 18,116,986 29,759,208 11,908,063 5,067,590 12,783,555$ 57.0% 29,243,713 515,495 BERKELEY PUBLIC LIBRARY 29,196,379 29,746,783 12,188,078 3,486,140 14,072,564$ 52.7% 29,695,930 50,853 CITY ATTORNEY 9,290,707 12,169,189 4,352,659 1,131,452 6,685,078$ 45.1% 11,539,517 629,672 CITY CLERK 3,518,483 4,788,490 2,263,043 450,925 2,074,522$ 56.7% 3,855,514 932,976 FINANCE 11,823,351 12,838,872 4,820,838 956,316 7,061,718$ 45.0% 11,476,285 1,362,587 HUMAN RESOURCES 5,993,013 6,851,787 3,145,460 426,300 3,280,026$ 52.1% 6,706,572 145,215 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 23,471,574 27,009,191 10,264,181 2,480,085 14,264,926$ 47.2% 20,048,420 6,960,771 HEALTH, HSG & COMMUNITY SVC 137,886,423 175,113,677 43,222,468 32,925,897 98,965,312$ 43.5% 162,704,251 12,409,426 PARKS, RECREATION & WF 47,477,377 114,231,227 30,790,184 28,409,413 55,031,629$ 51.8% 94,857,323 19,373,904 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 33,307,718 39,250,353 13,526,593 4,647,303 21,076,457$ 46.3% 35,973,150 3,277,203 PUBLIC WORKS 196,515,786 330,970,448 79,965,938 63,814,672 187,189,838 43.4% 272,592,552 58,377,896 POLICE 91,311,451 91,122,096 46,217,269 1,509,166 43,395,661$ 52.4% 96,550,571 (5,428,475) FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES 71,480,646 79,914,159 37,163,343 7,987,960 34,762,857$ 56.5% 86,750,120 (6,835,961) NON DEPARTMENTAL 94,266,289 98,193,407 43,102,511 339,811 54,751,085$ 44.2% 97,479,644 713,763 GRAND TOTAL 793,319,711 1,076,650,897 351,643,971 155,067,906 569,939,021 47.1% 982,991,319 93,659,579 *FY 2025 Revised does not reflect as of December 31, 2024, all Council approved allocations included in the FY 2025 AAO #1.

FY 2025 MID-YEAR ALL FUNDS EXPENDITURES (AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2024)

Page 17 of 17 ends

Page 1157 ends

Page 1158 ends

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 25, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Landmarks Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision (LPO NOD): 2138 Kittredge Street/#LMIN2024-0006

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

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPO/Commission) has designated the subject property as a City Landmark. Pursuant to Government Code section 65913.10, because there is a vested preliminary application for a housing development project on the subject property, the landmark designation will apply only to the property, not to the housing project.

BACKGROUND
BMC/LPO Section 3.24.190 allows the Council to review any action of the Commission in granting or denying Landmark, Structure of Merit or Historic District status. In order for Council to review the decision on its merits, Council must appeal the NOD. To do so, a Councilmember must move this Information Item to Action and then move to “certify” the decision. Such action must be taken within 15 days from the mailing of the NOD or by March 25, 2025. Such certification to Council shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal.

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

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

Page 1 of 39 ends

Page 1159 ends

LPO NOD: 2138 Kittredge Street/#LMIN2024-0006 INFORMATION CALENDAR March 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

CONTACT PERSON
Fatema Crane, Principal Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7410 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMIN2024-0006/2138 Kittredge Street

Page 2 of 39 ends

Page 1160 ends

Attachment 1, part 1

L A N D M A R K S

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

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: February 6, 2025
DATE NOTICE MAILED: March 10, 2025
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: March 25, 2025
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): March 26, 20251 2138 Kittredge Street – The Fitzpatrick House and
Pepper Tree Tea Room
Landmark application #LMIN2024-0006 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a property originally constructed in 1904 and expanded in 1935 (APN 057-2029-015-00) The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the subject City Landmark designation application.  Applicant: 64 Berkeley Resident Petitioners
Anthony Bruce, Application Author
Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association
P.O. Box 1137
Berkeley, CA
 Property Owner: Susan Carlson
2138 Kittredge Street
Berkeley, CA
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial Downtown Outer Core (C-DMU) 1 Pursuant to BMC Chapter 3.24, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, which has the same effect as an appeal. In most cases, the Council must certify the LPC decision during the 14-day appeal period. However, pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if any portion of the appeal period falls within a Council recess, the deadline for Council certification is suspended until the first Council meeting after the recess, plus the number of days of the appeal period that occurred during the recess, minus one day. If there is no appeal or certification, the Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.

Page 3 of 39 ends

Page 1161 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2024-0006
2138 Kittredge Street
March 10, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

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

FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPLICATION MATERIALS ARE

ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE
COMMISSION VOTE: 8-0-0-0 (Note: one vacancy)
YES: CRANDALL, ENCHILL, FINACOM, LEUSCHNER, MONTGOMERY, ORBUCH,

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

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

1. Submit a letter clearly and concisely setting forth the grounds for the appeal to the City Clerk, located at 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley. The City Clerk’s telephone number is (510) 981-6900.
a. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.300.A, an appeal may be taken to the City Council by the application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents, or by the application of at least fifty residents of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the commission made under the provisions of Chapter 3.24.

2. Submit the required fee (checks and money orders must be payable to ‘City of Berkeley’):
a. The basic fee for persons other than the applicant is $1,500. This fee may be reduced to $500 if the appeal is signed by persons who lease or own at least 50 percent of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or at least 25 such persons (not including dependent children), whichever is less. Signatures collected per the filing requirement in BMC Section 3.24.300.A may be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee, so long as the signers are qualified. The individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.

Page 4 of 39 ends

Page 1162 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2024-0006
2138 Kittredge Street
March 10, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

b. The fee for appeals of affordable housing projects (defined as projects which provide 50 percent or more affordable units for households earning 80% or less of Area Median Income) is $500, which may not be reduced.
c. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $6,000.

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

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

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 5 of 39 ends

Page 1163 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2024-0006
2138 Kittredge Street
March 10, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

constitutes a “taking” as set forth above.

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

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

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

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Fatema Crane, at (510) 981-7410 or [email protected]. All project application materials may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, 3 rd Fl., during regular business hours.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings for Approval

2. Application Materials
ATTEST:

Fatema Crane, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Anthony Bruce, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, P.O. Box 1137, Berkeley, CA Susan Carlson, 2138 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA

Page 6 of 39 ends

Page 1164 ends

A t t a c h m e n t 1 , p a r t 2
Findings for Designation
FEBRUARY 6, 2025
2138 Kittredge Street – The Fitzpatrick House and Pepper Tree Tea Room
Landmark application #LMIN2024-0006 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a residential property constructed circa 1904 (APN: 057-2029-015-00)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City Landmark designation of the property at 2138 Kittredge Street

CEQA FINDINGS

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

LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORIDNANCE FINDINGS

1. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.110.A.1.(b) of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO), the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley (Commission) finds that the property at 2138 Kittredge Street meets the architectural merit criterion for City Landmark designation as an example of a Colonial Revival residence representing the work of locally prominent architect, William H. Wharff, combined with an individually distinctive example of the application of Moderne-influenced Georgian Revival styling to form its front addition. Together, the building’s original and added masses provide a strong example of a hybridized building typology that is representative of the mixed-use architecture that developed in Berkeley’s downtown during the early twentieth century. Its Colonial Revival characteristics include shiplap siding, molded wood water table and beltcourses, projecting bay with chamfered corners and molded overhang details, hipped roof with moderate overhangs and a hip dormer, as well as its retention of several wood-sash windows, and a stained-glass window. Its Georgian Revival style is expressed through its front addition, which incorporates unpainted, reddish brown brick cladding and brick detailing, arched openings with keystone details, arched windows with tripartite casements, fanlights, paneled-wood bulkheads, and a balanced composition overall.

Through the retention of its essential form and historic materials, it conveys design, materials, and workmanship aspects of integrity.

2. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110.A.2, the Commission further finds that the subject property warrants designation for its association with original owner, John Fitzgerald as well as Pepper Tree Tea Room proprietors, William and Alma Taylor. The property

Page 7 of 39 ends

Page 1165 ends

FINDINGS for DESIGNATION 2138 Kittridge Street –The Fitzpatrick House and Pepper Tree Tea Room

Page 2 of 3 ends

contributed to the Cit y’s economic development, including development of expanded commercial uses in what was a largely residential area to a commercial district along the Shattuck Avenue corridor. This pattern of twentieth century development in downtown Berkeley included the modification of low-dens ity residences to
accommodate commercial uses, such as occurred with the subject building’s 1935 addition. The property continues to exhibit characteristics that lend it a strong association to this aspect of Berkeley’s cultural history.

3. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110.A.4, the Commission finds that the property meets the criterion for historical value for its association with a pattern of residential to residential-commercial development that emerged in Berkeley in the early twentieth century. Its residential to residential-commercial development is conveyed through its blended styles and forms that resulted from its adaptation including its distinctive 1935 Georgian Revival with Moderne styling front addition and Colonial Revival residence portion. Its residential-commercial use is conveyed though its two-part massing with reddish-brown brick cladding, arched and rectangular openings, and balanced Georgian Revival composition at the primary elevation and its shiplap exterior, dormers, and one-over-one, double-hung wood-sash windows at the building’s residential rear.

Page 8 of 39 ends

Page 1166 ends

2138 Kittredge Street FINDINGS for DESIGNATION
February 6, 2025 Page 3 of 3

FEATURES TO BE PRESERVED

This designation shall apply to the subject property and the following distinguishing features of the shall be preserved, and missing features shall be restored to the extent possible:

Property
• Location at the south side of Kittredge Street
• Setting in the Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic District.

Main Building
• Two-part massing comprised of Colonial Revival residential rear and Georgian Revival commercial addition at primary, street-facing facade • Colonial Revival characteristics, including:
o Shiplap siding
o Molded-wood water table at the first floor
o Projecting bay with chamfered corners and molded overhang details at the first floor
o Hipped roof with moderate overhang and dormer window on east eave o One-over-one, double-hung wood-sash windows
• Georgian Revival characteristics, including:
o Unpainted reddish-brown brick cladding and brick detailing o A rched openings with keystone details
o A rched windows with tripartite casements
o F anlights above tripartite casements
o P aneled-wood bulkheads
o Angled brick beltcourse that continues around the addition’s first floor • Stained-glass window at west elevation of Colonial Revival portion of building • Circular with four keystones detail at second story of primary façade

Page 9 of 39 ends

Page 1167 ends

Attachment 1, Part 3

Page 10 of 39 ends

Page 1168 ends

Page 11 of 39 ends

Page 1169 ends

Page 12 of 39 ends

Page 1170 ends

Page 13 of 39 ends

Page 1171 ends

Page 14 of 39 ends

Page 1172 ends

Page 15 of 39 ends

Page 1173 ends

Page 16 of 39 ends

Page 1174 ends

Page 17 of 39 ends

Page 1175 ends

Page 18 of 39 ends

Page 1176 ends

Page 19 of 39 ends

Page 1177 ends

Page 20 of 39 ends

Page 1178 ends

Page 21 of 39 ends

Page 1179 ends

Page 22 of 39 ends

Page 1180 ends

Page 23 of 39 ends

Page 1181 ends

Page 24 of 39 ends

Page 1182 ends

Page 25 of 39 ends

Page 1183 ends

Page 26 of 39 ends

Page 1184 ends

Page 27 of 39 ends

Page 1185 ends

Page 28 of 39 ends

Page 1186 ends

Page 29 of 39 ends

Page 1187 ends

Page 30 of 39 ends

Page 1188 ends

Page 31 of 39 ends

Page 1189 ends

Page 32 of 39 ends

Page 1190 ends

Page 33 of 39 ends

Page 1191 ends

Page 34 of 39 ends

Page 1192 ends

Page 35 of 39 ends

Page 1193 ends

Page 36 of 39 ends

Page 1194 ends

Page 37 of 39 ends

Page 1195 ends

Page 38 of 39 ends

Page 1196 ends

Page 39 of 39 ends

Page 1197 ends

Page 1198 ends

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

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC/Commission) has approved a Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) for the subject City Landmark property. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period, which began on March 11, 2025.

BACKGROUND
BMC/LPO Section 3.24.300 allows City Council to review any action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission in granting or denying a Structural Alteration Permit. For Council to review the decision on its merits, Council must appeal the Notice of Decision.

To do so, a Council member must move this Information Item to Action and then move to set the matter for hearing on its own. Such action must be taken within 15 days of the mailing of the Notice of Decision, or by March 25, 2025. Such certification to Council shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal.

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

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

Page 1 of 33 ends

Page 1199 ends

LPO NOD: 3332 Adeline Street/#LMSAP2025-0001 INFORMATION CALENDAR March 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

CONTACT PERSON
Fatema Crane, Principal Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7410 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMSAP2025-0001/3332 Adeline Street

Page 2 of 33 ends

Page 1200 ends

Attachment 1, part 1

L A N D M A R K S

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

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: February 6, 2025
DATE NOTICE MAILED: March 10, 2025
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: March 25, 2025
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): March 26, 20251 3332 Adeline Street – The Lorin Theater/ Phillips
Temple Building
Structural Alteration Permit #LMSAP2025-0001 to modify the leasing area of an existing wireless telecommunication facility for the installation of an emergency generator at the rear of the Lorin Theater site The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the Structural Alteration Permit request.  Applicant Shannon Morrelli, Galt Wireless
9120 Doc Bar Ct.

Elk Grove, CA 95624
 Property Owner Phillips Temple Christian Methodist Episcopal Church 3332 Adeline Street
Berkeley, CA 94703
ZONING DISTRICT: Adeline Corridor Commercial District (C-AC) 1 Pursuant to BMC Chapter 3.24, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, which has the same effect as an appeal. In most cases, the Council must certify the LPC decision during the 14-day appeal period. However, pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if any portion of the appeal period falls within a Council recess, the deadline for Council certification is suspended until the first Council meeting after the recess, plus the number of days of the appeal period that occurred during the recess, minus one day. If there is no appeal or certification, the Use Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.

Page 3 of 33 ends

Page 1201 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-001
3332 Adeline Street
Mailed: March 10, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation.

FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPROVED PLANS ARE ATTACHED

TO THIS NOTICE
COMMISSION VOTE: 8-0-0-0
YES: CRANDALL, ENCHILL, FINACOM, LEUSCHNER, MONTGOMERY, ORBUCH,

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

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

Page 4 of 33 ends

Page 1202 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-001
3332 Adeline Street
Mailed: March 10, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.
b. The fee for appeals of affordable housing projects (defined as projects which provide 50 percent or more affordable units for households earning 80% or less of Area Median Income) is $500, which may not be reduced.
c. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $6,000.

If no appeal is received, the Structural Alteration Permit will be final on the first business day following expiration of the appeal period.

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

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

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

Page 5 of 33 ends

Page 1203 ends

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2025-001
3332 Adeline Street
Mailed: March 10, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

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

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

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

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Allison Riemer, at (510) 981-7410 or [email protected]. All project application materials may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, 3 rd Fl., during regular business hours.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Project Plans
ATTEST:

Fatema Crane, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Shannon Morrelli, Galt Wireless, 9120 Doc Bar Ct., Elk Grove, CA 95624 Phillips Temple Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 3332 Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703

Page 6 of 33 ends

Page 1204 ends

A t t a c h m e n t 1, Part 2
Findings and Condition s
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 3332 Adeline Street – T
he Lorin Theater/ Phillips Temple Building
Structural Alteration Permit #LMSAP2025-00
01 to modify the leasing area of
an existing wireless telecommunication facility for the installation of an emergency generator at the rear of the Lorin Theater site.

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA

1. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, §15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines (“Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation”). Furthermore, none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, as follows: (a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, and (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

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

1. The proposed project does not require a change of use. The property will retain the existing use as a wireless telecommunications facility.

2. The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. No distinctive materials will be removed or al
tered to accommodate the alterations.

3. The new equi
pment will not resemble or replicate designs from the property’s historic period.

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

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that characterize this property will be substantially retained and preserved with this limited-scope project.

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

Page 7 of 33 ends

Page 1205 ends

3332 ADELINE STREET Findings and Conditions

Page 2 of 6 ends

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

8. The project does not have the potential to affect any archaeological resources because the applicant proposes no substantial excavation.

9. The proposed scope will not destroy historic materials, features, or have lasting impact to the spatial characteristics of the property. The new generator would not be readily visible from vantage points within the public right way.

10. If the proposed equipment were removed in the future, they would not permanently impair the integrity or essential form of the Lorin Theater site.

FINDINGS REQ

UIRED UNDER LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE

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

A. The proposed project will not adversely affect the architectural design of the City Lan
dmark, the Lor
in Theater. The proposed generator and fence enclosure are located in the rear of the parcel and would be not be attached to or alter any part of the historic structure.

B. The special historic character of the subject property would not be adversely affected by the scope of this project as the new generator would not be is visual from the public right of way.

Page 8 of 33 ends

Page 1206 ends

3332 ADELINE STREET Findings and Conditions

Page 3 of 6 ends

STANDARD CONDITIONS

The following conditions, as well as all other applicable provisions of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, apply to this Permit:

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

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

3. Subject to All Applicable Laws and Regulations
The approved use and/or construction is subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies. Prior to construction, the applicant shall identify and secure all applicable permits from the Zoning Adjustments Board or Zoning Officer, Building and Safety Division, Public Works Department and other affected City divisions and departments.

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

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

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

Page 9 of 33 ends

Page 1207 ends

3332 ADELINE STREET Findings and Conditions

Page 4 of 6 ends

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

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

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

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

Therefore:

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

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

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

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

Page 10 of 33 ends

Page 1208 ends

3332 ADELINE STREET Findings and Conditions

Page 5 of 6 ends

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

8. Human Remains (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction)

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

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

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

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

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

11. ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. This Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) approval is contingent upon approval of the requisite Administrative Use Permit and any Public Works Permit for the project scope as well as all other conditional use permits, and state and federal requirements for operation of the wireless telecommunication facility.

12. PL
ANS COMPLIANCE. Cons
truction and building permit plans shall substantially
conform to the Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) project plans dated/received March 12, 2024.

Page 11 of 33 ends

Page 1209 ends

3332 ADELINE STREET Findings and Conditions

Page 6 of 6 ends

13. REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES.

Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old or historic feature in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

14. DE
TAILS. Prior to Landm
arks plan checker sign-off of the Building Permit set of drawings, the applicant shall submit fence details for review and approval by the Landmarks plan checker.

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

16. The applicant shall be responsible for identifying and securing all applicable permits from the Building and Safety Division and all other affected City divisions/departments prior to the start of work.

17. The applicant is responsible for complying with all the above conditions. Failure to comply with any condition could result in construction work being stopped, issuance of citations, as well as further review by the Landmarks staff, which may modify or impose additional conditions, or revoke approval.

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

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

Page 12 of 33 ends

Page 1210 ends

Attachment 1, Part 3

Page 13 of 33 ends

Page 1211 ends

Page 14 of 33 ends

Page 1212 ends

Page 15 of 33 ends

Page 1213 ends

Page 16 of 33 ends

Page 1214 ends

Page 17 of 33 ends

Page 1215 ends

Page 18 of 33 ends

Page 1216 ends

Page 19 of 33 ends

Page 1217 ends

Page 20 of 33 ends

Page 1218 ends

Page 21 of 33 ends

Page 1219 ends

Page 22 of 33 ends

Page 1220 ends

Page 23 of 33 ends

Page 1221 ends

Page 24 of 33 ends

Page 1222 ends

Page 25 of 33 ends

Page 1223 ends

Page 26 of 33 ends

Page 1224 ends

Page 27 of 33 ends

Page 1225 ends

Page 28 of 33 ends

Page 1226 ends

Page 29 of 33 ends

Page 1227 ends

Page 30 of 33 ends

Page 1228 ends

Page 31 of 33 ends

Page 1229 ends

Page 32 of 33 ends

Page 1230 ends

Page 33 of 33 ends

Page 1231 ends

Page 1232 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 CouncilMarch 25, 2025

Berkeley City Council
March 25, 2025