City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Appendix A – SANDAG Trip Generation Tables
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Appendix B – Assessment Roll
An Assessment Roll (a listing of all parcels assessed within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 and the amount of the assessment) has been filed with the City Engineer, and is, by reference, made part of this report and will be available for public inspection during normal office hours.
E a c h l o t o r p a r c e l l i s t e d o n t h e A s s e s s m e n t R o l l i s s h o w n a n d illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference mad e part of this report.
These records shall govern all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels.
FY 2026
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
May 2025
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Page i
CITY OF BERKELEY
City Council
Adena Ishii, Mayor
Rashi Kesarwani, District 1
Terry Taplin, District 2
Ben Bartlett, District 3
Igor Tregub, District 4
Shoshana O’Keefe, District 5
Brent Blackaby, District 6
Cecilia Lunaparra, District 7
Mark Humbert, District 8
City Manager
Paul Buddenhagen
Public Works Department
Terrance Davis, Public Works Director
Ronald A. Nevels, Manager of Engineering
Ricardo Salcedo, Associate Civil Engineer
City Attorney
Farimah Brown
Engineer of Work
John Bliss, P.E., SCI Consulting Group
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1 Assessment Formation Process .................................................................................... 2 Legal Requirements ...................................................................................................... 2 Proposition 218 2
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority 3
Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property 4
Bonander v. Town of Tiburon 4
Beutz v. County of Riverside 5
Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego 5 Compliance with Current Law 5
Plans and Specifications .................................................................................... 6 Fiscal Year 2026 Budget .................................................................................... 8 Method of Assessment ................................................................................... 10 Discussion of Benefit .................................................................................................. 10 Special Benefit ............................................................................................................ 11 Improved Visibility and Safety 11
Improved Access, Navigation and Traffic Safety 11
Improved Community Character and Vitality 11
General Versus Special Benefit .................................................................................. 12 Quantification of General Benefit .............................................................................. 12 Calculation of General Benefit 13
Calculation of the Current General Benefit Contribution from the City 15 General Benefit is More than Offset by City Contribution 15 Method of Assessment ............................................................................................... 15 Residential Traffic 16
Non‐Residential Traffic 16
Darkness 17
Single‐Family Equivalents 17
Annual Assessment Increase ...................................................................................... 18 Duration of Assessment ............................................................................................. 19 Appeals and Interpretation ........................................................................................ 19
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Page iii
Assessment Statement ................................................................................... 20 Assessment Diagram ....................................................................................... 22 Appendix A – SANDAG Trip Generation Tables ............................................... 23 Appendix B – Assessment Roll ........................................................................ 25
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Page iv
List of Tables
Table 1 – FY 2026 Budget Summary ................................................................................... 8 Table 2 – General Benefit for Arterial Streets .................................................................. 14 Table 3 – Calculation of General Benefit .......................................................................... 14 Table 4 – Single‐Family Equivalent Rates .......................................................................... 18 Table 5 – Maximum Single‐Family Equivalent Rate Calculation ....................................... 19
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Page v
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Assessment Diagram ........................................................................................ 22
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Introduction
Overview
The City of Berkeley (“City”) provides maintenance and servicing of certain publicly‐ owned street lights throughout the City. In order to fund the installation, maintenance and operation (the “Services”) of these improvements (“Improvements”), the City formed a city‐wide street light assessment district in 1982. The rates for the 1982 assessment district have never been increased. Revenues from these assessments are placed into the streetlight fund (Fund 142).
In time, the financial outlook of the Streetlight fund began to cause concern as the costs increased for energy, labor and materials, while the revenue remained relatively static.
Accordingly, the Streetlight fund no longer had enough funds to fund the Street light program. As a result, beginning in Fiscal Year 20061 the Streetlight fund began to receive a subsidy from the City’s General Fund in order to balance revenues with expenditures.
However, because of other demands on the General Fund, that subsidy ended beginning Fiscal Year 2018. The modest fund balance was sufficient for Fiscal Year 2018 to cover that year’s anticipated expenses, but under those conditions it was expected to be depleted during Fiscal Year 2019. To establish financial sustainability for the Streetlight fund and avoid significant reductions in service levels, in 2018 the City conducted a funding measure to increase the assessment revenue for street light services.
With the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996, any increase in assessments must be approved by the affected property owners through a specified ballot proceeding. In addition, Proposition 218 and related subsequent court decisions create strict criteria for how assessments can be apportioned to the various properties, and the existing 1982 assessment structure may not be adequately consistent with these newer criteria.
While the 1982 assessment structure may continue as a “grandfathered” assessment, any increase must be implemented in accordance with Proposition 218 and court decisions. For this reason, a new district, Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 (“District”), was formed separately, leaving the 1982 assessment structure in place, as is. The District was formed and the assessments levied pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, commonly known as the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Act”), and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (“Article”). 1 Fiscal years are referenced in this Report by the year that fiscal period ends. For example, Fiscal Year 2006 would cover the period from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Assessment Formation Process
This Engineer’s Report (“Report”) describes the Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 ( “ D i s t r i c t ” ) , a l o n g w i t h t h e b o u n d a r i e s , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e facilities and public improvements to be improved, serviced and maintained by the ass essments (the "Improvements”), and the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2026 (“Assessments”).
At its meeting on April 3, 2018, the City Council passed a resolution directing that a notice of assessment and assessment ballot be mailed to property owners wi t h in th e Di st r i ct whose property receives special benefit from the Improvements. The notice included a description of the Improvements to be funded by the Assessments , the proposed assessment amount for each parcel owned, and an explanation of the method of completing and submitting the ballot. Ballots were mailed on or about April 11, 2018.
On May 29, 2018, a public hearing was be held for the purpose o f allowing public testimony regarding the proposed Assessments. At the Public Hearing, the public had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o s p e a k o n t h e i s s u e , v o i c e a n y c o n c e r n s o r p r o t e sts, and obtain further information about the proposed Assessments.
The returned ballots were then t abulated, and the ballot result s were announced at the City Council meeting on June 12, 2018. It was determined that t he assessment ballots s u b m i t t e d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p r o p o s e d A s s e s s m e n t s d i d n o t e x ceed the assessment b a l l o t s s u b m i t t e d i n f a v o r o f t h e A s s e s s m e n t s ( e a c h b a l l o t w a s weighted by the proportional financial obligation of the property for which the ballot was submitted), so the Council was able to take action to approve the levying of A ssessments for Fiscal Year 2019. The Assessments were confirmed and approved, and the Asse ssment information was submitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The County Auditor/Controller included the Assessments on the property tax roll beginning in Fiscal Year 2019. Assessments may now be continued by the City Council from year to year.
Legal Requirements
Proposition 218
This Assessment District was formed consistent with Proposition 218, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996 and is now codified as Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California C onstitution. Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost o f p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s , improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement which benefits the assessed property.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Proposition 218 describes a number of important requirements, including property‐ owner balloting for the imposition, increase and extension of assessments, and these requirements are satisfied by the process used to establish this Assessment District.
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara Count y Open Space Authority
In July 2008, the California Supreme Court decided Silicon Vall ey Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA”), the most significant court case clarifying the substantive assessment requirements of Proposition 218. Several of the most important elements of the decision included further emphas is that:
Benefit assessments are for special benefits to property, not general benefits. The services and/or improvements funded by assessments must be clearly defined.
Assessment districts must be drawn to contain all parcels that receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement.
Assessments paid in each assessment district must be proportional to the special benefit received by each such parcel from the improvements and services funded by the assessment.
This Engineer’s Report and the process used to establish the Assessments are consistent with the SVTA decision and with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution based on the following factors:
1. The District is narrowly drawn to include only the properties t hat receive special benefit from the specific Improvements. Thus, zones of benefit are not required, and the assessment revenue derived from real property in the District is extended only on the Improvements in the District.
2. The Improvements which will be constructed and maintained with Assessment proceeds in the District are located in close proximity to the real property subject to the Assessment. The Improvements provide illumination to str eets and sidewalks enabling improved access to the residents of such ass essed property.
The proximity of the Improvements to the assessed parcels and the improved access and increased safety provided to the residents of the as sessed parcels by the Improvements provides a special benefit to the parcel being assessed pursuant to the factors outlined by the Supreme Court in that decision.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
3. Due to their proximity to the assessed parcels, the Improvement s financed with Assessment revenues in the District benefit the properties in that District in a manner different in kind from the benefit that other parcels of real property in the area derive from such Improvements, and the benefits conferred on such property in the District are more extensive than a general incr ease in property values.
4. The assessments paid in the Distr ict are proportional to the sp ecial benefit that each parcel within the District receives from the Improvements because:
a) The costs of the specific lighting Improvements and maintenance and utility costs in the District are specified in this Report; and
b) Such Improvement and maintenance costs in the District are allocated among different types of property located within the District and equally among those properties which have similar characteristics, such as single‐ family residential parcels, multi‐family residential parcels, commercial parcels, industrial parcels, etc.
Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property
On June 8, 2009, the Court of Appeal amended its original opini on upholding a benefit assessment for property in the downtown area of the City of Pom ona in Dahms v.
Downtown Pomona Property (“Dahms”). On July 22, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied review. In Dahms the Court upheld an assessment that was 100% special benefit (i.e. 0% general benefit) on the rationale that the services an d improvements funded by the assessments were directly provided to property in the asses sment district. The Court also upheld discounts and exemptions from the assessment for certain properties.
Bonander v. Town of Tiburon
On December 31, 2009, in Bonander v. Town of Tiburon (“Bonander”), the Court of Appeal overturned a benefit assessment approved by property owners to pay for placing o v e r h e a d u t i l i t y l i n e s u n d e r g r o u n d i n a n a r e a o f t h e T o w n o f T iburon. The Court invalidated the assessments primarily on the grounds that the assessments had been apportioned to assessed property based in part on relative costs within sub‐areas of the assessment district instead of the overall cost of the improveme n t s a n d t h e o v e r a l l proportional special benefits.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Beutz v. County of Riverside
On May 26, 2010 the Court of Appeals issued a decision in Steven Beutz v. County of Riverside (“Beutz”). This decision overturned an assessment for park maintenance i n Wildomar, California, primarily because the general benefits as sociated with improvements and services was not explicitly calculated, quanti fied and separated from the special benefits.
Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego On September 22, 2011, the Court of Appeal issued a decision in Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego appeal. This deci sion overturned an assessment for street and landscap ing maintenance in the Greate r Golden Hill neighborhood of San Diego, California. The Court described two primary reasons for its decision. First, like in Beutz, the Court found the general benefits associated with services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from t he special benefits. Second, the Court found that the City failed to recor d the basis for the assessment on its own parcels.
Compliance with Current Law
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the requirements of A rticles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution and with the SVTA decision because the Improvements to be funded are clearly defined; the I mprovements are directly avail able to and will directly benefit property in the District; and the Improvements provide a direct advantage to property in the District that would not be received in absence of the Assessments.
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with Beutz, Dahms and Greater Golden Hill because the Improvements will directly benefit property in the District and the general benefits have been explicitly calculated and quantified and excluded fro m the Assessments. The Engineer’s Report is consistent with Bonander b e c a u s e t h e A s s e s s m e n t s h a v e b e e n apportioned based on the overall cost of the Improvements and Services and proportional special benefit to each property.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Plans and Specifications
The work and Improvements to be undertaken by the City and the cost paid from the levy of the annual assessment provide special benefit to assessor pa rcels within the District defined in the Method of Assessment herein. Consistent with the Act, the Improvements are generally described as follows:
The installation, maintenance, and servicing of local street lights in close proximity to certain lots and parcels which provide a direct special benefit to such lots or parcels.
The installation, maintenance, and servicing of peripheral stree t l i g h t st r u c t u r e s w h i c h provide a special benefit to all the assessable parcels within the District whether or not such parcels are in close proximity to such lighting.
The installation or construction of public lighting facilities, or the acquisition of any new improvements.
Plans and Specifications for the Improvements for the District are voluminous and are not bound in this Report but by this reference are incorporated and made a part of this Report. The Plans and Specifications are on file in the Public Works Engineering Office where they can be made available for public inspection.
Article XIII D of the California Constitution defines "maintenance and servicing expenses" as, "the cost of rent, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, fue l, power, electrical current, care and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement.” The Improvement funding includes, but is not limited to, the removal, repair, replacement or relocation of light standards, poles, bu lbs, fixtures and appurtenances, electrical energy, supplies, engineering and incidental costs relating to the maintenance and servicing of the local lighting improvement s benefiting the parcels within the District.
The Improvements to be maintained and serviced within the District are to be part of the local street light system of the City of Berkeley that confers special benefit to the District's parcels. The specific location of local street light Improvements within the City can be found in the Streetlight Condition Assessment by Tanko Lighting , which is on file in the office of the Director of Public Works, where it is available for public inspection.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
The Improvements to be maintained and serviced within the Distr ict include City‐owned street lights within the right of way of the local public stree t s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e boundaries of the District. These lights are all within close proximity to the parcels within the District identified as receiving local lighting benefit in the Method of Assessment, and, as such, provide special benefit to these parcels.
All street light maintenance will be performed by the City of Berkeley or its contractors.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Fiscal Year 2026 Budget
A summary budget for fiscal year 2026 for the maintenance of the Improvements is provided below. The full Itemized budget for the Assessment District is voluminous and is not bound in this report but by reference is incorporated and m ade a part of this report.
The Itemized budget is on file in the Department of Public Work s where it is available for public inspection.
Table 1 – FY 2026 Budget Summary
FY 2026
Revenue
1982 Assessment Dist 1,445,460$
SLAD 2018 Assessments 1 907,485
Misc. Revenue 500
TOTAL REVENUE 2,353,445$
Expenses
Personnel Expenses
Personnel 747,790
Other Operating Expenses
Non‐Personnel 608,200
Indirect Costs 76,071
Gas/Electricity 670,215
Debt Service Payment 293,055
Operating Transfer Out 16,300
County Collection Fee 39,214
Other Operating Subtotal 1,703,055$
Capital Expenses
Deferred Capital/Maint 424,465
Capital Subtotal 424,465$
TOTAL EXPENSES 2,875,310$
To (from) General Fund and/or Reserves (521,865)$
Budget Allocation to Parcels
Total Street Light 2018 Assessments 1 907,485$
Total Street Light 2018 SFEs 47,555.425
Assessment per SFE 2 19.08$
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Notes on the Budget:
1. The Act requires that proceeds from the Assessments must be deposited into a special fund that has been set up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Moreover, funds raised by the Assessment shall be used only for the purposes stated within this Report. Any balance remaining at the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, must be carried over to the next Fiscal Year. The City may also establish a reserve fund for contingencies and special projects, as well as a capital improvement fund for accumulating funds for larger capital improvement projects or capital renovation needs. Any remaining balance would either be placed in the reserve fund, the capital improvement fund, or would be used to reduce future years' assessments.
2. The rate shown here is for a Single‐Family Equivalent (“SFE”), which is a single‐family home or its equivalent. For the definition of the term SFE and rates for other types of property, see the section titled, “Method of Assessment” and the sections following it in this report.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Method of Assessment
This section of the Engineer’s Report includes an explanation of the benefits derived from the installation, maintenance and servicing of the Improvements throughout the District and the Assessment methodology used to apportion the total Asse ssment to properties within the District.
The District consists of all assessor parcels within the boundaries as defined by the Assessment Diagram and the parcels identified by the Assessor Parcel Numbers listed with the levy roll included with this Report. The parcel list includes all assessable privately and publicly owned parcels within the boundaries. The method used for apportioning the Assessment is based on the proportional special benefits to be derived by the properties in the District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The apportionment of special benefit is a two‐step process: the first step is to identify the types of special benefit arising from the Improvem ents and the second step is to allocate the Assessments to property based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property.
Discussion of Benefit
In summary, the Assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit to property.
This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. Moreover, such benefit is not based on any one property owner’s use of the Improvements or a property owner’s specific demographic status. With reference to the requ irements for Assessments, Section 22573 of the Act states:
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment d istrict may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes t he net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
Proposition 218, as codified in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, has confirmed that Assessments must be based on the special benefit to property:
No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Special Benefit
Street lighting is an optional improvement, not required by state or federal law, that is an enhancement over and above requisite infrastructure, and thus is a special benefit. The majority of the benefits of the street lights are received by the benefited property, with a small portion of the benefits received by the general public on major streets only. This portion received by the general public is captured and quantified in the following section.
The factors that determine special benefit conferred on parcels are detailed below:
Improved Visibility and Safety
Well maintained, effective street lighting provides special ben efit to proximate parcels, within range of the light, because it allows for safer and improved use of the property in the evenings, early morning, and at night. Street lighting provides special benefit because it increases neighborhood safety and, at least indirectly, reduces the likelihood of crime on the proximate parcels. Over time, the Improvements continue to confer a particular and distinct special benefit upon parcels within the District because of the nature of the Improvements. The proper maintenance of the street lights and appurtenant facilities increases visibility and local human presence and, in many situ ations, helps reduce property‐related crimes, especially vandalism, against assessed properties in the District.
Improved Access, Navigation and Traffic Safety
Well maintained, effective street lighting enhances ingress, egress and accessibility of all forms to the assessed parcels in the evening, early morning, and at night by increasing visibility. Improved visibility also helps prevent local automo bile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic accidents related to the assessed parcels. This benefit includes a reduction in accidents during non‐daylight hours.
Improved Community Character and Vitality
Well maintained, effective street lighting promotes evening and nighttime social interaction of residents and customers of businesses and industry. This creates a positive atmosphere and enhanced community image in the evening and at night for the assessed parcels.
All of the above‐mentioned items also contribute to a specific enhancement to each of the parcels within the District. The proximate street lights ma ke each parcel safer, more visible, more accessible, more useful, more valuable and more desirable; and this further strengthens the basis of these Assessments.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
General Versus Special Benefit
The proceeds from the Assessments are used to fund the describe d Improvements and increased levels of maintenance to the other City facilities that serve and benefit the properties in the District. In absence of the Street Lighting Assessment District 2018, such Improvements would not be properly maintained. Therefore, the D istrict’s purpose is to ensure that the necessary and beneficial public facilities for property in the District are properly maintained, operated and repaired over time. The Assessments will ensure that street lighting and associated improvements within and adjacent t o t h e D i s t r i c t a r e functional, well maintained and effective. These public resources directly benefit the p r o p e r t y i n t h e D i s t r i c t a n d w i l l c o n f e r d i s t i n c t a n d s p e c i a l benefits to the properties within the District.
The Improvements and Services are specifically designed, located and created to provide additional and improved resources for property inside the Distr ict and not the public at large although the Improvements maintained by the Services may be available to the general public. Other properties that are outside the District do not enjoy the unique proximity and other special benefit factors described previously . T h e s e I m p r o v e m e n t s and Services are of special benefit to properties located withi n the District because they provide a direct advantage to properties in the District that would not be provided in the absence of the Assessments. Any general benefits to surroundin g properties outside of the Assessment District, if any, are collateral and conferred concomitantly.
Quantification of General Benefit
Although the analysis used to support these assessments concludes that the benefits are solely special, as described above, consideration is made for the suggestion that a portion of the benefits are general. General benefits cannot be funded by these assessments. The funding for general benefits must come from other sources.
The maintenance and servicing of these Improvements is also par tially funded, directly and indirectly, from other sources, including the City of Berke ley, Alameda County, and the State of California. This funding comes in the form of grants, development fees, special programs, and general funds, as well as direct maintenance and servicing of facilities (e.g. curbs, gutters, streets, drainage systems, etc.). This funding from other sources more than compensates for general benefits, if any, rec eived by the properties within the Assessment District.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
In the 2009 Dahms case, the Court upheld an asse ssment that was 100% special ben efit o n t h e r a t i o n a l e t h a t t h e s e r v i c e s f u n d e d b y t h e a s s e s s m e n t s w ere directly provided within the assessment district. It is also important to note th at the improvements and services funded by the assessments in Pomona are similar to the improvements and s e r v i c e s f u n d e d b y t h e A ss e s s m e n t s d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s E n g i n e e r ’ s Report and the Court found these improvements and services to be 100% special benefi t. Also similar to the assessments in Pomona, the Assessments described in this Engineer’s Report fund Improvements and Services directly provided within the District a n d e v e r y b e n e f i t i n g property in the District enjoys proximity and access to the Improvements. Therefore, Dahms establishes a basis for minimal or zero general benefits from the Assessments.
Nonetheless, possible general benefits have been liberally calculated below and then shown to be more than offset by resources from non‐assessment sources.
Calculation of G eneral Benefit
The Illumination Engineering Society of North America provides a widely‐used standard for street lighting which has become the de‐facto industry stan dard. This standard specifies footcandle requirements as a measurement of illumination at the roadway level, which are different for local, collector, and major streets usi ng three levels (low/medium/high) of pedestrian activity. The three street classifications and pedestrian activity levels are described below with a discussion of their general benefit contribution from the street light system.
Local Streets – a street that is used to gain access to the property bordering it. The street l i g h t s o n l o c a l s t r e e t s p r i m a r i l y s e r v e t h e a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y owner. Therefore, per industry standard, the street lights on local streets have no general benefit component.
Collector Streets – low to moderate capacity roads which serve to move traffic from local streets to arterial roads. Similar to local streets, collector streets are primarily used by local residents and per industry standard are also deemed to have no general benefit component. This street classification will be used as the basel ine for this analysis.
Arterials – high capacity streets that serve as the principal ne t wo r k f o r t h r o u g h t r a f f i c flow. These routes connect areas of principal traffic generatio n and important regional roadways traversing the City. As such, this traffic includes a significant number of drivers from outside the District and the street light Improvements may c o n f e r s o m e g e n e r a l benefit on those drivers.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
On average, arterial streets requ ire a 45% increase in lighting l eve l s f r om t h e b ase l i ne collector streets.2 This increase in lighting reinforces the special benefits to t he abutting properties as defined above: increased visibility and safety; improved access, navigation and traffic safety; and improved community character and vitali ty. In addition to these benefits, the through traffic flow, which includes drivers from outside the District, receives the additional benefit of reduction in nighttime accidents due to enhanced lighting. The degree to which each of these benefits can be considered general benefit is shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2 – General Benefit for Arterial Streets
The general benefit from arterial streets must be combined with the general benefit from a l l o t h e r s t r e e t s i n t h e D i s t r i c t . E a c h c a t e g o r y o f s t r e e t h a s its unique general benefit weight, prorated by center line miles of streets. This calculation is shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3 – Calculation of General Benefit
2 Based on values from the Illumination Engineering Society of North America, “American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting.”
Benefit Factor
Relative
Weight
General
Benefit
Contribution
Relative
General
Benefit
Improved Nighttime Visibility and Safety 25 0% 0.0%
Improved Access, Navigation and Traffic
Safety 25 50% 12.5%
Improved Community Character and Vitality 25 0% 0.0%
Reduction in Nighttime Accidents 25 75% 18.8%
General Benefit on Arterial Streets from Improved Lighting 31.3% Street Classification
General
Benefit
Weight
General
Benefit
Local 158 73.1% 0% 0.0%
Collector 37 17.1% 0% 0.0%
Arterial 21 9.7% 31.3% 3.0%
TOTAL 216 100% 3.0%
Centerline Miles
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
A s a r e s u l t , t h e C i t y o f B e r k e l e y w i l l c o n t r i b u t e a t l e a s t 3 . 0 % of the total budget from sources other than the Assessmen t. This contribution offsets any general benefits from the Assessment Services.
Calculation of the Current Gener al Benefit Contribution from th e City This general benefit contribution is the sum of the following components:
The City of Berkeley owns, maintains, rehabilitates and replaces curb and gutter along the border of the Assessment District improvements. This curb and g utter serves to support, contain, retain, manage irrigation flow and growth, and provide a boundary for the Improvements. The contribution from the City of Berkeley toward general benefit from the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the curb and gutter is conservatively estimated to be 1%.
The City of Berkeley owns and maintains a storm drainage system along the border of the District’s Improvements. This sy stem serves to prevent flooding and associated damage to the Improvements and to manage urban runoff including local pollutants loading from the Improvements. The contribution from the City of Berkeley toward general benefit from the maintenance and operation of the local storm drainage system is conservatively estimated to be 1%.
The City of Berkeley owns and maintains local public streets throughout the District.
These public streets provide access to the Improvements for its e n j o y m e n t a s w e l l a s efficient maintenance. The contribution from the City of Berkeley toward general benefit from the maintenance of local public streets is conservatively estimated to be 1%.
The value of the construction of the existing street light Improvements can be quantified and monetized as an annuity. Since this construction was performed and paid for by funds other than these Assessments, this “annuity” can be used to off set general benefit costs and is conservatively estimated to contribute 25%.
General Benefit is More than Offset by City Contribution Therefore, the total general benefit is liberally quantified at 3 . 0 % , w h i c h i s m o r e t h a n offset by the total non‐assessment contribution toward general benefit of 28%.
Method of Assessment
As previously discussed, the proposed Assessments will provide comprehensive Improvements that will clearly confer special benefits to properties in the proposed District. The allocation of special benefits to property is partially based on the type of property and the size of property.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
The development of an Assessment methodology requires apportioning to determine the relative special benefit for each property. To determine the sp ecial benefit received by individual parcels, the use of that parcel must be considered. Each category of property can benefit from street lights in a unique way, and those characteristics must be quantified. As noted above, the special benefit factors are as follows:
Improved visibility and safety
Improved access, navigation and traffic safety
Improved community character and vitality
The basis for apportioning Assessments is traffic generated to and from a particular parcel. This is used because the amount of traffic generated by a parcel is directly proportional to, and effectively models, the relative quantity of the three special benefit factors. For instance, the more people that come and go from a site, the more the site benefits from the improved visibility and safety. The same reasoning applies to the other special benefit factors.
Residential Traffic
The typical single‐family residence (“SFR”) generates approximat e l y t e n v e h i c u l a r t r i p s per day. Condominium units generate approximately eight trips p er day and apartment units generate approximately six trips per day per unit. The trip generation rates that are used for each land use are based on the trip generation rates published by the San Diego Association of Governments and the Encinitas Ranch Austin Foust Traffic Study. The trip generation rates are included in Appendix A of this report.
Non‐Residential Traffic
Trip generation for non‐residential parcels vary depending on their designated land use as well as size of parcel. The trip generation data for non‐res idential land uses are based on trips per acre. For instance, a commercial parcel on two acres typically will have twice the traffic of a commercial parcel on one acre. It follows that the two‐acre parcel will then receive twice the benefit from the street lighting as the one‐acre parcel. Various land uses were grouped into categories with similar traffic characteristi cs, resulting in the fee categories shown later in this report.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Darkness
Non‐residential parcels typically do not operate all night long. The average period of darkness is 12 hours, but non‐residential uses will only operat e for approximately three hours of that time. For that reason, a non‐residential darkness factor of (3 ÷ 12 =) 25% is applied to those parcels. For two non‐residential categories, t h e d a r k n e s s f a c t o r i s different, as shown below:
Offices and banks typically close earlier than other non‐residential uses so they are assigned a darkness factor of 12.5%.
Hotels, motels and boarding houses typically have activity further into the night than other non‐residential uses, so they are assigned a darkness factor of 50%.
Non‐residential trip generation is then adjusted for the darkness factor for each rate category.
Single‐Family Equivalents
The SFR category is used as the baseline for calculating the sp ecial benefit for all other land uses and sizes. Each rate category is assigned a single‐fa mily equivalent (“SFE”) rate using the following formula:
ADT x Darkness Factor
ADT for SFR
SFE Rate=
Where:
ADT = Average Daily Trips for each category
ADT for SFR = ADT for single‐family residential, which is used as a baseline figure for SFE rate
SFE Rate = SFEs per unit shown (parcel, [living] unit, or acre) The results of these calculations for each rate category are shown in Table 4 below.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Table 4 – Single‐Family Equivalent Rates
.
Landuse Category ADT
Darkness
Factor
Adj
ADT SFE Rate Unit
Residential
Single Family 10 1 10 1.000 parcel
M ulti‐Family < 5 units 8 1 8 0.800 unit
M ulti‐Family 5 or more units 6 1 6 0.600 unit
Condominium 8 1 8 0.800 parcel
Mobile Home 5 1 5 0.500 unit
Multiple SFR on parcel 10 1 10 1.000 unit
Non‐Residential
General Commercial 600 0.25 150 15.000 acre
Industrial / Warehouse 60 0.25 15 1.500 acre
Auto Repair 400 0.25 100 10.000 acre
Hotel / Motel / Boarding 200 0.5 100 10.000 acre
Hospital 250 0.25 62.5 6.250 acre
Retirement Home 50 0.25 12.5 1.250 acre
School / Day Care 90 0.25 22.5 2.250 acre
Medical / Dental / Vet 500 0.25 125 12.500 acre
Church 30 0.25 7.5 0.750 acre
Mortuary 10 0.25 2.5 0.250 acre
Recreational 100 0.25 25 2.500 acre
Parking / Transportation 200 0.25 50 5.000 acre
Mini Storage 30 0.25 7.5 0.750 acre
Office 300 0.125 37.5 3.750 acre
Bank 1000 0.125 125 12.500 acre
Park / Open Space / Agriculture 2 0.25 0.5 0.050 acre
Vacant 0 na
Annual Assessment Increase
The Assessment is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the San Francisco‐Oakland‐ Hayward Consumer Price Index‐U as of December of each succeeding year (“CPI”), with a maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. In order for the Ci ty’s dedicated Streetlight fund revenue sources to satisfy cost requirements i nto the future, the maximum rate per SFE is calculated based upon the sum of the 1982 assessment and the Street Light Assessment District 2018 Assessment.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Table 5 – Maximum Single‐Family Equivalent Rate Calculation FY 2025 FY 2026
2018 District Maximum for FY 25 852,813.42$ 852,813.42$ 1982 District Maximum for FY 25 1,445,460.18$
Total for FY 25 2,298,273.60$
Maximum Increase of 2.38% of Total for FY 26 54,671.33$ FY 26 Maximum Assessment 907,484.75$
Total SFEs 47,555.425
FY 26 Maximum Rate per SFE 19.08$
Duration of Assessment
The Assessments may be continued every year after their formation, so long as the public Improvements need to be maintained and improved and the City requires funding from the Assessments for these Improvements in the District. As note d previously, the Assessment can continue to be levied annually after the City Council approves an annually updated Engineer’s Report, budget for the Assessment, Improvements to be provided and other specifics of the Assessment. In addition, the City Council must hold an annual public hearing to continue the Assessment.
Appeals and Interpretation
Any property owner who feels that the Assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment, may file a written appeal with the City of Berkeley Public Works department.
Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment durin g the then current or, if before July 1, the upcoming fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the City of Berkeley City Engineer or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the City Engineer or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, the City Engineer or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the City Engineer or her or his designee shall be referred to the Public Works Director and the decision of the Public Works Director shall be final.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Assessment Statement
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2025, the City Council of the City of Berkeley, County of Alameda, California, adopted a Resolution initiating proceedings for the levy of Assessments for fiscal year 2026 within the Street Light Assessment District 20 18, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Arti cle XIIID of the California Constitution (collectively “the Act”);
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Assessment District and an assessment of the estimated costs of the Improvements upon all assessable parcels within the Assessment District, to which the description of the proposed Improvements therein contained, reference is hereby made for further particulars; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under the Act a n d t h e o r d e r o f t h e C i t y C o u n c i l o f t h e C i t y o f B e r k e l e y , h e r eby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Assessment District.
The amount to be paid for the Improvements and the expense inci dental thereto to be paid by the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment Distric t 2018 for the fiscal year 2026 are generally as listed in Table 1.
As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of the City of Berkeley Street light Assessment District 2018. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in t he City of Berkeley Street light Assessment District 2018 is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.
And I do hereby assess and apportion the net amount of the cost and expenses of the Improvements, including the cost s and expenses incident thereto , upon the parcels and lots of land within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assess ment District 2018, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the Improvements, and more particularly set forth in the cost estim ate and method of assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.
The Assessments are made upon the parcels or lots of land withi n the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 in proportion to the s pecial benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land from the Improvements.
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Alameda for the fiscal year 2026. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the Count y Recorder of the County.
I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2026 for each parcel or lot of land within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018.
Dated: April 2, 2025
E n g i n e e r o f W o r k
B y ______________________________
J o h n B l i s s , L i c e n s e N o . C 52091
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Assessment Diagram
The boundaries of the City of Berkeley Street light Maintenance Assessment Districts and Annexations are displayed on the Assessment Diagram below.
Figure 1 – Assessment Diagram
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Appendix A – SANDAG Trip Generation Tables
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2026
Appendix B – Assessment Roll
An Assessment Roll (a listing of all parcels assessed within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 and the amount of the assessment) has been filed with the City Engineer, and is, by reference, made part of this report and will be available for public inspection during normal office hours.
E a c h l o t o r p a r c e l l i s t e d o n t h e A s s e s s m e n t R o l l i s s h o w n a n d illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference mad e part of this report.
These records shall govern all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels.
Environment and Climate Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/
CONSENT CALENDAR
May 20, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Environment and Climate Commission
Submitted by: Brianna McGuire, Chair, Environment and Climate Commission Subject: Authorization for City Manager to evaluate policies to accelerate building decarbonization
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to evaluate and develop amendments to the 2025 Energy and CALGreen Codes and/or other ordinances to accelerate building decarbonization for Council consideration.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None. Existing staff within the Planning Department’s Building and Safety Division and Office of Energy and Sustainable Development can allocate time to develop policy recommendations for Council consideration.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Berkeley has historically set ambitious climate goals, starting with the first ever Climate Action Plan in 2009 and most recently with its science-based Race-to-Zero commitments (November 2021) that require 60.5% emissions reductions by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2045. While much progress has been made, the City needs an additional 50% reduction in the next five years to meet its goals.
According to the latest 2023 greenhouse gas emissions inventory, natural gas use in buildings was responsible for 35% of all emissions citywide. The City has recognized its own ability and responsibility in tackling these emissions, as well as the impact of natural gas use on public health. Estimates from Bay Area Air District and UCLA estimate that natural gas combustion is responsible for nearly $1 billion in additional healthcare costs in the Bay Area alone. In 2019, the City passed a ban on natural gas in new construction. The policy quickly spread across the region, state, country, and world.
Unfortunately, as of 2024, the policy is no longer in effect, having been vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The impacts have been immediate.
According to City staff, in the short time since the law was overturned, many large projects have amended their plans to include natural gas hookups, despite the potentially added costs to their projects. This is a public health and climate disaster.
Evaluate Policies to Accelerate Building Decarbonization CONSENT CALENDAR May 20, 2025
In an attempt to address this situation, Planning Department staff proposed local amendments to the California Building Standards Code in May 2024. Their primary recommendation was the adoption of a Zero NOx appliance standard which would effectively prohibit gas construction. After initial consideration and the recommendation of an exemption pathway for commercial kitchens, Council ultimately decided not to adopt the amendments. Thus, new construction in Berkeley will continue to include gas, even as the City attempts to drastically increase housing production. This will lock in carbon emissions, earthquake risk, and public health impacts for decades to come.
There is a pressing need to prevent new building gas infrastructure and address the 35% of city emissions that come from existing buildings. The City’s recent adoption of a time of sale energy upgrade requirement for single-family homes is a small step in this direction, but will only affect 1% of the existing building stock per year. Staff also was awarded under a Department of Energy grant to develop a large buildings Building Performance Standard (which would require declining emissions from large buildings over time), but the funding is in jeopardy due to the change in federal administration.
Thus, there is also a need for further research and legislation to set the City on a pathway to zero emissions from existing buildings.
At its meeting March 26, 2025, the Environment and Climate Commission authorized its Building Decarbonization Subcommittee to write and submit a report to the City Council to authorize the City Manager to evaluate and develop amendments to the 2025 Energy and CALGreen Codes and/or other ordinances to accelerate building decarbonization for Council consideration (moved by Kesselman, seconded by Ranney, motion carried 9-0-0-0; Ayes: Ranney, LaBonte, McGuire, Tahara, Guliasi, Kesselman, Binns, Athanasiou, Syed. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None).
BACKGROUND
In 2021, Council adopted the Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification Strategy, which laid out four primary electrification strategies:
1. Time of replacement and renovation
2. Time of sale
3. Building Performance Standards
4. Neighborhood Electrification and Gas pruning
Implicitly, this policy took as given the policy baseline in 2021 in which all new construction was all-electric. As of 2024, this is no longer the case, with the Ninth Circuit having overturned Berkeley’s landmark natural gas ban.
Evaluate Policies to Accelerate Building Decarbonization CONSENT CALENDAR May 20, 2025
Building Codes have the potential to address electrification at time of replacement and renovation as well as backfill the City’s existing policy objectives of all-electric new construction. The California Building Standards Code (Title 24), which is updated every three years, provides pathways for local amendments that go beyond the increasingly stringent state baselines for energy efficiency and environmental quality. As the next triennial code cycle is approaching (commencing in January 2026), Berkeley is already undertaking the process to update local codes to comply with the new standards, providing a perfect opportunity to develop further amendments or ordinances to reduce natural gas use in new and existing buildings.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Policies developed by staff and adopted by Council would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new and existing buildings, as well as reduce the presence of toxic byproducts of natural gas combustion.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
There is an urgent need for a policy backstop to ensure all-electric new and existing buildings, and there is an existing legislative process underway that can be utilized to reduce the marginal effort required by the City to adopt such policies.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CITY MANAGER
The City Manager concurs with the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.
CONTACT PERSON
Sarah Moore, Commission Secretary, Environment and Climate Commission, (510) 981-7494
CONSENT CALENDAR
May 20, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin (Author), Vice Mayor Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember Mark Humbert (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Brent Blackaby (Co- Sponsor)
Subject: Letter in Support of California State Senate Bill 692 (Arreguín) Relating to Vehicles and Homelessness
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a letter in support of California State Senate Bill 692 (Arreguín), relating to vehicles and homelessness, and distribute copies to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senator Jesse Arreguín, State Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, State Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire, and State Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Vehicular homelessness is currently the most common form of homelessness in Alameda County, and Berkeley, especially West Berkeley, has been heavily impacted by this situation. Many unsheltered residents live in vehicles that are posing serious health and safety problems—rodent and other vermin infestations, overflowing or leaking sewage, fire and other life safety hazards – both to the unsheltered people who reside in them, as well as the broader community. Moreover, in recent years, there have been increases in the number of RVs, trailers, and other large vehicles abandoned on local streets and in public spaces.
The majority of those living in these vehicles are victims of the State’s broader affordable housing and shelter crisis. We also know, however, that many of these vehicles – which are too blighted and dangerous for anyone to be living in in the first place -- are being sold or leased to the unsheltered as substandard vehicles by unscrupulous actors, even sometimes after they are towed to impound.
Despite this, the Homeless Response Team (HRT) has struggled to successfully address vehicular homelessness, mostly because HRT outreach has found that many of these residents do not consider themselves to be ‘unsheltered’ and thus turn down offers of interim housing for fear of losing their last remaining asset—their vehicle.
These anecdotal findings are corroborated by research from the UCSF Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative, in a study of RV dwellers living in Oakland. However,
emerging research from guaranteed income programs also demonstrates that when people in poverty are given unrestricted cash, they use it to wisely meet their most pressing economic needs. The city theorized that, if RV dwellers could have their most valuable (but illiquid) asset—their RV—liquified at a fair cash price, that may change their willingness to engage in interim housing programs.
With this in mind, staff applied to and, in September 2024, were awarded $5.4M in Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) grant funding from the State of California, including $150,000 to pilot an RV Buy Back program. Staff, in partnership with Dorothy Day House, have been using these funds to resolve the encampments along 2nd and Cedar Streets in West Berkeley, which Council directed staff to prioritize for closure on September 2024, using the new Capri Motel (aka Howard Johnson) as shelter.
Interested RV dwellers in that encampment applied for a buy back of their vehicle at $175/linear foot, and were offered the program if they agreed to move into shelter at the Capri. Participants received 15% of the total price of the vehicle upon shelter move-in.
Understanding that sometimes a shelter move-in doesn’t work for everyone, participants could move back into their vehicle at any time during a three day ‘shelter trial period,’ and if they did so, keep the 15% cash payment with no questions asked. However, they would only receive the remaining 85% of the agreed-upon price once their vehicle was towed from the street.
This pilot was very successful: of the 21 vehicles originally identified by staff as being used for shelter on 2nd St, occupants for all but one of those have agreed to participate and sell their vehicle in exchange for a shelter move-in, and a total of 27 vehicles used as shelter have been approved for removal via this pilot. However, staff have found it extremely difficult to remove these RVs, many of which still remained on the street months after their occupants voluntarily left them for shelter, either because they are in such poor condition and pose such serious health and safety risks that local towing companies refuse to take them, or because local tow companies do not have the lot space to accommodate so many large vehicles at once.
Senator Arreguin’s legislation, SB 692, would give broader authority to local governments to remove vehicles from the streets with RV buy-back programs, so long as these buy-backs are paired with a shelter offer. Specifically, once their vehicles have been purchased and their residents safely moved indoors, it would afford greater discretion to local governments to avoid the impound process altogether by sending these vehicles straight to dismantlement, where they belong – preventing these health hazards from being used as substandard shelter by anyone again.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the recommendation. Reducing vehicular homelessness by moving vehicle residents indoors will reduce the impacts of vehicles and unsheltered homelessness on the environment and climate change over time.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Berkeley is committed to compassionate, proven approaches to ending vehicular homelessness while simultaneously fulfilling our duties as a local government to keep our streets and public spaces clean and safe for all. For these reasons, we recommend supporting SB 692.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CONTACT PERSON
Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, 510-981-7120, [email protected] Attachments:
1. Letter of Support
2. SB 692 Bill Text
3. SB 692 Fact Sheet
May 20, 2025
Senator Jesse Arreguín
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 6710
Sacramento, CA 95815
RE: Letter of Support (Senate Bill 692)
Dear Senator Jesse Arreguín,
The City of Berkeley writes in strong support of Senate Bill 692, which would provide cities with more tools and flexibility to address two problems; the crisis of substandard, inhumane, and often hazardous vehicular homelessness and illegally dumped junked vehicles. In our region, many unsheltered residents live in vehicles that are posing serious health and safety problems—rodent and other vermin infestations, overflowing or leaking sewage, fire and other life safety hazards— both to the unsheltered people who reside in them as well as the broader community. Moreover, in recent years, there have been increases in the number of RVs, trailers, and other large vehicles abandoned on local streets and in public spaces.
The issue of illegally dumped, hazardous, and abandoned recreational vehicles, trailers, and oversized vehicles extends far beyond our city—it affects cities across our great state. We recognize that the majority of those living in these vehicles are victims of the state’s broader affordable housing and shelter crisis. We also know, however, that many are being sold or leased to the unsheltered as substandard vehicles by unscrupulous actors—vehicles that are too blighted and dangerous for anyone in the first place. These abandoned and non-working vehicles remain on our streets, either because they are in such poor condition and pose such serious health and safety risks that local towing companies refuse to take them, or because local tow companies do not have the lot space to accommodate so many large vehicles at once.
So what is the solution? SB 692 proposes multiple options for cities to follow and would allow local governments to implement RV buy-back programs, expanding upon the success Berkeley has already seen with this promising program. Emerging research from guaranteed income programs demonstrate that when people in poverty are given cash, they use it to wisely meet their most pressing economic needs, and this bill affords that same opportunity to our most vulnerable vehicular residents. Once their vehicles have been purchased and their residents safely moved indoors, this bill would afford greater discretion to local governments to avoid the impound process altogether by sending these vehicles straight to dismantlement, where they belong—preventing these health hazards from being used as substandard shelter by anyone again.
Berkeley is committed to compassionate, proven approaches to ending vehicular homelessness while simultaneously fulfilling our duties as local governments to keep our streets and public spaces clean and safe for all. For these reasons, we are pleased to support SB 692.
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2025
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 25, 2025
SENATE BILL No. 692
Introduced by Senator Arreguín
(Principal coauthor: Senator Richardson)
February 21, 2025
An act to amend Sections 50236 and 50243 of the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Sections 22650, 22660, 22661, 22662, and 22851.3 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 692, as amended, Arreguín. Vehicles: homelessness.
Existing law makes it unlawful for a peace officer or an unauthorized person to remove an unattended vehicle from a highway, except as provided. Under existing law, the removal of a vehicle is a seizure, subject to the limits set forth in jurisprudence for the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Existing law authorizes a city, county, or city and county to adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for the abatement and removal, as public nuisances, of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts of vehicles from private or public property. Existing law requires that any ordinance for the removal of abandoned vehicles contain certain provisions, including a provision exempting vehicles under certain circumstances, and a provision providing no less than a 10-day notice of intention to abate and remove the vehicle or part thereof as a public nuisance, unless the property owner and the owner of the vehicle sign releases. Existing law also exempts from the 10-day notice prior to removal provision, a vehicle meeting specified requirements, including being valued at less than
97
$200 and being determined to be a public nuisance, if the property owner has signed a release.
This bill would additionally authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt an ordinance for the abatement and removal of vehicles formerly used as shelter by
persons e xperiencing homelessness. a
person. The bill would require an ordinance establishing procedures for the removal of abandoned vehicles to contain a provision making the ordinance applicable to public agencies operating certain vehicle buyback programs, as specified. The bill would also specifically authorize a local government to perform emergency summary abatement of vehicles creating imminent health and safety hazards. The bill would modify the exemption from prior 10-day notice of intention to abate and remove a vehicle to no longer require that both the vehicle be determined to be a public nuisance and that the property owner sign a release.
Existing law authorizes vehicles or parts thereof to be disposed of by removal to, among other places, a scrapyard or automobile dismantler’s yard.
The bill would authorize specified vehicles to be scrapped and dismantled in place and disposed of at a suitable site operated by a local authority.
Existing la w establishes the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program, administered by the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, for the purpose of providing jurisdictions with grant funds to support re gional coordination and e xpand or de velop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges, as specified. Existing law provides for the allocation of funding under the program among continuums of care, cities, counties, and tribes in rounds and establishes round 5 for the purpose of creating and implementing regionally coordinated plans that organize and deploy the full array of homelessness programs and resources comprehensively and effectively.
Existing law authorizes the use of those funds for services for people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, including, among other things, street outreach, and specified programs funded by the Encampment Resolution Grant. Existing law establishes round 6 for the purpose of, among other things, expeditiously reducing unsheltered homelessness through homelessness pre vention acti vities and sustaining e xisting interim housing solutions. Existing law authorizes the use of those funds for, among other things, permanent housing solutions that can prevent or serve those experiencing unsheltered homelessness, as specified. 97 — 2 — SB 692
This bill would additionally authorize the use of funds from rounds 5 and 6 for vehicle buyback programs for persons experiencing vehicular homelessness, if the buyback offer is paired with an offer of interim or permanent housing.
V ote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 50236 of the Health and Safety Code is line 2 amended to read:
line 3 50236. (a) The intent of round 5 is to sustain existing federal, line 4 state, and local in vestments towards long-term sustainability of line 5 housing and supporti ve services.
line 6 (b) Applicants shall develop data-driven plans which fund the line 7 state’ s priorities.
line 8 (c) Provided that before proposing to use round 5 resources to line 9 fund new interim housing solutions, the applicant first demonstrates line 10 that the region has dedicated sufficient resources from other sources line 11 to long-term permanent housing solutions, including capital and line 12 operating costs, allowable uses of round 5 base program allocation line 13 funds include all of the follo wing:
line 14 (1) Permanent housing solutions, including all of the following:
line 15 (A) Rental subsidies, including to support placement of line 16 indi viduals in CARE Court.
line 17 (B) Landlord incentives, such as security deposits, holding fees, line 18 funding for needed repairs, and recruitment and relationship line 19 management costs.
line 20 (C) Move-in expenses.
line 21 (D) Operating subsidies in ne w and e xisting af fordable or line 22 supporti ve housing units serving people e xperiencing line 23 homelessness, including programs such as Homek ey, ne w or line 24 existing residential care facilities, funded by the Behavioral Health line 25 Continuum Infrastructure Program or the Community Care line 26 Expansion Program. Operating subsidies may include operating line 27 reserv es.
line 28 (E) Homelessness prevention through rental assistance, rapid line 29 rehousing, and other programs, so long as the y prioritize line 30 households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median line 31 income, who pay more than 50 percent of their income in housing 97 SB 692 — 3 —
line 1 costs, and who meet criteria for being at highest risk of line 2 homelessness through data-informed criteria adopted by the line 3 council.
line 4 (F) Problem-solving and diversion support programs that prevent line 5 people at risk of or recently e xperiencing homelessness from line 6 entering unsheltered or sheltered homelessness.
line 7 (G) Services for people in permanent housing, so long as the line 8 services are trauma-informed and practice harm reduction, to line 9 include intensi ve case management services, assertive community line 10 treatment services, critical time intervention services, other tenancy line 11 support services, e vidence-based emplo yment services, line 12 coordinating mental health, substance use, and primary care line 13 treatment, or other e vidence-based supportive services to increase line 14 housing retention.
line 15 (H) Capital for permanent housing that serv es people line 16 e xperiencing homelessness, including conversion of underutilized line 17 buildings or existing interim or transitional housing into permanent line 18 housing.
line 19 (2) Interim housing solutions, including all of the following:
line 20 (A) Navigation centers that are lo w barrier , as defined in line 21 Sections 65660 and 65662 of the Go vernment Code, to include line 22 an y of the following:
line 23 (B) Operating expenses in existing congregate shelter sites. line 24 (C) Operating expenses in new or existing noncongregate shelter line 25 sites and transitional housing for youth.
line 26 (D) Motel or hotel vouchers.
line 27 (E) Services provided to people in interim housing, to include line 28 trauma-informed and e vidence-based intensive case management line 29 services, housing na vigation, connecting people to substance use line 30 or mental health treatment, public benefits adv ocacy, and other line 31 supportive services to promote stability and referral into permanent line 32 housing.
line 33 (F) Capital funding to b uild new noncongregate shelter sites, line 34 including for construction, rehabilitation, and capital improvements line 35 to con vert existing congregate sites into noncongregate sites. line 36 (G) Capital funding for clinically enhanced congre gate or line 37 noncongre gate shelter sites.
line 38 (H) Youth-focused services in transitional housing. line 39 (3) (A) Services for people e xperiencing unsheltered line 40 homelessness, including street outreach, including, but not limited 97 — 4 — SB 692
line 1 to, persons experiencing homelessness from encampment sites and line 2 those transitioning out of encampment sites funded by the program line 3 kno wn as the Encampment Resolution Grant consistent with line 4 Section 50251 to access permanent housing and services. This line 5 includes e vidence-based eng agement services, intensi ve case line 6 management services, asserti ve community treatment, housing line 7 navigation, harm reduction services, coordination with street-based line 8 health care services, and h ygiene services for people li ving in line 9 encampments and unsheltered indi viduals.
line 10 (B) Vehicle b uyback programs for persons e xperiencing line 11 v ehicular homelessness, if those b uyback offers are paired with line 12 an of fer of interim or permanent housing.
line 13 (C) Services coordination, which may include access to line 14 w orkforce, education, and training programs, or other services line 15 needed to promote housing stability in supporti ve housing. line 16 (D) Systems support for activities necessary to create regional line 17 partnerships and maintain a homeless services and housing delivery line 18 system, particularly for vulnerable populations, including families line 19 and homeless youth.
line 20 (E) Improvements to e xisting emer gency shelters to lo wer line 21 barriers and increase pri vacy.
line 22 (F) Any new interim sheltering funded by round 5 funds must line 23 be lo w-barrier, comply with Housing First as provided in Chapter line 24 6.5 (commencing with Section 8255) of Di vision 8 of the Welfare line 25 and Institutions Code, and prioritize interv entions other than line 26 congre gate shelters.
line 27 (4) A program recipient shall not use funding from the program line 28 allocated under this section to supplant e xisting Encampment line 29 Resolution Grant funds pro vided under Section 50251. line 30 (d) (1) Applicants may request, in a form prescribed by the line 31 council, appro val to utilize round 5 funding on allo wable line 32 e xpenditures outside of the state’ s intended priorities, as line 33 enumerated in this section.
line 34 (2) The council may grant applicants preappro val to utilize line 35 program funding on allo wable uses only after an applicant has line 36 demonstrated that state priorities are adequately resourced, and line 37 the applicant has exhausted all means to accomplish these priorities. line 38 (e) An applicant shall not use more than 7 percent of a round 5 line 39 program allocation for administrati ve costs incurred by the city , line 40 county , continuum of care, or tribe to administer its program 97 SB 692 — 5 —
line 1 allocation. For purposes of this subdivision, “administrative costs” line 2 does not include staf f or other costs directly related to line 3 implementing acti vities funded by the program allocation. line 4 (f) (1) The council may authorize an applicant to use up to an line 5 additional 1 percent for costs related to the Homeless Management line 6 Information System. Related costs include Homeless Management line 7 Information System licenses, training, system operating costs, and line 8 costs associated with carrying out related acti vities. line 9 (2) Upon agreement between the grantee and the Homeless line 10 Management Information System lead entity , the grantee shall line 11 transfer the authorized amount of funds pursuant to paragraph (1) line 12 for related costs to the Homeless Management Information System line 13 lead entity . The council shall specify the method and manner for line 14 this transfer of funds.
line 15 (g) A recipient of a round 5 program allocation shall comply line 16 with Housing First as pro vided in Chapter 6.5 (commencing with line 17 Section 8255) of Di vision 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. line 18 (h) Notwithstanding Section 27011 of the Go vernment Code, line 19 or an y other la w go verning the deposit of funds in the county line 20 treasury , a county may accept or deposit into the county treasury line 21 funds from an y source for the purpose of administering a project, line 22 proposal, or program under this chapter .
line 23 (i) For purposes of Section 1090 of the Go vernment Code, a line 24 representati ve of a county serving on a board, committee, or body line 25 with the primary purpose of administering funds or making funding line 26 recommendations for applications pursuant to this chapter shall line 27 have no financial interest in any contract, program, or project voted line 28 on by the board, committee, or body on the basis of the receipt of line 29 compensation for holding public office or public emplo yment as line 30 a representati ve of the county.
line 31 SEC. 2. Section 50243 of the Health and Safety Code is line 32 amended to read:
line 33 50243. (a) The intent of round 6 is to reflect the state’ s line 34 priorities to pre vent and e xpeditiously reduce unsheltered line 35 homelessness through homelessness pre vention acti vities, line 36 sustaining e xisting interim housing solutions, and permanent line 37 housing solutions, including long-term sustainability of affordable line 38 permanent supporti ve housing.
line 39 (b) Applicants shall de velop data-dri ven plans that fund the line 40 state’ s priorities.
97 — 6 — SB 692
line 1 (c) Applicants shall demonstrate ho w the re gion will use line 2 a vailable resources to sustain all e xisting and, as applicable, an y line 3 proposed interim housing investments within the region, including, line 4 but not limited to, use of local dedicated funding, Behavioral Health line 5 Services Act funds, or an y funds pursuant to Chapter 6 line 6 (commencing with Section 50216) or this chapter as long-term line 7 capitalized operating reserv es, or any other local, state, or federal line 8 funding source.
line 9 (d) Before proposing to use round 6 resources to fund ne w line 10 interim housing other than ne w interim housing for youth or line 11 proposing to use round 6 resources to fund nonhousing solutions, line 12 applicants shall first demonstrate that their re gion has dedicated line 13 sufficient resources from other sources to sustain their e xisting line 14 and planned portfolio of long-term permanent af fordable housing line 15 and e xisting interim solutions, including capital and operating line 16 costs.
line 17 (e) Subject to subdivision (d), allowable uses of round 6 base line 18 program allocation funds include all of the follo wing:
line 19 (1) Permanent housing solutions that can prevent or serve those line 20 e xperiencing unsheltered homelessness, including, but not limited line 21 to, persons e xperiencing homelessness coming from encampment line 22 sites. These uses include all of the following:
line 23 (A) Rental subsidies, including to support placement of line 24 indi viduals in CARE Court.
line 25 (B) Landlord incentives, such as security deposits, holding fees, line 26 funding for needed repairs, and recruitment and relationship line 27 management costs.
line 28 (C) Move-in expenses.
line 29 (D) Operating subsidies in ne w and e xisting af fordable or line 30 supporti ve housing units serving people experiencing or at risk of line 31 homelessness, including programs such as Homek ey, ne w or line 32 existing residential care facilities, funded by the Behavioral Health line 33 Continuum Infrastructure Program or the Community Care line 34 Expansion Program. Operating subsidies may include capitalized line 35 operating reserv es.
line 36 (E) Supportive services for people in permanent housing, so line 37 long as the services are trauma-informed and practice harm line 38 reduction, to include intensive case management services, assertive line 39 community treatment services, critical time interv ention services, line 40 other tenanc y support services, e vidence-based emplo yment 97 SB 692 — 7 —
line 1 services, coordinating mental health, substance use, and primary line 2 care treatment, or other e vidence-based supporti ve services to line 3 increase housing retention.
line 4 (F) Capital for permanent housing that serv es people line 5 e xperiencing homelessness, including conversion of underutilized line 6 buildings or existing interim or transitional housing into permanent line 7 housing.
line 8 (G) Services coordination, which may include access to line 9 w orkforce, education, and training programs, or other services line 10 needed to promote housing stability in permanent supporti ve line 11 housing.
line 12 (2) Homelessness prevention includes, but is not limited to, both line 13 of the follo wing:
line 14 (A) Rental assistance, rapid rehousing, and other programs as line 15 long as the y prioritize households with incomes at or belo w 30 line 16 percent of the area median income.
line 17 (B) Diversion support programs that pre vent people at risk of line 18 or recently e xperiencing homelessness from entering unsheltered line 19 or sheltered homelessness.
line 20 (3) Interim housing solutions, that can provide shelter to those line 21 e xperiencing unsheltered homelessness, including, but not limited line 22 to, persons e xperiencing homelessness coming from encampment line 23 sites. These uses include all of the following:
line 24 (A) Navigation centers that are lo w barrier , as defined in line 25 Sections 65660 and 65662 of the Go vernment Code. line 26 (B) Operating expenses for existing congregate shelter sites. line 27 (C) Operating expenses in new or existing noncongregate shelter line 28 sites and transitional housing for youth.
line 29 (D) Motel or hotel vouchers.
line 30 (E) Services provided to people in interim housing, to include line 31 trauma-informed and e vidence-based intensive case management line 32 services, housing na vigation, connecting people to substance use line 33 or mental health treatment, public benefits adv ocacy, and other line 34 supportive services to promote stability and referral into permanent line 35 housing.
line 36 (F) Capital funding to b uild new noncongregate shelter sites line 37 and transitional housing sites for homeless youth, including for line 38 construction, rehabilitation, and capital impro vements to convert line 39 e xisting congregate sites into noncongregate sites. 97 — 8 — SB 692
line 1 (G) Capital funding for clinically enhanced congre gate or line 2 noncongre gate shelter sites.
line 3 (H) Youth-focused services in transitional housing. line 4 (I) Improvements to e xisting emer gency shelters to lo wer line 5 barriers and increase pri vacy.
line 6 (J) Any new interim sheltering funded by round 6 funds shall line 7 be lo w barrier, comply with Housing First as provided in Chapter line 8 6.5 (commencing with Section 8255) of Di vision 8 of the Welfare line 9 and Institutions Code, and prioritize interv entions other than line 10 congregate shelters except clinically enhanced congregate shelters line 11 as specified in subparagraph (G).
line 12 (4) Nonhousing solutions, including nonhousing services for line 13 people e xperiencing unsheltered homelessness, including, but not line 14 limited to, persons e xperiencing homelessness from encampment line 15 sites and those transitioning out of encampment sites. This includes line 16 street outreach, e vidence-based eng agement services, intensi ve line 17 case management services, assertive community treatment, housing line 18 navigation, harm reduction services, coordination with street-based line 19 health care services, and h ygiene services for people li ving in line 20 encampments and unsheltered indi viduals.
line 21 (5) Vehicle b uyback programs for persons e xperiencing line 22 v ehicular homelessness, if those b uyback offers are paired with line 23 an of fer of interim or permanent housing.
line 24 (f) (1) Applicants may request, in a form prescribed by the line 25 department, appro val to utilize round 6 funding on allo wable line 26 e xpenditures outside of the state’ s intended priorities, as line 27 enumerated in this section.
line 28 (2) The department may grant applicants preapproval to utilize line 29 program funding on allo wable uses only after an applicant has line 30 demonstrated that state priorities are adequately resourced, and line 31 the applicant has exhausted all means to accomplish these priorities. line 32 (g) An applicant shall not use more than 7 percent of a round 6 line 33 program allocation for administrati ve costs incurred by the city , line 34 county , continuum of care, or tribe to administer its program line 35 allocation. For purposes of this subdivision, “administrative costs” line 36 does not include staf f or other costs directly related to line 37 implementing acti vities funded by the program allocation. line 38 (h) (1) The department may authorize an applicant to use up line 39 to an additional 1 percent for costs related to the Homeless line 40 Management Information System. Related costs include Homeless 97 SB 692 — 9 —
line 1 Management Information System licenses, training, system line 2 operating costs, and costs associated with carrying out related line 3 acti vities.
line 4 (2) Upon agreement between the grantee and the Homeless line 5 Management Information System lead entity , the grantee shall line 6 transfer the authorized amount of funds pursuant to paragraph (1) line 7 for related costs to the Homeless Management Information System line 8 lead entity . The department shall specify the method and manner line 9 for this transfer of funds.
line 10 (i) A recipient of a round 6 program allocation shall comply line 11 with Housing First as pro vided in Chapter 6.5 (commencing with line 12 Section 8255) of Di vision 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. line 13 (j) Notwithstanding Section 27011 of the Go vernment Code, line 14 or an y other la w go verning the deposit of funds in the county line 15 treasury , a county may accept or deposit into the county treasury line 16 funds from an y source for the purpose of administering a project, line 17 proposal, or program under this article.
line 18 (k) For purposes of Section 1090 of the Go vernment Code, a line 19 representati ve of a county serving on a board, committee, or body line 20 with the primary purpose of administering funds or making funding line 21 recommendations for applications pursuant to this article shall line 22 have no financial interest in any contract, program, or project voted line 23 on by the board, committee, or body on the basis of the receipt of line 24 compensation for holding public office or public emplo yment as line 25 a representati ve of the county.
line 26 ( l) A program recipient shall not use funding from the program line 27 allocated under this section to supplant Encampment Resolution line 28 Funding program grant funds pro vided under Section 50251. line 29 SEC. 3.
line 30 SECTION 1. Section 22650 of the Vehicle Code is amended line 31 to read:
line 32 22650. (a) It is unlawful for a peace officer or an unauthorized line 33 person to remove an unattended vehicle from a highway to a garage line 34 or to any other place, except as provided in this code. line 35 (b) Any removal of a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth line 36 Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Section line 37 13 of Article I of the California Constitution, and shall be line 38 reasonable and subject to the limits set forth in Fourth Amendment line 39 jurisprudence. A removal pursuant to an authority, including, but line 40 not limited to, as provided in Section 22651, that is based on 97 — 10 — SB 692
line 1 community caretaking, is only reasonable if the removal is line 2 necessary to achieve the community caretaking need, such as line 3 ensuring the safe flow of traffic or protecting property from theft line 4 or vandalism.
line 5 (c) Those law enforcement and other agencies identified in this line 6 chapter as having the authority to remove vehicles shall also have line 7 the authority to provide hearings in compliance with the provisions line 8 of Section 22852. During these hearings the storing agency shall line 9 have the burden of establishing the authority for, and the validity line 10 of, the removal.
line 11 (d) This section does not prevent a review or other action as line 12 may be permitted by the laws of this state by a court of competent line 13 jurisdiction.
line 14 (e) This article does not prevent a local government from line 15 performing emergency summary abatement of vehicles vehicles, line 16 as defined in Section 670, that are creating imminent health and line 17 safety hazards, pursuant to state law or local ordinance. line 18 SEC. 4.
line 19 SEC. 2. Section 22660 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
line 20 22660. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city, line 21 county, or city and county may adopt an ordinance establishing line 22 procedures for the abatement and removal, as public nuisances, of line 23 abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles, or line 24 v ehicles formerly used as shelter by persons e xperiencing line 25 homelessness, vehicles, as defined in Section 670, or parts thereof line 26 from private or public property, and for the recovery, pursuant to line 27 Section 25845 or 38773.5 of the Government Code, or assumption line 28 by the local authority, of costs of administration and the removal. line 29 SEC. 5.
line 30 SEC. 3. Section 22661 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
line 31 22661. Any ordinance establishing procedures for the removal line 32 of abandoned vehicles shall contain all of the following provisions:
line 33 (a) The requirement that notice be given to the Department of line 34 Motor Vehicles within five days after the date of removal, line 35 identifying the vehicle or part thereof and any evidence of line 36 registration available, including, but not limited to, the registration line 37 card, certificates of ownership, or license plates. line 38 (b) Making the ordinance inapplicable to (1) a vehicle or part line 39 thereof that is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful line 40 manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or 97 SB 692 — 11 —
line 1 private property or (2) a vehicle or part thereof that is stored or line 2 parked in a lawful manner on private property in connection with line 3 the business of a licensed dismantler, licensed vehicle dealer, or line 4 a junkyard. This exception shall not, however, authorize the line 5 maintenance of a public or private nuisance as defined under line 6 provisions of law other than this chapter.
line 7 (c) Making the ordinance applicable to public agencies operating line 8 a vehicle buyback program for persons experiencing homelessness, line 9 utilizing funding from Sections 50232 to 50238, inclusive, Sections line 10 50239 to 50244, inclusive, or Sections 50250 to 50254.5, inclusive, line 11 of the Health and Safety Code, and wishing to dispose of a vehicle, line 12 formerly used as shelter by a person e xperiencing homelessness, line 13 the removal of vehicles, as defined in Section 670, including, but line 14 not limited to, vehicles that are being used, or have been used, as line 15 shelter, and wishing to dispose of those vehicles from public or line 16 private property, irrespective of the vehicle’s operability, line 17 registration status, or condition.
line 18 (d) (1) The requirement that not less than a 10-day notice of line 19 intention to abate and remove the vehicle or part thereof as a public line 20 nuisance be issued, unless the property owner and the owner of line 21 the vehicle have signed releases authorizing removal and waiving line 22 further interest in the vehicle or part thereof. line 23 (2) However, prior notice of intention is not required for removal line 24 of a vehicle or part thereof that is inoperable due to the absence line 25 of a motor, transmission, or wheels and incapable of being towed, line 26 and is valued at less than two hundred dollars ($200) by a person line 27 specified in Section 22855, if either of the following criteria is line 28 met:
line 29 (A) The property owner has signed a release authorizing removal line 30 and waiving their interest in the vehicle or part thereof. line 31 (B) The vehicle or part is determined by the local agency to be line 32 a public nuisance presenting an imminent threat to public health line 33 or safety.
line 34 (3) Prior to final disposition pursuant to Section 22662 of a line 35 vehicle or part for which evidence of registration was recovered line 36 pursuant to subdivision (a), the local agency shall provide notice line 37 to the registered and legal owners of intent to dispose of the vehicle line 38 or part, and if the vehicle or part is not claimed and removed within line 39 12 days after the notice is mailed, from a location specified in line 40 Section 22662, or if the owner signs a release waiving the waiting 97 — 12 — SB 692
line 1 period, final disposition may proceed. A local agency or contractor line 2 thereof is not liable for damage caused to a vehicle or part thereof line 3 by removal pursuant to this section.
line 4 (4) Paragraph (2) applies only as follows:
line 5 (A) To inoperable vehicles located upon a parcel that is zoned line 6 for agricultural use.
line 7 (B) To inoperable vehicles located upon a parcel that is not line 8 improved with a residential structure containing one or more line 9 dwelling units.
line 10 (e) The 10-day notice of intention to abate and remove a vehicle line 11 or part thereof, when required by this section, shall contain a line 12 statement of the hearing rights of the owner of the property on line 13 which the vehicle is located and of the owner of the vehicle. The line 14 statement shall include notice to the property owner that they may line 15 appear in person at a hearing or may submit a sworn written line 16 statement denying responsibility for the presence of the vehicle line 17 on the land, with their reasons for such denial, in lieu of appearing. line 18 The notice of intention to abate shall be mailed, by registered or line 19 certified mail, to the owner of the land as shown on the last line 20 equalized assessment roll and to the last registered and legal owners line 21 of record unless the vehicle is in such condition that identification line 22 numbers are not available to determine ownership. line 23 (f) The requirement that a public hearing be held before the line 24 governing body of the city, county, or city and county, or any other line 25 board, commissioner, or official of the city, county, or city and line 26 county as designated by the governing body, upon request for such line 27 a hearing by the owner of the vehicle or the owner of the land on line 28 which the vehicle is located. This request shall be made to the line 29 appropriate public body, agency, or officer within 10 days after line 30 the mailing of notice of intention to abate and remove the vehicle line 31 or at the time of signing a release pursuant to subdivision (d). If line 32 the owner of the land on which the vehicle is located submits a line 33 sworn written statement denying responsibility for the presence line 34 of the vehicle on their land within that time period, this statement line 35 shall be construed as a request for hearing that does not require line 36 the presence of the owner submitting the request. If the request is line 37 not received within that period, the appropriate public body, line 38 agency, or officer shall have the authority to remove the vehicle. line 39 (g) The requirement that after a vehicle has been removed, it line 40 shall not be reconstructed or made operable, unless it is a vehicle 97 SB 692 — 13 —
line 1 that qualifies for either horseless carriage license plates or historical line 2 vehicle license plates, pursuant to Section 5004, in which case the line 3 vehicle may be reconstructed or made operable.
line 4 (h) A provision authorizing the owner of the land on which the line 5 vehicle is located to appear in person at the hearing or present a line 6 sworn written statement denying responsibility for the presence line 7 of the vehicle on the land, with their reasons for the denial. If it is line 8 determined at the hearing that the vehicle was placed on the land line 9 without the consent of the landowner and that they have not line 10 subsequently acquiesced to its presence, then the local authority line 11 shall not assess costs of administration or removal of the vehicle line 12 against the property upon which the vehicle is located or otherwise line 13 attempt to collect those costs from the owner.
line 14 (i) A provision specifying that, notwithstanding any other line 15 provision of law, emergency summary abatement of vehicles line 16 creating imminent health and safety hazards shall be permissible line 17 pursuant to procedures specified in all applicable state laws or line 18 local ordinances.
line 19 SEC. 6.
line 20 SEC. 4. Section 22662 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
line 21 22662. (a) Vehicles or parts thereof may be disposed of by line 22 removal to a scrapyard, automobile dismantler’s yard, or any line 23 suitable site operated by a local authority for processing as scrap, line 24 or other final disposition consistent with subdivision (e) of Section line 25 22661.
line 26 (b) A local authority may operate such a disposal site when its line 27 governing body determines that commercial channels of disposition line 28 are not available or are inadequate, and it may make final line 29 disposition of such vehicles or parts, or the local agency may line 30 transfer such vehicle or parts to another, provided such disposal line 31 shall be only as scrap. Vehicles described in subdivision (c) of line 32 Section 22661 may be scrapped and dismantled in place and line 33 disposed of at a suitable site operated by a local authority. line 34 SEC. 7.
line 35 SEC. 5. Section 22851.3 of the Vehicle Code is amended to line 36 read:
line 37 22851.3. (a) Whenever a peace officer, as defined in Chapter line 38 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal line 39 Code, or any other employee of a public agency authorized line 40 pursuant to Section 22669, removes, or causes the removal of, a 97 — 14 — SB 692
line 1 vehicle pursuant to Section 22669 and the public agency or, at the line 2 request of the public agency, the lienholder determines the line 3 estimated value of the vehicle is five hundred dollars ($500) or line 4 less, the public agency that removed, or caused the removal of, line 5 the vehicle shall cause the disposal of the vehicle under this section, line 6 subject to all of the following requirements:
line 7 (1) Not less than 72 hours before the vehicle is removed, the line 8 peace officer or the authorized public employee has securely line 9 attached to the vehicle a distinctive notice which states that the line 10 vehicle will be removed by the public agency. This subdivision line 11 does not apply to abandoned vehicles removed pursuant to line 12 subdivision (d) of Section 22669 which are determined by the line 13 public agency to have an estimated value of three hundred dollars line 14 ($300) or less.
line 15 (2) Immediately after removal of the vehicle, the public agency line 16 which removed, or caused the removal of, the vehicle shall notify line 17 the Stolen Vehicle System of the Department of Justice in line 18 Sacramento of the removal.
line 19 (3) The public agency that removed, or caused the removal of, line 20 the vehicle or, at the request of the public agency, the lienholder line 21 shall obtain a copy of the names and addresses of all persons having line 22 an interest in the vehicle, if any, from the Department of Motor line 23 Vehicles either directly or by use of the California Law line 24 Enforcement Telecommunications System. This paragraph does line 25 not require the public agency or lienholder to obtain a copy of the line 26 actual record on file at the Department of Motor Vehicles. line 27 (4) Within 48 hours of the removal, excluding weekends and line 28 holidays, the public agency that removed, or caused the removal line 29 of, the vehicle or, at the request of the public agency, the lienholder line 30 shall send a notice to the registered and legal owners at their line 31 addresses of record with the Department of Motor Vehicles, and line 32 to any other person known to have an interest in the vehicle. A line 33 notice sent by the public agency shall be sent by certified or line 34 first-class mail, and a notice sent by the lienholder shall be sent line 35 by certified mail. The notice shall include all of the following line 36 information:
line 37 (A) The name, address, and telephone number of the public line 38 agency providing the notice.
97 SB 692 — 15 —
line 1 (B) The location of the place of storage and description of the line 2 vehicle which shall include, if available, the vehicle make, license line 3 plate number, vehicle identification number, and mileage. line 4 (C) The authority and purpose for the removal of the vehicle. line 5 (D) A statement that the vehicle may be disposed of 15 days line 6 from the date of the notice.
line 7 (E) A statement that the owners and interested persons, or their line 8 agents, have the opportunity for a poststorage hearing before the line 9 public agency that removed, or caused the removal of, the vehicle line 10 to determine the validity of the storage if a request for a hearing line 11 is made in person, in writing, or by telephone within 10 days from line 12 the date of notice; that, if the owner or interested person, or their line 13 agent, disagrees with the decision of the public agency, the decision line 14 may be reviewed pursuant to Section 11523 of the Government line 15 Code; and that during the time of the initial hearing, or during the line 16 time the decision is being reviewed pursuant to Section 11523 of line 17 the Government Code, the vehicle in question may not be disposed line 18 of.
line 19 (5) (A) A requested hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours line 20 of the request, excluding weekends and holidays. The public line 21 agency that removed the vehicle may authorize its own officers to line 22 conduct the hearing if the hearing officer is not the same person line 23 who directed the storage of the vehicle.
line 24 (B) Failure of either the registered or legal owner or interested line 25 person, or their agent, to request or to attend a scheduled hearing line 26 shall satisfy the poststorage validity hearing requirement of this line 27 section.
line 28 (6) The public agency employing the person, or utilizing the line 29 services of a contractor or franchiser pursuant to subdivision (b) line 30 of Section 22669, that removed, or caused the removal of, the line 31 vehicle and that directed any towing or storage, is responsible for line 32 the costs incurred for towing and storage if it is determined in the line 33 hearing that reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle was line 34 abandoned are not established.
line 35 (7) An authorization for disposal may not be issued by the public line 36 agency that removed, or caused the removal of, the vehicle to a line 37 lienholder who is storing the vehicle prior to the conclusion of a line 38 requested poststorage hearing or any judicial review of that hearing. line 39 (8) If, after 15 days from the notification date, the vehicle line 40 remains unclaimed and the towing and storage fees have not been 97 — 16 — SB 692
line 1 paid, and if no request for a poststorage hearing was requested or line 2 a poststorage hearing was not attended, the public agency that line 3 removed, or caused the removal of, the vehicle shall provide to line 4 the lienholder who is storing the vehicle, on a form approved by line 5 the Department of Motor Vehicles, authorization to dispose of the line 6 vehicle. The lienholder may request the public agency to provide line 7 the authorization to dispose of the vehicle.
line 8 (9) If the vehicle is claimed by the owner or their agent within line 9 15 days of the notice date, the lienholder who is storing the vehicle line 10 may collect reasonable fees for services rendered, but may not line 11 collect lien sale fees as provided in Section 22851.12. line 12 (10) Disposal of the vehicle by the lienholder who is storing the line 13 vehicle may only be to a licensed dismantler or scrap iron line 14 processor. A copy of the public agency’s authorization for disposal line 15 shall be forwarded to the licensed dismantler within five days of line 16 disposal to a licensed dismantler. A copy of the public agency’s line 17 authorization for disposal shall be retained by the lienholder who line 18 stored the vehicle for a period of 90 days if the vehicle is disposed line 19 of to a scrap iron processor.
line 20 (11) If the names and addresses of the registered and legal line 21 owners of the vehicle are not available from the records of the line 22 Department of Motor Vehicles, either directly or by use of the line 23 California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the line 24 public agency may issue to the lienholder who stored the vehicle line 25 an authorization for disposal at any time after the removal. line 26 The lienholder may request the public agency to issue an line 27 authorization for disposal after the lienholder ascertains that the line 28 names and addresses of the registered and legal owners of the line 29 vehicle are not available from the records of the Department of line 30 Motor Vehicles either directly or by use of the California Law line 31 Enforcement Telecommunications System.
line 32 (12) A vehicle disposed of pursuant to this section may not be line 33 reconstructed or made operable, unless it is a vehicle that qualifies line 34 for either horseless carriage license plates or historical vehicle line 35 license plates, pursuant to Section 5004, in which case the vehicle line 36 may be reconstructed or made operable.
line 37 (b) The requirements in subdivision (a) shall be waived if the line 38 public agency meets either of the following conditions:
97 SB 692 — 17 —
line 1 (1) Obtains a release signed by the owner of the vehicle line 2 assigning their interest in the vehicle to the public agency for line 3 purposes of disposition.
line 4 (2) Determines that the vehicle poses a public nuisance, has line 5 posted a 15-day public notice to the vehicle specifying that the line 6 vehicle is subject to disposal if not removed, and allows for a line 7 hearing pursuant to paragraphs (5) to (8), inclusive, of subdivision line 8 (a).
O
97 — 18 — SB 692
Internal
SB 692 – Vehicles: homelessness
SUMMARY_______________________________
SB 692 would authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt an ordinance for the abatement and removal of
abandoned or inoperable vehicles formerly used as shelter by people experiencing homelessness . This bill would also require an ordinance to establish certain procedures and notice requirements for the removal of abandoned vehicles, with the authorization to remove vehicles that are creating an
imminent health and safety standard. Finally, this bill would make an ordinance applicable to local gove rnments that are operating a vehicle buyback program to expedite the removal of vehicles used as shelter from the streets, as long as the buy- back offer is paired with an offer of interim or permanent housing.
BACKGROUND__________________ ______
Abandoned or inoperable vehicles are a significant issue in California that are creating public health and safety concerns in cities and counties. Many of these vehicles are often linked to homelessness, and it is unfortunate that individuals experiencing homelessness are sometimes forced to reside in these vehicles due to California’s housing crisis. For many years, California has significantly invested in a variety of programs, such as ERF, Roomkey and Homekey, to help
thousands of people move from dangerous encampments into stable housing.
PROBLEM_______________________________
When an individual experiencing homelessness is moved
indoors, these abandoned, and oftentimes inoperable, vehicles remain on the street. In many cases, these vehicles are in such poor condition and pose serious health and safety risks, which results in local towing companies refusing to take them.
Moreover, t he current Vehicle Code prohibits local
governments from summarily abating and addressing
imminent health and safety hazards when these conditions occur in a vehicle.
SOLUTION_______________________________
SB 692 would authorize local governments to enact an
ordinance to abate and remove abandoned or inoperable
vehicles with certain procedures and notice requirements to be followed. Additionally, this bill would authorize local governments to remove and dismantle vehicles formerly used as shelter and purchased through a buy-back program, as long as the buyback offer is paired with an offer of interim or permanent housing.
Emerging research demonstrates that people living in vehicles often decline resources for fea r of losing their largest asset:
their vehicle. Yet emerging research also demonstrates that when people in poverty are given cash, they use it to wisely meet their most pressing economic needs. SB 692 affords that same opportunity to our most vulnerable residents living in vehicles. Once these vehicles are vacated, it would allow local governments to avoid the impound process altogether and instead have them be dismantled.
CONTACT_______________________________
Luis Amezcua
(916) 651-4007
[email protected]
SUPPORT ______________________________
City of Oakland, Sponsor
Berkeley Council Member Terry Taplin
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● E-Mail: [email protected]
CONSENT CALENDAR
May 20, 2025
Igor Tregub, Councilmember District 4
Adena Ishii, Mayor
Ben Bartlett, Councilmember District 3
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Igor Tregub (Author), Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Sponsor), and Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: A resolution recognizing the Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) community and urging support for Assembly Bill 91 — the “MENA Inclusion Act” (Harabedian).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution in support of California Assembly Bill 91, the Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) Inclusion Act1 (Harabedian), to ensure accurate and equitable demographic data collection for MENA communities. This bill mandates the creation of distinct categories for MENA groups in official demographic data, starting on January 1, 2027.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) community in California, one of the fastest-growing populations, is currently underrepresented in official demographic data.
This lack of representation hinders the ability of state and local governments to effectively address the unique needs of MENA communities, particularly in areas such as education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. Existing census methods do not account for the broad diversity within the MENA community, preventing policymakers from making informed decisions.
Assembly Bill 91, the "MENA Inclusion Act," will establish distinct categories for MENA groups in demographic data collected by state and local agencies, ensuring that MENA populations are properly represented. This will result in better-tailored policies, more 1 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB91/id/3040032
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● E-Mail: [email protected] equitable distribution of resources, and a stronger voice for MENA communities in California.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Limited staff time is required to communicate the City’s position to State representatives.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Igor Tregub, Council District 4
510-981-7140
[email protected]
Shamaila Ahmed, Legislative Aide, Council District 4
[email protected]
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● E-Mail: [email protected] RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL 91. THE MIDDLE EASTERN AND NORTH AFRICAN (MENA) INCLUSION ACT — TO ENSURE ACCURATE
REPRESENTATION AND EQUITABLE ACCESS TO RESOURCES FOR MENA
COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley is committed to fostering an inclusive, equitable, and just community that values the contributions of all residents, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, or cultural background; and WHEREAS, Berkeley has long been a leader in championing civil rights, human rights, and progressive public policy that uplifts historically marginalized communities; and WHEREAS, the Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) community has deep and historic roots in California and in the Bay Area, and contributes significantly to the cultural, economic, educational, and civic fabric of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, this misclassification has profound consequences: MENA communities are unable to access culturally and linguistically appropriate services, are often excluded from funding and programming opportunities; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 91 — the Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) Inclusion Act, seeks to remedy this disparity by requiring state agencies, local governments, and educational institutions to include a distinct MENA data category in demographic data collection, effective January 1, 2027; and WHEREAS, this change will also enable educational institutions in Berkeley and beyond to more effectively address disparities in resource access for students who identify as MENA, promoting greater equity; and
WHEREAS, supporting AB 91 reflects the City of Berkeley’s deep-rooted commitment to racial justice, equity, and inclusive governance, continuing a legacy of championing underrepresented communities and ensuring that public policy is shaped by accurate, community-centered data; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Berkeley formally supports Assembly Bill 91, the MENA Inclusion Act, and affirms the importance of accurately collecting and disaggregating demographic data to ensure equity and inclusion for MENA communities across California; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of Berkeley urges the California State Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom to pass and sign AB 91 into law; and
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● E-Mail: [email protected] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall send copies of this resolution to Governor Gavin Newsom, , State Senator Jesse Arreguín, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and John Harabedian.
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● E-Mail: [email protected]
CONSENT CALENDAR
May 20, 2025
Igor Tregub, Councilmember District 4
Adena Ishii, Mayor
Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember District 1
Cecilia Lunaparra, Councilmember District 7
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmembers Igor Tregub (Author), Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Sponsor), Rashi Kesarwani (Co-Sponsor), and Cecilia Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds to the annual Asian Cultural Festival
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the expenditure of up to $500 per Mayor/Councilmember from their D13 Discretionary Accounts, including $500 from the Mayor and Councilmember Tregub, and contributions of $250 each from Councilmembers Kesarwani, and Lunaparra. Other Councilmembers are invited to contribute to support annual Asian Cultural Festival in an amount of up to $500. Funds will be transferred to the City’s general fund and provided to the designated fiscal sponsor of the festival to ensure its successful production and community engagement.
The relinquishment of funds from the respective discretionary Council Office Budgets of such members of the Berkeley City Council who wish to contribute will support this impactful event, promoting cultural exchange, unity, and celebration of Berkeley’s rich Asian American communities
BACKGROUND
The Asian Cultural Festival is one of the Bay Area’s most cherished celebrations of Asian heritage, art, and community. Taking place in the heart of Berkeley, the festival brings together families, performers, artists, and small businesses to honor the cultural traditions of over a dozen Asian countries through music, dance, crafts, and cuisine.
Going on its fifth year, the festival serves as a joyful, unifying space that promotes cross-cultural understanding and celebrates the richness of the Asian American
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● E-Mail: [email protected] experience in all its diversity. It brings together people of all backgrounds to engage with centuries-old traditions and contemporary expressions of Asian culture. The festival also provides a vital platform for community-based organizations, local artists, and small businesses, many of whom represent historically underrepresented or marginalized voices, to share their stories, showcase their talents, and build lasting connections across communities. Through music, art, food, and storytelling, the event fosters pride, representation, and a deepened sense of belonging.
As the festival continues to grow in size and significance, so too does the need for increased financial support to ensure accessibility, safety, and high-quality programming for all attendees. City Council funding will help offset the costs of staging, cultural performances, programming, and outreach, thus ensuring this beloved event remains free and open to all.
By investing in the Asian Cultural Festival, the City of Berkeley demonstrates its continued commitment to cultural equity, inclusion, and the celebration of diversity as a core civic value.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The continued growth and popularity of the Asian Cultural Festival have brought rising operational costs that now pose a significant challenge for organizers. These include expenses for sound and stage equipment, communication tools, and expanded outreach to ensure the event remains inclusive and welcoming for all. To keep the festival free and open to the public while ensuring its ongoing success, additional funding is needed to support:
Rental of sound, stage, and communication equipment;
Support for artists, performers, and cultural educators; and Accessibility infrastructure to ensure safety and access for all attendees As the festival is volunteer-led and does not receive institutional funding, support from the City Council is critical to maintaining the scale, inclusivity, and cultural impact of this beloved event.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact. Up to $500 is available from contributing Mayor’s and Councilmembers’ Council Office Budget discretionary accounts.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● E-Mail: [email protected]
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Igor Tregub, Council District 4
510-981-7140
[email protected]
Shamaila Ahmed, Legislative Aide, Council District 4
s
[email protected]
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● E-Mail: [email protected] RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE
EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT TO SUPPORT
ANNUAL ASIAN CULTURAL FESTIVAL
WHEREAS, Mayor Ishii and Councilmembers Tregub, Kesarwani, and Lunaparra have surplus funds in their D13 discretionary office expenditure accounts and will contribute up to $500 each, and invite other Councilmembers to join in contributing; and WHEREAS, the Asian Cultural Festival is one of the Bay Area's most cherished celebrations of Asian heritage, art, and community, bringing together families, performers, artists, and small businesses to honor the cultural traditions of over a dozen Asian countries; and
WHEREAS, the festival serves as a unifying space for cross-cultural understanding and celebration, offering a platform for community-based organizations, local artists, and small businesses, many representing historically underrepresented or marginalized voices, to share their stories and talents; and
WHEREAS, the festival, in its fourth year, has experienced continued growth, with rising operational costs that include expenses for sound and stage equipment, communication tools, artist support, and outreach for inclusivity; and WHEREAS, the Asian Cultural Festival is volunteer-run and does not receive recurring institutional funding, with the event’s success reliant on community donations and support; and
WHEREAS, additional funding will ensure longevity, accessibility, safety, high-quality programming, and outreach to maintain the festival's inclusivity and free, open access to the public; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such funding aligns with the City of Berkeley's commitment to cultural equity, inclusion, and the celebration of diversity as core civic values; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by Councilmembers from their discretionary office budgets, up to $500 per office, including $500 from the Mayor and Councilmember Tregub, and contributions of $250 each from Councilmembers Kesarwani, and Lunaparra, shall be authorized for expenditure from their D13 Discretionary Accounts to the designated fiscal sponsor of the 2025 Asian Cultural Festival to support its successful production and community engagement.
CONSENT CALENDAR
May 20, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe (Author), Mayor Adena Ishii, Councilmembers Brent Blackaby and Cecilia Lunaparra (Co-Sponsors) Subject: Alternative Housing Options for People Experiencing Homelessness
RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager a request for staff to identify a list of potential locations of City-owned and private properties (to be leased or acquired) – for the purpose of establishing 24/7 staffed shelter sites, including but not limited to indoor/outdoor camping areas, safe RV and car park zones, and/or congregate or non-congregate shelters for people experiencing homelessness based on the model used at Grayson Street and other models deemed successful by the City Manager.
Further, refer the City Manager to provide a report to the City Council that includes:
1. Ongoing efforts to address homelessness and the mental health crisis within Berkeley’s jurisdiction, including the work of non-governmental organizations the City is relying upon and, where possible, the cost thereof
2. A gap analysis between resources required by the City to fully address homelessness and its current financial position
3. A feasibility and cost analysis of Berkeley’s ability to support additional shelter or services sites, including staffing and operational constraints
4. A geographic equity assessment of where homeless services, shelters, and encampments have historically been and currently are located in Berkeley
5. Opportunities to partner with Alameda County and other public agencies to utilize County, other governing jurisdictions, or state-owned land for temporary shelter and services outside of Berkeley’s most heavily impacted neighborhoods Moreover, refer to the City Manager to identify additional funding opportunities available through 2024 Measure W and affirm the City Council’s position that local jurisdictions such as Berkeley, that are heavily impacted by the housing and mental health crisis, should be considered for an equitable share and speedy receipt of 2024 Proposition 1 funding from Alameda County.
Refer to the City Manager to affirm that the City Council’s position is that, to the greatest extent possible, Measure W and other locally sourced funds should be used to support Berkeley- specific homelessness service needs.
2 Support the City Manager in collaborating with Alameda County and other neighboring jurisdictions to identify potential sites outside of Berkeley city limits that may be suitable and more cost-effective than sites within Berkeley.
Furthermore, affirm support for the following principles:
1. County resource investment in homelessness across the region should align proportionally with where homelessness is most prevalent and ensure support achieves racially equitable outcomes
2. The use of Measure W and other funding for homelessness guided by Home Together 2030 Plan should be a local decision, with cities deciding how to divvy up investment between prevention, interim, and permanent housing
3. Local priority for referrals into interim and permanent solutions – including everything from safe parking to shelter to permanent supportive housing and Homekey projects – should be commensurate with the level of funding provided
4. Sustaining nonprofit capacity
a. The homelessness response system relies heavily on nonprofit partners, many of whom face challenges in retaining staff due to funding constraints, salary limitations, and administrative burdens.
b. Measure W funding presents an opportunity to support not just direct services but also nonprofit infrastructure, helping organizations improve long-term sustainability.
c. Considerations include ensuring competitive wages, investing in staff retention strategies, and providing operational support.
d. Bonus funding consideration could be given to organizations that prioritize workforce sustainability through:
i. Competitive salaries and benefits for frontline staff ii. Efforts to retain high-preforming, low-turnover teams iii. Investments in administrative capacity that enhance service quality and long-term viability
POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Send item to Council with a qualified positive recommendation which include the following proposed amendments:
Refer to the City Manager a request for staff to identify a list of potential locations of City properties and private properties (to be leased or acquired) – for the purpose of establishing 24/7 staffed shelter sites, including but not limited to indoor/outdoor camping areas, safe RV and car park zones, and/or congregate or non-congregate shelters for people experiencing homelessness based on the model used at Grayson Street and other models deemed by the City Manager to be successful.
Further, direct the City Manager to provide a report to the City Council of ongoing efforts to address the homelessness and mental health crisis within Berkeley's jurisdiction, including efforts by non-governmental organizations the city is relying upon, where possible, including the
3 costs thereof, and a gap analysis between the resources required by the City to fully address homelessness and its current financial position.
As part of this report, direct the City Manager:
1) Conduct a feasibility and cost analysis of Berkeley’s ability to support additional shelter or service sites, including staffing and operational constraints 2) Include a geographic equity assessment of where homeless services, shelters, and encampments have historically and currently been located in Berkeley; 3) Identify opportunities to partner with Alameda County and other public agencies to utilize County, other governing jurisdictions – or state-owned land for temporary shelter and services outside of Berkeley’s most heavily impacted neighborhoods Direct the City Manager to identify any additional funding opportunities available through 2024 Measure W and affirm the City Council's position that local jurisdictions such as Berkeley that are heavily impacted by the housing and mental health crisis should be considered for an equitable share and speedy receipt of 2024 Proposition 1 funding from Alameda County.
Further, direct the City Manager to affirm that the City Council’s position is that, to the extent possible, Measure W and any other locally sourced funds should be used to support Berkeley- specific homelessness services needs.
Support the City Manager in collaborating with Alameda County and other neighboring jurisdictions to identify potential sites outside of Berkeley city limits that may be suitable and more cost-effective than additional sites within Berkeley. Further, affirm support for the following principles:
1. County resource investment in homelessness across the region should be commensurate with where homelessness occurs and targeted for racially equitable outcomes
2. Measure W and other funding for homelessness guided by Home Together 2030: Should be a Local City decision on the split between prevention, interim, and permanent housing
3. Local (City level) priority for referrals into interim and permanent solutions (including everything from safe parking to shelter to permanent supportive housing/HomeKey projects), commensurate with local funding.
4. Sustaining Nonprofit Capacity
The homelessness response system relies heavily on nonprofit partners, many of whom face challenges in retaining staff due to funding constraints, salary limitations, and administrative burdens.
Measure W funding presents an opportunity to support not just direct services but also nonprofit infrastructure, helping organizations improve long-term sustainability. Considerations include ensuring competitive wages, investing in staff retention strategies, and providing operational support.
Bonus funding consideration could be given to organizations that prioritize workforce sustainability through:
Competitive salaries and benefits for frontline staff. Efforts to retain high-performing, low-turnover teams. Investments in administrative capacity that enhance service quality and long-term viability.
Vote: All Ayes.
4 SUMMARY STATEMENT
Following the clearing of a homeless encampment at Old City Hall in early December 2024, unhoused residents formed a new encampment at Civic Center Park. Many Berkeley High School students, teachers, and parents, City of Berkeley staff, local businesses, Farmers Market vendors and visitors, residents of the encampment and their advocates have urged the City to address concerns related to health hazards and violence in and around the Civic Center Park encampment. While the City shifted focus and resources to address the encampment, successfully rehousing and securing temporary housing for many residents, various other unsanctioned encampments around Berkeley continue to pose similar concerns.
Our City remains committed to supporting our unhoused residents with the dignity, compassion, and respect they deserve while ensuring that public spaces remain equally accessible for all.
This is not a mutually exclusive goal and is achievable with the support of critical stakeholders.
In 2021, in collaboration with Dorothy Day House and Bayer, the City helped open a transitional shelter where unhoused people reported feeling safe, comfortable, and respected. As expected, the Grayson Street shelter and the safe RV lot closed when the City’s lease with REDCO Development LLC expired. Despite its efforts, the City could not immediately identify a viable alternative for the site, but staff took note of the positive effect this indoor camping and safe outdoor parking area had on all Berkeley residents.
Working against larger national and regional trends, the City of Berkeley has significantly reduced unsheltered homelessness by 45%. Despite that, the City continues to struggle to meet the housing and wrap-around service needs of our unhoused residents. While the City continues to pursue long-term, best-practice approaches such as expanding shelter capacity and seeking funding to build more transitional and permanent affordable housing, it’s clear these efforts are not enough. We must look toward supplemental solutions and create opportunities to more expeditiously support the unhoused community, while ensuring our public space is accessible to all.
This item requests that the City Manager identify and compile a list of City- and privately-owned properties to establish housing alternatives such as an indoor/outdoor camping area, safe RV and car parking, and/or congregate or non-congregate shelter for our unhoused residents who want to stay in Berkeley. The purpose is to provide a safe, clean space where unhoused community members can live, access resources, and ultimately transition to permanent housing. Ideally, some of these sites would have capacity to support the relocation of an entire encampment, to preserve an existing supportive community.
The item also includes new recommendations based on feedback and amendments from Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee members such as a City Manager report to Council, details about potential funding sources, and a reaffirmation of several principles related to local and county collaboration.
BACKGROUND
5 High cost of living and the lack of affordable housing stock in the United States has led to an increase in unsheltered homelessness and chronic homelessness since 2016. Between January 2023 and January 2024, homelessness in the United States increased by 18% – the largest jump since the Department of Housing and Urban Development began reporting in 2007.
Additionally, although underreported, unhoused people are more likely to be victims of violent crime than they are to commit these crimes, often worsening cycles of trauma among the unhoused community and beyond.1
In 2024, Alameda County saw the first decrease in homelessness in a decade. Between 2022 and 2024, Berkeley saw a 21% overall decrease in homelessness and a 45% decrease in unsheltered homelessness. These decreases at the County and City levels are likely the direct result of massive investments in affordable housing production and our homelessness response system, as made possible by Berkeley residents through their support of Measures O and P – both passed in 2018 with over 77% and 72% approval, respectively. Furthermore, Measure U1 – passed in 2016 with nearly 75% of the vote – has generated millions for affordable housing projects.
In 2017, the Berkeley City Council launched the Pathways Project to address homelessness by providing temporary shelter while working on longer-term solutions. Phase 1 established the STAIR Center, a low-barrier shelter open 24 hours a day and with services such as on-site mental health support, substance use disorder programing, and job training services. Phase 2 introduced the 1,000 Person Plan to ensure shelter or housing for every homeless person in the City.
According to the 1,000 Person Plan Referral Response, to end homelessness for 1,000 people in Berkeley, the City will need up-front investments in targeted homelessness prevention, light- touch housing problem-solving, rapid rehousing, and permanent subsidies, with a cost of $16-
19.5 million upfront and an annual ongoing expense of between roughly $12-15 million. Staff concluded that even this level of investment would unlikely end homelessness, but could increase the system’s capacity to support those experiencing long-term and chronic homelessness.2
At the start of 2023, Berkeley had nearly 350 shelter beds, 108 of which were seasonal and open only during the winter months. Over the course of 2023, more than 900 individual people used a shelter bed in Berkeley. As of late 2024 and since the inception of Measures O, P, and U1, more than 650 interim housing beds and permanent housing units have been funded, serving over 2,000 residents. The City also had about 50 transitional housing beds dedicated for specific populations, including transition-aged youth, people with substance use disorders, and 1 Berg, Steve. “The Disturbing Realities of Homelessness and Violence.” National Alliance to End Homelessness, January 24, 2022. https://endhomelessness.org/blog/the-disturbing-realities-of- homelessness-and-violence/.
2 City of Berkeley. Referral Response: 1000 Person Plan to Address Homelessness, April 30, 2019. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-02-14 Item 14 Referral Response Home Share.pdf.
6 veterans. During January and February of 2024, 82% of available shelter beds were occupied each night on average. Non-congregate shelters had higher levels of utilization: 93% of beds in non-congregate shelters were full on average, compared to 79% of beds in congregate shelters.3
In the last several years, Berkeley has passed major zoning reforms, implemented Measure O, and is racing to meet its commitments under the Housing Element, building housing at the fastest rates in decades. Still, on any given night in Alameda County, more than 8,000 people experience homelessness, with 844 of those people residing in Berkeley. 39% of unhoused residents in Berkeley reported that the primary cause of homelessness was related to losing housing, while 33% reported their condition was related to the loss of a job and income, and 21% reported it was due to health-related issues.4
Despite unprecedented investments in housing, affordable housing stock remains limited, and building costs and timelines remain uncircumventable. Given the urgency around addressing newer and existing encampments around the City, Berkeley and its residents could benefit from exploring additional short-term options for alternative housing such as tiny houses, micro units, ADUs, vehicle camping, indoor or outdoor camping sites, and more – with the ultimate long-term goal of providing permanent housing.
Fortunately, there is precedent for establishing a comprehensive camping area and transitional programs in Berkeley. In 2021, the City partnered with Dorothy Day House to create the Horizon Transitional Village and Safe Parking and Respite Kickstart (SPARK) site at 742 Grayson Street in West Berkeley. The site operated from July of 2021 until the City’s lease ended on October 31, 2022. The site combined an RV parking area with on-site services and vehicle repair assistance, creating a holistic program for people living in their vehicles.
The SPARK site provided space for up to 40 RVs, and its residents – primarily individuals displaced from unsanctioned RV encampments at 8th and Harrison Streets – were able to access basic amenities like water, portable toilets, and showers, along with vehicle repair stipends for up to $1,500 to help with RV maintenance. Additionally, the indoor site provided space for about 50 people and included small personal storage cubbies, a breakfast area, recreational space with a library and “movie theater” and a back storage area for residents to store larger items.5
3 City of Berkeley. Gap Analysis of Berkeley’s Homelessness System of Care, July 9, 2024. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-07-09 Item 16 Referral Response Gap Analysis of Berkeley’s Homelessness.pdf.
4 Alameda County. “City of Berkeley Homeless Census & Survey 2024 Executive Summary .” Alameda County Health Housing and Homelessness Services , 2024. https://homelessness.acgov.org/homelessness-
assets/docs/infographic/Berkeley%20PIT%202024%20Infographic.pdf. 5 Yelimeli, Supriya. “New West Berkeley homeless shelter opens as city emerges from COVID-19 pandemic.” Berkeleyside, July 2, 2021. https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/07/02/new-west-berkeley- homeless-shelter-grayson-street-2
7 (Photo credit: Supriya Yelimeli, Berkeleyside)
Case management and housing navigation services were also provided, supporting long-term housing transitions. The program served approximately 150 individuals during its operation, successfully connecting about 30 participants to permanent housing. While staff inquired about extending the lease, the owner of the property, San Francisco-based REDCO Development LLC expressed intent to build a life sciences hub on the property.
Ultimately, homelessness is a symptom of bigger, interconnecting trends that have grown worse in the last decade and are largely out of Berkeley’s control. Despite the challenges, Berkeley has adopted a humane approach that has been proven to work and made significant progress in addressing homelessness, a testament to the tremendous work of City Staff and the commitment of Berkeley residents alike. This item presents an opportunity for Berkeley to continue to lead on the issue of homelessness by asking the City Manager to explore novel and innovative approaches that remain rooted in our values.
REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
In July 2021, Berkeley City Council voted to endorse the All Home California Regional Action Plan (RAP), which seeks to reduce the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness across the nine county Bay Area region by 75%.
Further, the City of Berkeley Administrative Regulations, Regulating Temporary Non- Commercial Objects on Sidewalks and in Parklets, Pursuant to BMC § 14.48.120, states that “Temporary Noncommercial (TNC) Objects,” as defined by code (e.g., personal belongings under immediate control, of certain size/weight, and not for sale), must not impede the safe and accessible Path of Travel, violate designated TNC Prohibited Areas, or otherwise pose health or safety risks on public sidewalks or parklets. These regulations permit removal of TNC objects that exceed defined size or time limits, obstruct pedestrian or disability access, or infringe on critical infrastructure such as fire hydrants, transit stops, or building entrances, and require advance notice (except in emergencies) before the city may remove such objects.6 6 City of Berkeley, Municipal Code, Chapter 14.480, Section 120 (2018). https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Administrative%20Regulation%2010.2.pdf
8 Berkeley’s official encampment policy adopted in 2024, reaffirms the City’s commitment to offering interim housing whenever possible but authorizes removal of encampments without a shelter offer under six specific conditions, such as when an encampment poses a fire hazard, creates an imminent health risk, constitutes a public nuisance, is located on or dangerously close to a roadway, interferes with authorized construction or maintenance, or impedes city or utility operations.7
ACTIONS/ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The City of Berkeley is known for its creative and innovative approach to public policy. While the City should remain on course and continue creating additional permanent housing, without a plethora of transitional and temporary housing and safe site options for unhoused individuals, many will continue to experience unsheltered homelessness with little access to resources. On any given night, some 24% of Berkeley’s unhoused residents sleep on the street or sidewalk.
This item recognizes that it is neither sustainable nor suitable for an average of 445 people to camp on our public sidewalks, streets, and parks every single night.
While there is no panacea for homelessness, the City can help people experiencing homelessness live with dignity by ensuring they have a safe space to access personal hygiene care and resources with their belongings and pets, remaining within their community and support networks.
CONSULTATION/OUTREACH OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
The author and co-sponsors consulted with City Staff and numerous community stakeholders including but not limited to unhoused community members, business representatives, non-profit leaders, and advocates.
Councilmember O’Keefe discussed the item with the City Manager and he expressed an interest in working with City Staff to evaluate possible locations to expand alternative housing options. Further, Councilmember O’Keefe and Mayor Ishii met with the Deputy City Manager and head of Neighborhood Services to solicit their input and feedback, incorporating it into this item. Councilmember O’Keefe also met with residents of the Harrison Street encampment and spoke with homeless advocates, who expressed support for the idea.
Moreover, Councilmember Lunaparra hosted a Forum on Homelessness in early December that was specifically focused on soliciting ways to address homelessness from unhoused people themselves, and a camping area was repeatedly brought up as something that would be beneficial to Berkeley’s unhoused residents and the city as a whole. 7 City of Berkeley. Encampment Policy Resolution to Promote Healthy and Safe Neighborhoods and Related First Reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 14.48 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, September 10, 2024. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-09-10 Item 37 Encampment Policy Resolution.pdf.
9 RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This item proposes identifying locations that can be used for shorter-term solutions such as City-managed RV and car parks, indoor/outdoor camping areas, and/or additional congregate or non-congregate sites that may provide immediate, emergency shelter and relief for unhoused people, ensuring they will be connected to resources while the City works toward more permanent solutions, and preserves access to Berkeley’s public parks and spaces for all.
IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT
This referral exclusively asks the City Manager to identify and develop a list of locations for the creation of a safe, alternative housing site. Implementation will not take place until further Council action. This referral does not include discussion of how a potential site could be operationalized or administered. Blueprints and precedent already exist and have been proven successful for such implementation at the Grayson Street Shelter and safe RV Zone, and we request staff consult these plans to inform their work.
Feasibility should be determined under the assumption that city funds will be used to purchase/lease and manage the eventual site or sites. The intent of this referral is to provide additional safe housing options for Berkeley’s unsheltered residents and not to address the issue on a regional level. While identifying a source of funding is not within the scope of this referral, the search process should be done with the goal of ensuring local control of any eventual housing sites.
Anecdotal conversations with many unhoused people and their advocates reveal that the following criteria should be taken into consideration by City Staff when evaluating possible sites for a camping area:
● Public transit accessibility
● Proximity to existing homeless services, such as Dorothy Day House or the Sacred Rest Drop-In Center
● Access to food, electricity, potable water, on-site showers, laundry, and sanitation ● Regular trash and waste removal
● ADA compliance
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
N/A
FISCAL IMPACTS
Fiscal impacts limited to staff time.
OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION
The City Manager should return to the City Council with a list of sites to provide safe alternative housing options, a report detailing the concerns and roadblocks to implementation, and information regarding steps the City can take to initiate and/or secure a site for such shelter.
10 Due to the urgent nature of this public health and humanitarian crisis, this item asks the City Manager to expedite this process and return to Council as soon as feasible.
CONTACT
Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe, (510) 981-7150
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
PUBLIC HEARING
May 20, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager
Subject: FY 2026 Proposed Mid-Biennial Budget Update and Public Hearing #1
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the FY 2026 Proposed Mid-Biennial Budget Update and conduct Public Hearing #1 on the FY 2026 Proposed Mid-Biennial Budget Update.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The FY 2026 Proposed Mid-Biennial Budget Update will include updated revenue and expenditure projections regarding the City’s fiscal health for the upcoming fiscal year.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On June 25, 2024, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Years (“FY”) 2025 and 2026 Biennial Budget (Adopted Budget) and the FY 2025 and FY 2026 Capital Improvement Program Budget (CIP Budget). This item provides the Council with an update to the FY 2026 Adopted Budget known as the FY 2026 Proposed Mid-Biennial Budget Update.
The Proposed FY 2026 Mid-Biennial Budget Update will include updated information on FY 2026 revenues and expenditure projections; proposed expenditures by City departments; as well as any proposed changes to staffing levels and capital projects.
Following the presentation on the Proposed FY 2026 Mid-Biennial Update, staff requests that the City Council conduct the first public hearing on the budget.
Subsequently, the Budget and Finance Policy Committee and City Council will continue discussions regarding the proposed budget prior to adoption on June 24, 2025. The Proposed FY 2026 Mid-Biennial Budget Update is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to provide an efficient and financially-health City government.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Actions included in the budget will be developed and implemented in a manner that is consistent with the City’s environmental sustainability goals and requirements.
FY 2026 Proposed Mid-Biennial Budget Update & Public Hearing #1 PUBLIC HEARING May 20, 2025
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This recommendation presents the Fiscal Year 2026 Proposed Mid-Biennial Budget Update to City Council and begins the first of several public hearings pertaining to the budget, leading to adoption on June 24, 2025.
May 15, 2025 – Budget and Finance Policy Committee Meeting May 20, 2025 – Public Hearing #1 – Council Meeting
May 22, 2025 – Budget and Finance Policy Committee Meeting June 12, 2025 – Budget and Finance Policy Committee Meeting June 17, 2025 – Council Meeting
June 24, 2025 – Public Hearing #2 – Council Meeting (Budget Adoption)
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions have been considered. The City Council is required to adopt a balanced budget by June 30, 2025.
CONTACT PERSON
Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000 Attachments:
1: Public Hearing Notice
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
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
FY 2026 PROPOSED MID-BIENNIAL BUDGET UPDATE
PUBLIC HEARING #1
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.
The City Manager’s Office is proposing a public hearing for the Fiscal Year 2026 Proposed Mid-Biennial Budget Update, which is being presented to the City Council.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.Berkeleyca.gov as of May 8, 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.
For further information, please contact Sharon Friedrichsen at (510) 981-7000.
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.
Posted: May 8, 2025
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 8, 2025.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
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: https://berkeleyca.gov/
PUBLIC HEARING
May 20, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Member of City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning & Development Department Subject: LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue, Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution affirming the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) decision to designate 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue (APN: 054-1780-004-12) a City of Berkeley Landmark, and dismiss the appeal.
SUMMARY
On December 05, 2024, the LPC approved Landmark Application #LMIN2024-004 to designate the property located at 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue as a City of Berkeley Landmark. The LPC designation was appealed to the City Council by an attorney representing the property owner on January 31, 2025. The appellant has identified issues with the LPC noticing procedures, challenges the basis for the findings of City of Berkeley Landmark eligibility, and raises concerns about the effects of the designation for the property’s use.
This report presents the evidence that the LPC considered in making its decision, and the detailed appeal points, to the City Council for its consideration in resolving the petition for designation and the appeal.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On December 5, 2024, the LPC conducted a public hearing and voted to designate the property as a City Landmark by a vote of 6-0-0-2 (Yes: Leuschner, Schwartz, Crandall, Finacom, Montgomery, Orbuch; No: none; Abstain: none; Absent: Enchill, Plese).
On January 31, 2025, Linda Klein of Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP, on behalf of the property owner West Berkeley Center Partners LLC (WBCP) and its primary partner,
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
Hal Brandel, submitted an appeal of the LPC decision to approve a Landmark Application to designate the property at 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue as a City of Berkeley Landmark.
In accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code 3.24.300, the City Council must conduct a hearing to resolve the appeal.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located on a corner lot on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Dwight Way. It has a gentle slope downward from the east at San Pablo Avenue toward the west. The parcel is approximately 17,000 sq. ft. in total area, with 113 feet of street frontage on Dwight Way and approximately 150 feet of frontage along San Pablo Avenue. The main building is a multi-tenant commercial building and there are several addresses assigned to the property:
San Pablo Avenue Dwight Way
2500 1094
2504 1094A
2506 1096
2508 1098
2512
Figure 1. Subject Site
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
Image 1. View from Dwight Way
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
Image 2. View from San Pablo Avenue facing north
The building was completed in 1912 under building permit #2407 that was issued to Union Investment Company. It was likely the company’s first such enterprise in Berkeley and, therefore, has been dubbed Union Investment Company Building No.1. It is a one- part commercial building reflecting the early twentieth century style of commercial development. It is a single-story reinforced masonry building with a flat roof. The street- facing north and east facades feature many classical architectural design details such
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
as pilasters and an entablature that is complete with a decorative belt course and cornice at the parapet. No architect or builder of record was identified.
On March 4, 2021, the LPC received a historical research and evaluation study which was prepared in support of a nearby housing development proposal at 2527 San Pablo Avenue. The historic consultants Evans & De Shazo, Inc. completed the study in accordance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and concluded that two of the properties included in their study of the area were eligible historical resources: the subject property at 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue as well as the abutting property at 2514-2518 San Pablo Avenue. On April 1, 2021, the LPC added the two identified properties to their List of Potential Initiations. As outlined in Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.050, the LPC may establish and maintain an ongoing list of structures, sites, and areas having a special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. After conducting a duly noticed public hearing, the LPC may consider designation of these properties.
On September 5, 2024, the LPC meeting agenda listed the property initiation, though there was an error in the address. The agenda was revised and reposted 72 hours prior to the meeting. LPC voted to initiate Landmark or Structure of Merit designation consideration of the property by adoption of the Consent Calendar, including favorable action on the item, by a vote of 7-0-0-1 (Yes: Finacom, Leuschner, Enchill, Montgomery, Orbuch, Plese, Schwartz; No: none; Abstain: none; Absent: Crandall).
On September 11, 2024, staff mailed correspondence to the property owner of 2500- 2512 San Pablo Avenue, informing them of the initiation and anticipated public hearing at the October 7, 2024 LPC meeting. This letter invited the owner(s) to confer with City staff about questions or concerns; staff received no responses.
On October 7, 2024, LPC opened the hearing to consider granting designation status to the property at 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue. The property owner’s attorney addressed the LPC, explained the owner was ill and unable to attend and requested a continuance of the hearing in order to grant more time for the owners to respond to the application.
LPC continued the meeting to a date to be determined; vote: 4-0-0-4 (Yes: Enchill, Montgomery, Finacom, Orbuch; No: none: Abstain: none; Absent: Crandall, Leuschner, Plese, Schwartz).
On November 6, 2024, a revised and updated Landmark Application was submitted.
The revised application corrected dates and other information cited in the original application based on further research, some of which lie the archives at the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA).
On December 5, 2024, the LPC voted a second time to initiate the property for designation as a City Landmark by a vote of 6-0-0-2 (Yes: Crandall, Schwartz, Finacom, Leuschner, Montgomery, Orbuch; Abstain: none; Absent: Enchill, Plese). The LPC took
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
this action in order to remedy any outstanding concerns about the address listing error from the September 5, 2024 LPC meeting agenda.
Upon conclusion of the action to initiate its consideration, the LPC then conducted a public hearing, which was duly noticed 10 days prior in accordance with BMC Section
3.24.140. Neither staff nor the LPC received any correspondence or statements of objection to the request for designation in advance of the meeting. The staff report summarized the relevant information from the record, analyzed it against the applicable BMC/ Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) criteria, concluded the property exhibits architectural merit as an example of early twentieth century architectural design, exhibits architectural merit as part of the neighborhood fabric along San Pablo Avenue, and is associated with East Bay Music Row, and encouraged the Commission to discuss and consider these matters.
The Landmark Application argues, as outlined in the staff report, that the property is eligible according to three sub-criteria established in the LPO:
Consistent with Section 3.24.110 A.(1)(b). [Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works of the best surviving work in the region of an architect, designer, or master builder]: The subject building exhibits architectural merit as a worthy example of early twentieth century commercial architectural design. It reflects the type of development commonly found along a main street or within a town center during this era. More specifically, this one-part commercial building possesses many of the character- defining features of the Neo-Classical style, which was popular between 1895 and 1940, and both its vintage and style are readily identifiable.
Consistent with Section 3.24.110 A.(1)(c). [Architectural examples worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric]: The subject building also exhibits architectural merit as a part of the neighborhood fabric along San Pablo Avenue. Located at the intersection of a major thoroughfare and a well-traveled arterial street, this highly-visible property serves as a focal point and defines both the built context and aesthetic identity of San Pablo Avenue and West Berkeley. This extant concentration of one-part Neoclassical buildings forms an unbroken pattern of period-defining structures.
Consistent with Section 3.24.110 (A)(2). [Cultural Value: Structures, sites and areas associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social and economic developments of the City]: The subject property is associated with the East Bay Music Row during a period of time that spanned the decades of the 1960s and 1970s.
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
Following the presentation of the staff report, Chairperson Montgomery opened the public comment session and received testimony from five members of the public, all of whom spoke in support of the landmark designation. Neither the appellant nor a representative of the appellant were present at the meeting.
After closing the public comment session, the Commissioners deliberated on the facts of the case and evidence presented in the application record. When the discussion concluded and the Chair called for a motion, Commissioner Leuschner moved for approval of the designation request citing staff’s recommended draft findings.
Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion. The motion for approval of the nomination for City Landmark designation carried with a 6-0-0-2 vote (Yes: Leuschner, Schwartz, Crandall, Finacom, Montgomery, Orbuch; Abstain: none; Absent: Enchill, Plese).
On January 27, 2025, the LPC notice of decision was issued, starting the fifteen (15) day appeal period.
On January 31, 2025, Linda Klein of Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP filed an appeal of the LPC decision on behalf of the property owner, West Berkeley Center Partners LLC (WBCP) and its primary partner, Hal Brandel.
On or before May 6, 2025, staff posted the public hearing notice.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The issues raised in the appellant’s letter (Attachment 2) and staff’s responses follow.
For the sake of brevity, the appeal issues are not re-stated in their entirety.
Issue 1: Procedural Deficiencies. The appellant states that the LPC failed to properly initiate the designation and failed to provide requisite notice for the Landmark designation to the owner as required by the Berkeley Municipal Code.
The appellant contends that LPC incorrectly noticed the initiation of the Landmark Application for the property on its September 5, 2024 agenda and incorrectly listed the address of the property under consideration as 2404-2412 San Pablo Avenue/1094- 1098 Dwight Way.
The appellant further asserts that the public hearing held by the LPC on the Landmark Application on October 7, 2024 was not properly noticed, and though the property owner and their representative were aware that the hearing would be continued, they were not notified of the exact future hearing date.
The appellant argues that a substantially revised Landmark Application was submitted on November 6, 2024, and that the LPC failed to hold an initiation hearing based on new documentation.
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
Response: The LPC meeting agenda for September 5, 2024 listed the property initiation, though there was an error in the address. The agenda was revised and reposted 72 hours prior to the meeting.
The advance Public Hearing Notice for the October 7, 2024 meeting of the LPC was originally released on September 23, 2024, and contained a typographical error that incorrectly stated the date for the meeting as October 3, 2024. In response, staff re- released the Notice on September 27, 2024 with a correction.
Although the correct Notice was issued ten days prior to the October 7, 2024 hearing in accordance with BMC Section 3.24.140.B – Public Notice Hearing Requirements, the property owner, through their attorney at Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP, expressed confusion and concern about the Notice procedure and requested a continuance. In response to the request and on recommendation from staff, the Commission opened the hearing in accordance with BMC 3.24.130 for a timely hearing and took testimony from any interested party. The Commission did not deliberate on the matter and continued the hearing to a date uncertain. At the property owner’s request, the item was scheduled for December 5, 2024 LPC review.
A revised and updated Landmark Application was submitted on November 6, 2024. The revised application corrected dates and other information cited in the original application based on further research from the archives at BAHA, but did not include new or different recommendations on findings of eligibility.
On or before November 25, 2024, staff mailed and posted advance notice of the December 5, 2024 LPC meeting as required under BMC Section 3.24.140 for Public Hearing Notice Requirements. A public hearing notice was mailed to the property owner (See Attachment 6). To further ensure compliance with noticing requirements and provide additional clarity, the December 5, 2024 agenda item included two actions – one to initiate the subject property for designation in accordance with BMC Section
3.24.100 and one to hold a public hearing to consider the designation status in accordance with BMC Section 3.24.130. All noticing requirements were met.
Issue 2: Lack of Support for the Landmark Designation and Features for Preservation. The appellant states that the subject property does not meet the criteria for City of Berkeley Landmark designation and that there is no evidence to support the Features to be Preserved.
The appellant suggests that Landmark Application lacks “substantial evidence” to support that the subject property meets the eligibility criteria for listing under BMC Section 3.24.110 A (1)(b) and (c) for is architectural merit and Section 3.24.110(A) (2) for its cultural value.
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
Response: The statements made by the appellant about the amount of evidence provided to support the finding of eligibility for City of Berkeley Landmark designation for its architectural merit and cultural value are inaccurate.
LPC’s determination of eligibility, as reflected in the administrative record, was based on documentation provided in the Landmark Application, a previous evaluation prepared by Evans & De Shazo, Inc. in 2021, City land use and permit records, the BAHA archives, and information provided in the staff report, including their recommendations. The totality of that information constituted substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s determination that the subject property meets the significance criteria set forth in BMC Chapter 3.24.110.
The appellant points to the building’s description as “good” and not “excellent” condition as evidence that it does not meet the requirements established in 3.24.110 A (1)(b), stating that there is not substantial evidence that the building can be classified as “prototype” or “outstanding”. The applicant has conflated two separate issues – condition and integrity. Condition is an assessment of the physical state of the property, whereas integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. Though the building’s condition was described as “good” in the Landmark Application Cover Form, the additional application materials include original permits, historical maps, historical photos, and current photos that demonstrate its early twentieth century commercial architectural design and Neo-Classical features. Furthermore, the Landmark Application provides a list of resources referenced in researching the subject property that includes scholarly work and primary and secondary (including contemporary) sources. In addition, the staff report demonstrates City staff considered the historical context, and provided a succinct history of the property history as well as a brief overview of the Neo- Classical style to inform the findings of eligibility for architectural merit (Page 7 of the December 5, 2024 staff report).
The appellant’s argument that the Landmark Application does not support the conclusion that it is eligible under BMC 3.24.110(1)(c) because it does not include an extensive history of the neighborhood and does not include sufficient evidence of its “exceptional value” as part of the neighborhood fabric is inaccurate. The Landmark Application includes an extensive historical overview of the subject property and neighborhood, including a chronological overview of historical maps (LPC Item #6, December 5, 2024, p. 17-31). Furthermore, the staff report demonstrates City staff analyzed the neighborhood fabric and provided additional contextual information on the building location at the intersection of a major thoroughfare and well-traveled arterial street and information that the subject property is a part of an “unbroken pattern of period-defining structures” (LPC Item #6, December 05, 2024, p. 8).
The appellant states that “properties that qualify based on cultural value typically served as pivotal or central locations for events or movements that had lasting impressions on the community or region.” That, however, is not the evaluative criteria as set forth in
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
BMC Chapter 3.24.110(A)(2), which states that properties can be determined eligible if “associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social and economic developments of the City”. The Landmark Application provides a comprehensive overview of the East Bay Music Row and its role in an active nightclub scene in Berkeley that spanned decades of the 1960s and 1970s, including excepts from recollections of several musicians from the period (LPC Item #6, December 5, 2024, Attachment 2, pg. 12-15). The appellant further asserts that even if a designation were warranted, it would be inappropriate to apply to the entire building. However, Landmark and Structure of Merit designations are applied to whole properties. As part of the Landmark and Structure of Merit designation process, the Commission adopts Features to be Preserved, which include a list of distinguishing features to be preserved, thereby addressing those items that are most important in conveying the listed properties significance.
The staff report analysis and the Commission’s deliberation and decision accurately applied the BMC/LPO criteria while considering the totality of evidence in this case, and concluded that the subject property warrants designation as a City of Berkeley Landmark.
The appellant states that the Features to be Preserved are not supported by substantial evidence and that to determine what should be preserved, a historical analysis must define the period of significance, and then “link the character-defining features to that period,” and that “neither the Landmark Application nor the LPC findings did that, providing no substantial evidence for the Preservation Conditions”.
The source cited by the appellant requiring the identification of a period of significance is from guidance provided by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for listing a resource in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Though useful guidance, it is not an applicable requirement for City of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit designations. As is industry best practice and supported by guidance from OHP and National Park Service (NPS), the Features to be Preserved were derived from the building’s historical significance, as informed by the relevant historical context outlined in the staff report, and include those features which the Commission found, based on the evidence of the record, reflect the building’s architectural merit and cultural significance (LPC Item #6, December 5, 2024, pg.6 and Attachment 1, pg. 1-3).
Issue 3: No Housing Capacity Findings. The appellant states that the designation alters city policy and reduces housing development potential. The appellant further asserts that the Landmark Designation violates SB 330 as the designation limits the building height to one-story, making mixed use residential development infeasible.
The appellant contends that the property’s designation conflicts with the vision in the West Berkeley Plan and eliminates the potential for mixed-use development.
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
Response: The West Berkeley Plan’s goals and policies support preservation and the adaptive reuse of historic buildings. The subject property is zoned C-W West Berkeley Commercial District which allows for Mixed-Use Residential uses. There is no current housing or development proposal for the property. LPC appropriately exercised their authority to designate the subject property as outlined in BMC Section 3.24.050.
There are recent examples of Landmarked buildings that have been approved for residential mixed-use development, including The California Theater (2113-2115 Kittredge). The project preserves the Landmarked ground floor façade and accommodates new residential development.
The appellant misstates SB 330’s prohibition on downzoning, which cannot be reasonably interpreted to apply to a landmark designation. Government Code section 66300(b)(1)(A) prohibits a city from “[c]hanging the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the time of the proposed change, below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018” with some exceptions. But the LPC action does none of these things. A future housing project would be subject only to objective design standards, whether the building is designated as a City landmark or not, in accordance with SB 330 Issue 4: Interference with Investment Backed Expectations. The appellant states that the designation interferes with the owner’s investment backed expectations, including the expectation to be competitive with other landlords when seeking tenants and to potentially redevelop the property with a mixed-use project.
The appellant states that the Designation amounts to a taking because it has effectively eliminated the property owner’s ability for new development and is less attractive to tenants due to the designation.
Response: Investment backed expectations in land use development refers to the principle that a property owner can commit to certain property uses when making investment decisions. When challenged in a court of law, the court will assess if a regulation has gone too far in restricting property rights, potentially resulting in a “taking.” Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104 and subsequent cases have largely held that local historic preservation ordinances do not effectuate regulatory takings.
The subject property is zoned C-W West Berkeley Commercial District which allows for commercial uses by right as well as mixed-use residential uses. Current uses include Food Service Establishments and General Retail.
LPC Appeal: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue PUBLIC HEARING
Landmark Application #LMIN2024-0004 May 20, 2025
The Designation of the property as a City of Berkeley Landmark does not eliminate the possibility of future development. As a City of Berkeley Landmark, any potential future changes to the property undertaken during the course of future development would be subject to Commission approval in accordance with BMC Section 3.24.200.
Recent Landmarked projects that have successfully received entitlements through the Structural Alteration Permit review process in. This process expressly contemplates that landmarked properties could undergo construction, alteration, and even demolition. The LPC’s review of an application takes into account the architectural features of the landmark, the special character or value of the landmark, as well as the interest of the property owner and any potential hardship that a permit action may cause. Thus, a landmark designation does not prevent the property from being put to economic use and does not constitute a regulatory taking. A recent example is the California Theater located at 2113-2115 Kittredge. A Structural Alteration Permit was approved and allows for 17 stories of housing.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS TO BE CONSDIERED
In accordance with BMC Section 3.24.300.F, if the disposition of this appeal has not been determined within 30 days of the date that City Council closed the hearing (not including Council recess), then the LPC decision shall be deemed affirmed and the appeal shall have been denied.
CONTACT PERSON
Jordan Klein, Director, Planning & Development Department, (510) 981-7534 Anne Hersch, Land Use Planning Manager, Planning & Development Department, (510) 981-7400
Attachments:
1. Resolution
a. Exhibit A: Findings and Conditions
2. Appeal Letter, received January 31, 2025
3. Applicant Letter, dated April 3, 2025
4. Staff report to LPC dated December 5, 2024
5. Index to Administrative Record
6. Administrative Record
7. Public Hearing Notice
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO APPROVE LANDMARK APPLICATION LMIN 2024-004 TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY AT 2500-2512 SAN PABLO AVENUE AS A CITY LANDMARK (LMIN 2024- 0004)
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2024, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to initiate Landmark or Structure of Merit designation consideration of the property at 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2024, the Landmarks Preservation Commission opened the public hearing and the property owner’s attorney asked for a continuance to a date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, an amended application was submitted with additional property research; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2024, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to initiate the property as a City Landmark by a vote of 6-0-0-2 (Yes: Crandall, Schwartz, Finacom, Leuschner, Montgomery, Orbuch; Abstain: none; Absent: Enchill, Plese).; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2025, the Landmarks Preservation Commission Notice of Decision was issued; and
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2025, an appeal was filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on or before May 6, 2025, staff posted the public hearing notice at the site and three nearby locations, and mailed notices to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site, and to all registered neighborhood groups that cover this area; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, the Council held a public hearing to consider the LPC’s decision, and in the opinion of this Council, the facts stated in, or ascertainable from the public record, including the staff report and comments made at the public hearing, warrant approving the project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Council hereby adopts the findings made by LPC in Exhibit A affirming the decision made by LPC, to approve LMIN #2024-0004 and dismisses the appeal.
Exhibit A: Findings and Conditions
A t t a c h m e n t 1 , E x h i b i t A
D r a f t F i n d i n g s f o r D e s i g n a t i o n MAY 20, 2025
2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue – Union Investment
Company Building No.1
Landmark application #LMIN2024-004 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a commercial building completed in 1912 (APN: 054-1780-004-02)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City Landmark designation of the property at 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue
CEQA FINDINGS
1. The project is found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15061.b.3 of the CEQA Guidelines (activities that can be seen with certainty to have no significant effect on the environment).
LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORIDNANCE FINDINGS
2. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.110.A.1.(b) of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO), the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley (Commission) finds that the Union Investment Company Building No. 1 exhibits significance and meets the architectural merit criterion as an embodiment of early twentieth century commercial development and an exemplar of the Neoclassical architectural style from this period. The building retains integrity of its design, materials, workmanship, location and feeling. Its character-defining design features include: one-part commercial design, single-story massing and horizontal orientation; masonry construction and brick and stonemasonry façade materials; classical architectural design, symmetrical pattern of openings, and decorative details that feature pilasters and an entablature with a beltcourse embellished with a triglyph and dentil string, and a cornice at the wall parapet; and storefronts designed with recessed and splayed entrances, transom windows and large display windows.
3. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110.A.1.(c), the Commission finds that the subject property also exhibits architectural merit as part of the West Berkeley neighborhood fabric that is distinctively represented in the concentration of one-part masonry commercial buildings designed in the Neoclassical style that are extant on the west side of the 2500-block of San Pablo Avenue. The subject building is contemporary with the abutting buildings to the south at 2518 and 2530 San Pablo Avenue, and these buildings feature similar architectural designs and building materials. They form a
FINDINGS for DESIGNATION 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue – Union Investment Building No. 1
continuous street frontage of period structures that evoke a formative era of Berkeley’s historical and economic development through their physical appearance.
4. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110.A.2, the Commission further finds that the property exhibits significance through its direct association with the East Bay Music Run, which existed along San Pablo Avenue during the 1960s and 1970s. The corner tenant space of the Union Investment Company Building saw a series of night club proprietors, beginning with the Cabale and including the original Long Branch Saloon, which became destinations for revered rock and folk performers and their fans. By hosting venues for live entertainment in this period, the subject property played a functional role in furthering a cultural movement that flourished in clubs and bars of Berkeley and the surrounding area.
2500-2512 SAN PABLO AVENUE FINDINGS for DESIGNATION
October 7, 2024 Page 3 of 3
FEATURES TO BE PRESERVED
This designation shall apply to the subject property and the following distinguishing features of the main building shall be preserved, and missing or altered features shall be restored to the extent possible:
Location at the southwest corner of San Pablo Avenue and Dwight Way. One-story massing and horizontal orientation with a modified rectangular footprint. The primary façade (east elevation) on San Pablo Avenue, and a second primary façade (north elevation) on Dwight Way, designed in a Neoclassical Revival architectural style and constructed of unpainted brick masonry. One-part commercial building façade composition consisting of bulkheads, recessed storefronts, clerestory window course, and upper façade consisting of an elongated entablature and parapet wall, clad in unpainted brick laid out in a running bond pattern. Thirteen storefronts bays – eight along San Pablo Avenue and five along Dwight Way.
Six of these storefronts include a canted corner storefront along the primary façade on San Pablo Avenue (2500, 2504, 2506, 2508, 2510, and 2512), and five storefront bays along the secondary primary façade on Dwight Way (1094, 1096, and 1098) along with pilasters separating each of the storefronts.
Glazed and wood-framed front recessed entries and wood-framed, single and double- doors flanked by display windows set on knee walls and topped with fixed and hopper transom wood windows included in each of the nine storefronts. Knee walls that are clad in tile and two that are clad in brick included in seven of the storefronts.
A Classical Revival entablature located on the upper façade located above the transom windows along each storefront, consisting of a stone masonry beltcourse, row of dentils, frieze boards with decorative triglyph, and molded cornices. The parapet wall above the storefronts along the north and west elevations clad in brick with decorative masonry elements.
Rear elevation partially visible from Dwight Way along the northwest corner of the building consists of a brick wall.
The eight storefronts that are symmetrical and retain a majority of their original materials and design shall be preserved and the canted storefront that appears to have changed in the sidelights that flank the wood and glazed single-entry door, which are currently glazed sidelights framed in aluminum frames, should be preserved and restored to the extent possible.
All brick masonry that has been painted shall be restored and/or brought closer to its original unpainted condition.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page | 1
April 3, 2025
To: Berkeley City Council
From: Landmarks Preservation Commission
Re: Appeal Response Letter, 2500 -2512 San Pablo Avenue Landmark Designation (LMIN2024-0004
)
Executive Summary of Appeal Response Letter: 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue Landmark Designation
The LPC recommends the city council deny the appeal based on the substantial evidence supporting the landmark designation. The LPC’s decision was made in accordance with applicable regulations and recognizes the building's historical and cultural importance. In response to several concerns raised by the applicants regarding procedural issues, the validity of the notice, and the landmark status, the LPC shares the following:
1. Notice and Procedural Issues:
The LPC took extra precautions to ensure proper noticing by reopening the hearing in December, addressing potential typographic errors from the October meeting. The city council should seek a legal opinion from the city attorney on whether the notice to the property owner was legally sufficient. If deemed deficient, the matter should be remanded for proper notice and rescheduling.
2. Senate Bill 330 (SB330): SB330, which limits zoning changes for housing, is irrelevant in this case since no construction or alteration permits have been appl ied for, and
landmarking does not affect the property’s potential for new development.
3. Downzoning and “Taking” Argument : The appellant’s claim that landmarking constitutes downzoning or an unlawful taking is inaccurate. Landmarking is not prohibited by SB330 and the intent of the legislation was to prevent changes after applications for new housing, not to stop communities from designating landmarks.
4. Landmark Worthiness:
LPC’s unanimously decided to designate the property as a landmark, based on its architectural significance. We relied in large part on a 2021 historical evaluation that deemed the building an excellent example of storefront commercial architecture and a strong candidate for National Register consideration. The building’s historical in tegrity and architectural style were key factors in the LPC’s decision. The LPC also found the building has cultural significance, particularly its role in the East Bay Music Row and as a venue for important local musicians. The property also has cultural value as the home of various woman-founded businesses over the years.
5. Not Required for Landmark Status: The appellant implies the building is not worthy of Landmark status because its architect and builder is unknown, the building is not found to be in “excellent” but rather “good” or “fair” condition, and similar buildings can be found in the City and other cities in the east bay. These are not required prerequisites for Landmark status.
Thank you for taking the time to review the LPC Decision to Landm ark 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue. We’d like to respond to several issues raised by the appellant to assist you in your deliberations.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page | 2
Notice and Procedural Issues
Relating to noticing and procedural issues raised by the appellant, please note that upon the advice of staff and by request of the owner’s representative, the Commission opened the hearing on October 7th, 2024 and then delayed deliberation. Out of an abundance of caution, we repeated the October initiation process in December to remedy any concerns about typographic errors in the Notices for the October meeting. During that time, the application authors updated the application with further research from the archives of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, notices were sent out as required by staff and the hearing was rescheduled and duly noticed.
W
ith respect to the appeal, the city council should have the city attorney offer its opinion as to whether the planning department provided the necessary and legal notice to the owner of the property. It should seek a written opinion from the city attorney. If the city attorney deems the notice was legal and proper and contained no deficiencies, the bulk of the appeal by the property owner should be denied by the city council. The notice argument is the bulk of the appellant’s argument.
I
f the city council does not have the benefit of the city attorney’s opinion on this matter at the time of the council hearing, the city council should continue the matter to another city hearing date in order to obtain the city attorney’s opinion on the adequacy of notice.
Should the city attorney agree with the appellant and find the notice deficient, the city council should remand the matter back to the landmark commission so that proper notice can be given and the matter set for another hearing before the commission.
S
enate Bill 330 Not Applicable
It is important to note that the owner, appellant, has not applied for any permits for construction or alteration of the property and therefore Senate Bill 330 is inapplicable in this matter. The State of California does not prohibit cities, counties, and local governmental agencies, from their ability to landmark properties in cases where there are no permits applied for or applications deemed complete by a city planning department. 90 N
ational Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
(Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1997).
Historic Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Blake Apartments Project, 2527 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, Alameda County, California. 78
N
ot a “Downzoning” or “Taking”
Appellant also argues that landmarking the property constitutes an impermissible “downzoning” and an unjust “taking” of property. If this argument were to hold water, then no property in the State of California would ever be subject to landmarking status. Clearly, the intent of the legislature in passing SB330 was not to destroy the ability of communities to landmark properties. The intent of SB330 was to prevent additional rules being applied to properties/applications after they were submitted so as to slow or prevent much needed housing from being approved. Since this designation occurs prior to any proposed project or application being submitted, the LPC is well within its purview and is being proactive in designating significant pieces of Berkeley’s history as Landmarks and Structures of Merit.
Page | 3
Landmark Designation, contrary to the appellant's assertion, does not eliminate the Property’s ability for new development. Designation status does not preclude the owner from submitting an application to expand the footprint or height of the building. If an application is submitted, the proposed project would be deemed on its merits at that time and its consistency with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Landmark Worthiness – Architectural Design and Cultural Value As for the appellant’s view that the property is not landmark worthy due to lack of substantial evidence, the appellant, in their appeal, concedes the property is worthy of a Structure of Merit designation. The LPC unanimously voted to designate the property as a Landmark instead of a Structure of Merit for good reason. The building was included in a 2021 historical research and evaluation study for the proposed Blake Street Apartments Project at 2527 San Pablo Avenue Berkeley by Evans & De Shazo Inc. for several properties including the 2500 San Pablo Ave/Dwight Way building. In that report 2500 San Pablo Ave/Dwight Way was one of only two buildings found eligible for National Register consideration owing to their architectural design, which the report stated is, “an excellent example of Storefront Commercial Architecture and Classical Revival architectural style during Berkeley’s commercial development in the early decades of the 20th century.” The report goes on to state that, “An assessment of integrity found that the 1911 storefront commercial building retains all seven aspects of integrity which is detailed within the associated Historic Resource Evaluation “HRE” report”(see attachment 1). LPC Commissioners Enchill and Orbuch used this report, along with additional research, as the basis for the Landmark Application. Based on the research and evaluation study, additional research conducted, and findings included in the application submitted, as well as a Staff report which recommended favorable action, the Commission found substantial evidence that the building was worthy of Landmark status. pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Sections 3.24.110.A.(1)(b) and (c),
3.24.110.A.2 and 3.24.110A.(2).
While the appellant implies the building is not worthy of Landmark status because its architect and builder is unknown, the building is not found to be in “excellent” but rather “good” or “fair” condition, and similar buildings can be found in the City and other cities in the east bay, these are not required prerequisites for Landmark status. The LPC and a third-party architectural historian both found the structure to qualify as “an excellent example of Storefront Commercial Architecture and Classical Revival architectural style during Berkeley’s commercial development in the early decades of the 20th century.” It is also one of a few intact examples left on an ever-changing San Pablo Avenue.
Last, the building has Cultural Value (3.24.110A.(2)) as it is associated with the East Bay Music Row. The site boasts a long history of hosting music clubs including the San Pablo Ave Folk and Rock Music Clubs - Cabale, Cabale Creamery, Good Buddy, Caverns West, Questing Beast Tito’s Babylon, and Long Branch Saloon and was considered a “seminal address” responsible for local folksinger s Joe McDonald and Barry Melton becoming Country Joe and the Fish. Bands that frequented Long Branch Saloon included Elvin Bishop Group, New Riders of the Purple Sage (Jerry Garcia’s vehicle for playing pedal steel guitar), Tower of Power, Eddie Money, The Tubes and many more. By hosting
Page | 4
venues for live entertainment beginning during the sixties and seventies, the property played a functional role in furthering a cultural movement that flourished in clubs and bars of Berkeley and the surrounding area sinc e World War 2. Also, the building has and continues to be the home of several famous east bay woman- founded, own and run businesses including the Brick Hut Cafe and most recently, Good Vibrations (which has been privately owned/run since 2007).
Thank you for your consideration, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has approved this letter via vote and it is signed by our Chairwoman.
Attachments:
1. Evans and DeShazo report excerpt on “Integrity”, pp. 77-79
2. Evans and DeShazo Full HRE Report?
Historic Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Blake Apartments Project, 2527 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, Alameda County, California. 79
Integrity
The following section provides specific integrity -related details regarding the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS-08) and the 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11).
• Location. The 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS -08) remains in its original location where the building was constructed, and the 1926 storefront comme rcial building (EDS -11) remains in its original location where the building was constructed.
Therefore, the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS -08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) retain integrity of location.
• Design. The 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS-08) retains the original with Storefront Commercial Architecture and Classical Revival design within a period of significance of 1911, including nine original symmetrical storefronts, and canted corner storefront with glazed and wood-framed front recessed entries, wood- framed single and double- doors flanked by display windows set on a knee walls and topped with fixed and hopper transom wood windows, brick masonry laid out in a running bond pattern, a stone masonry beltcourse, dentil, frieze boards with decorative triglyph, molded cornices, and pilasters. These storefronts have a high degree of design integrity and the building has only minor changes to the canted storefront doors. The 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) retains its original Storefront Commercial and Classical Revival design elements, including light-colored brick masonry laid out in a running bond pattern, smooth plaster, and a symmetrical six -bay “storefront”, a series of divide-light metal fixed and awning style transom windows, decorative square pilasters with square caps and articulated bases, an entablature that runs the length of the façade, a brick cornice laid out in a stack bond pattern, and dentil set above the architrave.
Therefore, the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS -08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) retain integrity of design.
• Setting. The setting along San Pablo Avenue as well as in west and southwest Berkeley where the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS-08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS- 11) are located has changed since the early 1900s. However, many of the original buildings from the period between 1911 and 1926 are still present along San Pablo Avenue. In addition, the urban and commercial business area of San Pablo Avenue that is associated with the 1911
Page | 5
building and 1926 building remains intact. Also, the surrounding neighborhood has maintained its local urban setting with small businesses and houses constructed from ca. 1900 to ca. 1950, which is still present today. Therefore, the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS -08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) retain integrity of setting.
• Materials. The 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS-08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) retain both retain a high degree of original materials from the date that each building was constructed. The 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS -08) retains materials from its original construction including glazed and w ood-framed windows, wood- framed single and double- doors, wood- framed display windows, stucco/plaster knee walls, brick masonry facades, and fixed and hopper wood transom windows. The 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) retains materials that include brick masonry, divide- light metal fixed and awning style transom windows, and plaster walls. Therefore, the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS- 08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) retain integrity of materials.
• Workmanship. Workmanship is evidenced by a skill or craft from a particular period or region.
The 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS -08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) each retain a high degree of workmanship of woodworking and masonry from the early 1900s. The masonry storefronts, including pilasters and decorative entablatures, and original windows and trim work on both the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS -08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) are excellent examples of workmanship.
Therefore, the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS -08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) retain integrity of workmanship.
• Feeling. Feeling is the quality that a historic property has in evoking the aesthetic or historic sense of a past period. The 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS- 08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) each evoke the feeling of Storefront Commercial Architecture and Classical Revival design from their respective periods of significance. Also, both buildings, as part of a small business district in the early 1900, contribute to the feeling of a property from the past and their respective periods of significance. Therefore, the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS-08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) retain integrity of feeling.
• Association. The 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS-08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) are both currently associated with retail and commercial business. As such, they retain their original association as retail and commercial properties on San Pablo Avenue.
The 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS -08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) also remain associated with Storefront Commercial Architecture and Classical Revival design. Therefore, the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS- 08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) retain integrity of association.
An assessment of integrity found that the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS-08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS- 11) retain all seven aspects of integrity. Since the 1911 storefront commercial building (EDS-08) and 1926 storefront commercial building (EDS-11) were found to meet Criterion C and retain integrity, they are considered to be historic properties for the purpose of Section 106 of the NHPA; therefore, in compliance with Section 106, an assessment of effects was completed in the section below.
L ANDMARKS
P RESERVATION
C OMMISSION
Staff Repor t
1947 Center Street, 2nd Fl., Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420
FOR COMMISSION ACTION
DECEMBER 5, 2024
2500-2
512 San Pablo Avenue/1094-1098 Dwight Way –
Union Investment Company Building No.1
Landmark application #LMIN2024-0004 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a commercial building constructed in 1912 (APN: 054-1780-004-02)
I. Application Basics
A. Land Use Designations: West Berkeley Commercial (C-W) B. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.(b)(3) for
Review Exemptions.
C. Parties Involved
• Initiated by: Landmarks Preservation Commission
• Application Authors: Commissioners Charles Enchill & Susan Orbuch • Property Owner: West Berkeley Center Partners LLC
c/o Hal Brandel
1933 Francisco Street
Berkeley, CA 94709
D. Staff Recommendation: Hold a public hearing; consider favorable action.
ATTACHMENT 4
2500-2512 SAN PABLO AVENUE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Figure 1: Vicinity Map – highlighting nearby City Landmarks and Structures of Merit N
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2500-251
2 SAN PABLO AVENUE
December 5, 2024 Page 3 of 9
Figure 2: Subject Building – Site Conditions circa 1960 (Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association) Figure 3: Subject Building – Site Conditions, 2018 (Google)
2500-2512 SAN PABLO AVENUE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
II. Application Chronology
At their meeting on March 4, 2021, the Landmarks Preservation Commission received a historical research and evaluation study for several properties in the area of a proposed housing development at 2527 San Pablo Avenue. This study was completed by Evans & De S
hazo, Inc. in accordance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Act and concluded that two of the structures within the project’s Area of Potential Effect were eligible for National Register consideration owing to their architectural design; see Table 1.
Table 1. Partial Results of 2021 Historic Resource Evaluation by Evans De Shazo Property Findings
2500-2512 San Pablo “1912 Storefront
Commercial” National Register
Eligible
Criterion 3
for
Design 2530 San Pablo “1926 Storefront
Commercial”
On April 1, 2021, the Commission added these properties to their List of Potential Initiations.
On September 5, 2024, the Commission received a Landmark application for the property at 2500-2512 S
an Pablo Avenue; see Attachment 2 of this report. The application is based on the previous Section 106 study as well as additional research conducted by Commissioners Enchill and Orbuch. In accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.120 for Initiation Procedures, the Commission voted unanimously to initiate Landmark or Structure of Merit designation consideration for the property. Vote: 7-0-0-1; Yes: Enchill, Finacom, Leuschner, Montgomery, Orbuch, Plese, Schwartz; No: none; Abstain: none; Absent: Crandall.
On September 11, 2024, staff mailed a correspondence informing the property owner of the initiation and anticipated public hearing at tonight’s meeting.
On October 7, 2024, the Commission opened the hearing on this matter. Upon the advice of staff and a r
equest from the property owner’s representative, the Commission did not deliberate and continued the hearing instead. This continuance allowed additional time for the property owner to prepare as well as for City staff to address potential or perceived errors in the notices for the October 7, 2024 hearing and the agenda posting for the September 5, 2024 meeting when the Commission initiated their consideration.
A revised and updated Landmark application was submitted on November 6, 2024, and is presented as Attachment 2 of this report. The revised application corrects dates and other information cited in the original application based on further research from the archives of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association.
On or just before November 25, 2024, staff mailed and posted advance notice of tonight’s hearing as required under BMC Section 3.24.140 for Public Hearing Notice Requirements.
While this application has been under review, staff has received inquiries about the previous public hearing notices and meeting agenda as stated above. The City has received no other correspondences or statements of objection to this request for designation as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit.
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2500-251
2 SAN PABLO AVENUE
December 5, 2024 Page 5 of 9
III. Historical Resource Status
The Union Investment Company Building No.1 at 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the State Historic Resource Inventory. The nearest City Landmark property is located three blocks west of this site at 2547 Eighth Street, the Kawneer Manufacturing Company. The City Landmark Standard Die & Specialty Company site at 2701 Eighth Street is within five blocks southeast of the subject property. See Figure 1, above.
IV. Property Description
The following description is brief and derives from the information contained in the Landmark application, previous evaluation by Evans & De Shazo, City land use and building permit records, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA) archives, and visual observation.
Parcel Description. The subject property is a corner lot on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of San Pablo Avenue (CA HWY 123) and Dwight Way. It has a gentle slope
downward from the east at San Pablo Avenue toward the west. The parcel is approximately 17,000 sq. ft. in total area, with approximately 113 feet of street frontage on Dwight Way and approximately 150 feet of frontage along San Pablo Avenue. Though largely covered by the subject building, a small portion of the site along its eastern property line is undeveloped, paved with asphalt, and provides a service alley for the building with vehicle access from Dwight Way. The main building is a multi-tenant commercial building and there are several addresses assigned to this property:
San Pablo Avenue Dwig
ht Way
2500 1094
2504 1094A
2506 1096
2508 1098
2512
Building Description. T
he Union Investment Company Building No.1 is a one-part commercial building reflecting the early twentieth century style of commercial development. It is a single story, re-enforced masonry building with a flat roof situated immediately adjacent to the street with no setback from Dwight Way on the north nor San Pablo Avenue on the east.
The street-facing north and east facades feature many classical architectural design details such as pilasters and an entablature that is complete with a decorative belt course and cornice at the parapet. A row of evenly-spaced retrofit bolts is visible within the frieze.
The Dwight Way and San Pablo Avenue bui
lding elevations are divided into a total of 13
storefront bays, each with large display windows and a row of transom windows. The Dwight Way storefronts feature their original masonry bulkheads, while those on San Pablo are clad with ceramic tiles. Six of the 13 storefronts have recessed entries that are arranged at splayed angles while one has a shallow, nearly flush entry door. The corner bays share a canted void entry. The building has been painted using color to emphasize and distinguish between the commercial occupants. There are currently seven tenant spaces within the building, and one is vacant.
The building is reported to be in good condition. More detailed building descriptions and photographs are provided in the Landmark Application; see Attachment 2.
2500-2512 SAN PABLO AVENUE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Brief Property History. According to City records, the building was completed in 1912 under building permit #2407 that was issued to Union Investment Company. It was likely the company’s first such enterprise in Berkeley and, therefore, has been dubbed Union Investment Company Build
ing No.1. Additions at the rear of the building, alterations to the building plan, and changes to the interior demising walls have occurred since original construction. Along the primary facades, the storefronts have been replaced, with records confirming that the most recent improvements were completed in 2007. In 1994 and 2007, the structure received seismic retrofits.
Beyond the Union Investment Company, nei
ther the Landmark application nor the previous
evaluation document the ownership history for this site. The earliest known commercial uses were a dry goods retailer listed in a 1915 directory and a bakery that advertised in a local Swedish-language newspaper in 1923. Various other retail, restaurant, personal household service and entertainment tenants have occupied the building, and the information available in City records and the BAHA archive is summarized in Table 2, below.
Table 2. Available Tenant & Occupancy Information for Union Investment Company Building No.1 San Pablo Avenue Dwight Way
2500 2504 2506 2510 2512 1094 1096 1098
1950s* Furniture sales
Office Swedish Bakery
Established as early as 1923
Barber
Shop Office
Not
confirmed
Household Goods Sales
Upholstery
1960s
Live
Entertainment
Night Club
Not confirmed
Church
? Poolhall
Shoeshine
Thrift Shop
1970s
Woodworking
Shop
Swimming Pool
Supplies
Fitness Gym
Sportswear
(retail)
1980s
Secretary
Service
Retail
Sales
Food
Prep
1990s Brick Hut
Cafe
Good
Vibrations
(retail)
Café
Tallulah
Antique
Sales
Sewing
Studio Tattoo
Studio 2000s Café Trieste Sea Salt
Restaurant Berkeley Fish
Restaurant Restaurant
* No City permit records prior to 1951 are available.
The information in Table 2 i
s not definitive or exhaustive. As the result of internal reconfigurations, the tenant spaces and precise addresses within the Union Investment Company Building changed during the study period and this information is provided as a general reference only.
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2500-251
2 SAN PABLO AVENUE
December 5, 2024 Page 7 of 9
V. Analysis and Evaluation
The analysis section of this report will refer to the research and information provided in the Landmarks application, City land use and building permit records, and the BAHA archives.
This section analyzes the extent to which the property appears to meet significance criteria set forth in the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, BMC Chapter 3.
Historic Context1. Given its period of construction, property type and location along a commercial corridor, the subject property is most closely linked to the historic theme of economic development during the early twentieth century. Additionally, the Landmark application authors have studied the property’s connections to East Bay music venues during a later period. For the purpose of this evaluation, staff has considered the property’s historical associations with economic development and arts and entertainment.
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) Significance Criteria. When it designates a property as a Landmark, Historic District, or Structure of Merit, the Commission must find that the property meets one or more of the required criteria codified in the LPO, BMC Section
3.24.110. These criteria are relatively specific and appear to align with California Register and National Register criteria. The significance criteria for a Structure of Merit are broader than those for Landmarks status, and include properties that qualify individually as good examples of architectural design, or that qualify as contributors to the context of a larger streetscape or area.
LPO Landmark criteria. The research presented in the
Landmark application provides
evidence of the Union Investment Company Building’s associations and potential historical significance in relation to the BMC designation criteria for architectural merit and cultural value.
For brevity, only these criteria are discussed and none of the other BMC criteria are addressed in this report where no argument for or relevant evidence is presented. • BMC Section 3.24.110.A.(1)(b) – Architectural Merit as O utstanding Exemplar
Staff concurs with the Landmark application authors and the previous evaluators when they conclude that the subject building exhibits architectural merit as a worthy example of early twentieth century commercial architectural design. It reflects the type of development commonly found along a main street or within a town center during this era. More specifically, this one-p
art commercial building possesses many of the
character-defining features of the Neo-Classical style, which was popular between 1895 and 1940, and both its vintage and style are readily identifiable. It retains its original form, masonry construction and materials, one-story massing and horizontal orientation as well as its symmetry, pattern of openings (storefront bays, fenestration and entrances), classical decorative details and storefront arrangements.
Alterations to some of the storefronts have replaced framing and bulkheads, but have retained the design and arrangement of the storefronts such that they resemble their historical period and style. The building possesses integrity through retention of its architectural design, feeling, materials, workmanship, location and association with commercial activity from the first decades of the twentieth century. 1 National Register Bulletin #15, Item V: How to Evaluate a Property within its Historic Context (2002); National Register Bulletin #16A, Section III: How to Complete the National Register Registration – Period of Significance (1997).
2500-2512 SAN PABLO AVENUE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Owing to its exemplar status and historical integrity, the Union Investment Company Building No.1 warrants consideration as a City Landmark. If the Commission agrees, then favorable action should be taken at this meeting, and staff has prepared draft findings for the LPC’s consideration. See Attachment 1 of this report. • BMC Section 3.24.110.A.(1)(c) – Architectural Merit as Part of a Neighborhood Fabric
The subject building also exhibits architectural merit as a part of the neighborhood fabric along San Pablo Avenue. Located at the intersection of a major thoroughfare
and a well-traveled arterial street, this highly-visible property serves as a focal point and defines both the built context and aesthetic identity of San Pablo Avenue and West Berkeley. It represents early twentieth century commercial development and matches the scale and design of the abutting buildings that are also from this era and located at 2518 and 2530 San Pablo Avenue. This extant concentration of one-part Neoclassical buildings forms an unbroken pattern of period-defining structures. The subject building is an essential part of this grouping and, therefore, would satisfy the designation criterion for City Landmark for its part in this contextual framework. • BMC Section 3
.24.110.A.(2) – Cultural Value
The subject property is associated with the East Bay Music Row during a period of time that spanned the decades of the 1960s and 1970s. According to the Landmark application authors’ research, Music Row was t
he name given to an active night club
scene in Berkeley and the surrounding area that featured live performances by rock, folk and experimental musicians. The corner tenant space of the Union Investment Company Building (2500 San Pablo Avenue) was a bar that hosted these activities and was operated by a series of proprietors during the height of this cultural phenomenon.
The subject property did not appear to have played an influential role in furthering this artistic movement, but it had a functional role as a host and, therefore, has an association with the historical theme of arts and entertainment.
The Commission should discuss whether this association with Music Row is historically significant and meets the BMC designation criterion for cultural significance:
“structures, sites and areas associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social and economic developments of the City [BMC Section
3.324.110.A.2].”
LPO Structure of Merit criteria. As discussed above, staff believes the subject property could meet multiple criteria for designation as a City Landmark. However, if the Commission concludes that it does not (in whole or in part), then the Commission may consider the extent to which it meets the criteria for designation as a Structure of Merit, in accordance with BMC Section 3.24.110.B.
The subject building is an extant example of N
eoclassical commercial architecture of the early
twentieth century that retains substantial design integrity. It is located immediately adjacent to two other buildings of this era and the grouping represents a formative period of Berkeley’s commercial development through their physical appearance. As such, the Union Investment Company Building No.1 would meet both of the following Structure of Merit criteria:
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2500-2512 SAN PABLO AVENUE December 5, 2024 Page 9 of 9
• BMC Section 3.24.110.B.2.c – “The structure is a good example of architectural design.”
• BMC Section 3.24.110.B.2.d – “The structure has historical significance to the City and/or the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings.”
No draft findings for approval as a Structure of Merit are provided with this report; however, the Commission can direct staff to prepare such findings if needed to support action under these provisions.
VI. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Commission consider the extent to which this property meets the criteria for City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110 and then take favorable action.
Attachments:
1. Draft Findings for Designation Approval
2. Revised and Updated Landmark Application for 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue; received November 6, 2024.
Prepared by: Fatema Crane, Principal Planner/LPC Secretary; [email protected], (510) 981- 7410
Attachment 1
Dra ft Findings for Designation
OCTOBER 7, 2024
2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue – Union Investment
Company Building No.1
Landmark application #LMIN2024-004 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a commercial building completed in 1912 (APN: 054-1780-004-02)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City Landmark designation of the property at 2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue
CEQA FINDINGS
1. The project is found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15061.b.3 of the CEQA Guidelines (activities that can be seen with certainty to have no significant effect on the environment).
LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORIDNANCE FINDINGS
2. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.110.A.1.(b) of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO), the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley (Commission) finds that the Union Investment Company Building No. 1 exhibits significance and meets the architectural merit criterion as an embodiment of early twentieth century commercial development and an exemplar of the Neoclassical architectural style from this period. The building retains integrity of its design, materials, workmanship, location and feeling. Its character-defining design features include: one-part commercial design, single-story massing and horizontal orientation; masonry construction and brick and stonemasonry façade materials; classical architectural design, symmetrical pattern of openings, and decorative details that feature pilasters and an entablature with a beltcourse embellished with a triglyph and dentil string, and a cornice at the wall parapet; and storefronts designed with recessed and splayed entrances, transom windows and large display windows.
3. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110.A.1.(c), th
e Commission finds that the subject
property also exhibits architectural merit as part of the West Berkeley neighborhood fabric that is distinctively represented in the concentration of one-part masonry commercial buildings designed in the Neoclassical style that are extant on the west side of the 2500-block of San Pablo Avenue. The subject building is contemporary with the abutting buildings to the south at 2518 and 2530 San Pablo Avenue, and these buildings feature similar architectural designs and building materials. They form a continuous street frontage of period structures that evoke a formative era of Berkeley’s historical and economic development through their physical appearance.
Item 6 - Attachment #1
LPC 2024-12-05
FINDINGS for DESIGNATION 2500-251
2 San Pablo Avenue – Union Investment Building No. 1
4. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.110.A.2, the Commission further finds that the property exhibits significance through its direct association with the East Bay Music Run, which existed along San Pablo Avenue during the 1960s and 1970s. The corner tenant space of the Union Investment C
ompany Building saw a series of night club
proprietors, beginning with the Cabale and including the original Long Branch Saloon, which became destinations for revered rock and folk performers and their fans. By hosting venues for live entertainment in this period, the subject property played a functional role in furthering a cultural movement that flourished in clubs and bars of Berkeley and the surrounding area.
Item 6 - Attachment #1
LPC 2024-12-05
2500-2512 SAN PABLO AVENUE FINDINGS for DESIGNATION
October 7, 2024 Page 3 of 3
FEATURES TO BE PRESERVED
This designation shall apply to the subject property and the following distinguishing features o
f the main building shall be preserved, and missing features shall be restored to the extent possible:
• Location at the northwest corner of San Pablo Avenue and D wight Way.
• One-story massing and horizontal orientation with a modified rectangular footprint. • The primary façade (east elevation) on San Pablo Avenue, and a second primary façade (north elevation) on Dwight Way, designed in a Neoclassical Revival architectural style and c
onstructed of brick masonry.
• One-part commercial building façade composition consisting of bulkheads, recessed storefronts, clerestory window course, and upper façade consisting of an elongated entablature and parapet wall, clad in b
rick laid out in a running bond pattern.
• Thirteen storefronts bays--eight along San Pablo Avenue and five along Dwight Way.
Six of these storefronts include a canted corner storefront along the primary façade on San Pablo Avenue (2500, 2504, 2506, 2508, 2510, and 2512), and three five storefront bays along the secondary primary façade on Dwight Way (1094, 1096, and 1098) along with pilasters separating each of the storefronts. • Glazed and wood-f
ramed front recessed entries and wood-framed, single and double- doors flanked by display windows set on knee walls and topped with fixed and hopper transom wood windows included in each of the nine storefronts. • Knee walls that are clad in tile and two that are clad in brick included in seven of the storefronts.
• A Classical Revival entablature located on the upper façade located above the transom windows along each storefront, consisting of a stone masonry beltcourse, row of dentils,
frieze boards with decorative triglyph, and molded cornices. • The parapet wall above the storefronts along the north and west elevations clad in brick with decorative masonry elements.
• Rear elevation partially visible from Dwight Way along the northwest corner of the building consists of a brick wall.
• The eight storefronts that are symmetrical and retain a majority of their original materials and design shall be preserved and the canted storefront that appears to have changed i
n the sidelights that flank the wood and glazed single-entry door, which are currently glazed sidelights framed in aluminum frames, should be preserved and restored to the extent possible.
Item 6 - Attachment #1
LPC 2024-12-05
City of Berkeley
Ordinance #44694 N.S.
LANDMARK APPLICATION
Union Investment Company Building #1
2510 San Pablo Ave (2500, 2504, 2506, 2508, 2510, 2512 San Pablo Ave & 1094, 1096 & 1098 Dwight Way) Land Use Planning
Received
November 6, 2024
City of Berkeley
Ordinance #44694 N.S.
LANDMARK APPLICATION
1. Street Address: 2510 San Pablo Ave (consisting of 2500, 2504, 2506, 2508, 2510,2512 San Pablo Ave and 1094, 1096 and 1098 Dwight Way) County: Alameda
Zip: 94702
2. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 054-1780-4-2
Block and Lot: Block 1780 and Lot 4-2,
Tract: Ranchos of Vicente and Domingo Peralta (Plot 60), Subdivisions of the Lands of T . and E. Hardwick (Bk6 pg 157)
Dimensions: Irregular-shaped lot 38.50 x 89 x 96.50 (Dwight Way) x 151.80 (San Pablo Avenue) x 135.05 x 62.80
Cross Streets: southwest corner of Dwight Way and San Pablo Avenue
3. Is the property on the State Historic Resource Inventory? Form# No. Property found to be significant through Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and associated Historic Resource Evaluation for the Proposed Blake Apartments Project at 2527 San Pablo Avenue by Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS).
Is the property on the Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey? Form# 15763 (no information on the form)
4. Application for Landmark Includes:
a. Building: X Garden: Other Features:
b. Landscape or Open Space: NaturalDesigned Other
c. Historic Site X
d. District:
e. Other: Entire Property
5. Historic Name: Union Investment Company Building No. 1 Commonly Known Name: Cafe Trieste Building (previously long-standing tenant)
6. Date Of Construction:
a. Factual: 1912 b. Approximate:
Source; HRE citation is 1907. Building permit citation 1911
7. Architect: Unknown
8. Builder: Unknown
9. Style: Commercial storefront building with elements of Classical Revival architectural design.
10. Original Owners : First Owner: Union Investment Company (per 1911 Building Permit) followed by Davidson, J.H. and Davidson B in the 1930’s per building permits Original Use: Various Commercial T enants
11. Present Owners: Harold Brandel and Phillip D Wood Residents & Owners of 2510 San Pablo Ave, Berkeley, CA 94702
12. Present Use: Commercial - various
Ɣ 1094 Dwight Way - Anchalee Thai Cuisine
Ɣ 2500 San Pablo Ave - Caffe Chiave - Cafe
Ɣ 2504 - Good Vibrations - Adult T oys Store, Health and Wellness Ɣ 2506 Lhasa Karnak - Herb Company
Ɣ 2508 Page Street Cowork Space for Writers (aka Litcamp) Ɣ 2510-12 Vacant – most recently Longbranch Saloon
Current Zoning:C-W, West Berkeley Commercial
Adjacent Property Zoning: C-W, West Berkeley Commercial
13. Present Condition of Property
Exterior: Excellent Good Fair Poor
Interior: Excellent Good Fair Poor (Various depending on tenant) Grounds: Excellent Good Fair Poor (N/A)
Has the property’s exterior been altered? Not significantly. There are some additions to the rear of the property
14. Description: Union Investment Company Building #1 (2500-2512 San Pablo Avenue and 1094, 1096 and 1098 Dwight Way) is located on the west side of San Pablo Avenue at Dwight Way and is, “an excellent example of Storefront Commercial Architecture and Classical Revival architectural style during Berkeley’s commercial development in the early decades of the 20th century. The extant building was constructed in 1907 (11) and retains many of its character-defining features, including: A formal symmetrical storefront, glazed and wood-framed front recessed entries, wood-framed single and double-doors flanked by display windows set on knee walls and topped with fixed and hopper transom wood windows. Character definition elements of Classical Revival design includes the brick masonry, which is laid out in a running
bond pattern, a stone masonry beltcourse, a dentil, frieze boards with decorative triglyph, molded cornices, and pilasters, horizontal massing; symmetrical façade; classical architectural forms and arrangements.” (from page 5 of 7 2510 San Pablo Avenue HRE) An assessment of integrity found that the 1907 storefront commercial building retains all seven aspects of integrity, which is detailed within the associated Historic Resource Evaluation “HRE” report. 1 (page 6 of 7) “The building is in fair condition and retains integrity of design, materials and workmanship.” All the storefronts are present, with most occupied and some more recently closed. These include Caffe Chiave (formerly Cafe Trieste) since 2004, Good Vibrations, an adult toy and wellness store, since 2014 Lhasa Karnak, a Berkeley based Herb Company that originally opened on Earth Day 1970 and has been in several Berkeley locations since, The non-profit Page Street Cowork Space for Writers (aka Litcamp) and the recently closed Longbranch Saloon Restaurant, named after the historic Berkeley music club of the same name which was located in the same building at 2500 and 2504 San Pablo Ave from 1971-1976.
1 1 Stacey De Shazo, Historic Resource Evaluation for the Proposed Blake Apartments Project at 2527 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, Alameda County, California, Evans & De Shazo, Inc., 2021.
Photo showing the series of storefronts along the east elevation facing north Photo showing the series of storefronts along the north elevation facing south East elevation (primary facade) of the 1907 storefront commercial building, facing northwest.
Entryway at corner of San Pablo and Dwight Way
1.Tile entryway detail 2510 SPA 2.View looking North along SPA 3. Brick masonry detail SPA Corner of Dwight and San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave frontage looking South
2506 San Pablo Ave 2504 San Pablo Ave
This Sanborn maps provides more history of the building and its block.
1931 aerial photograph showing 1907 building. Current lot in red outline (U.C. Santa Barbara).
Contemporary View - August 2024, credit: Charles Enchill
Rear of 2500 San Pablo Ave looking south from Dwight Way. Credit: Susan Orbuch August 2024 The earliest building permit is dated on October 25, 1912. The Owner was the Union Investment Company of 1132 Valencia Street, San Francisco, which according to subsequent
building permit applications for the building, relocated its offices five blocks to the north at 2016 San Pablo Avenue by March, 1915.
Building Permit Application for the Union Investment Company Bldg #1, BAHA
Subsequent Building Permit Application for Corner of San Pablo Ave and Dwight Way issued to Union Investment Company- BAHA
Another Building Permit issued to Union Investment Company on March 19, 1915 - BAHA (Note that this permit references the earlier application number 4325 shown above)
Another early building permit (June 20 191[*]) issued to Union Investment Co, listing the owner’s address as 2516 San Pablo Ave. *Exact year illegible, but issued between 1910-1919 - BAHA
Sanborn Maps provide more history of the building and its block. 1911 Sanborn Map for 2500 block San Pablo Ave
1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 2500 Block of San Pablo Avenue and Dwight Way
Photographs of the San Pablo Area over time are provided below for context.
Features to be Preserved
The significant features to be preserved are the following, as described below:
1. The primary façade (east elevation) on San Pablo Avenue, and a secondary primary façade (north elevation) on Dwight Way constructed of brick masonry laid out in a running bond pattern.
2. Nine storefronts, six of which, include a canted corner storefront along the primary façade on San Pablo Avenue (2500, 2504, 2506, 2508, 2510, and 2512), and three storefronts along the secondary primary façade on Dwight Way (1094, 1096, and 1098) along with pilasters separating each of the storefronts.
3. Glazed and wood-framed front recessed entries and wood-framed, single and double-doors flanked by display windows set on knee walls and topped with fixed and hopper transom wood windows included in each of the nine storefronts.
4. Knee walls that are clad in tile and two that are clad in brick included in seven of the storefronts.
5. A stone masonry beltcourse, dentil, frieze boards with decorative triglyph, and molded cornices located above the transom windows along each storefront.
6. The parapet wall above the storefronts along the north and west elevations clad in brick with decorative masonry elements.
7. The eight storefronts that are symmetrical and retain a majority of their original materials and design shall be preserved and the canted storefront that appears to have changed in the sidelights that flank the wood and glazed single-entry door, which are currently glazed sidelights framed in aluminum frames should be preserved and restored to the extent possible.
8. Rear elevation partially visible from Dwight Way along the northwest corner of the building consists of a brick wall.
15. History
(compiled by Fran Cappellettii, BAHA)
The Ohlone Period
Before the arrival of Europeans, the Huichin people, part of the greater Ohlone or Costanoan group, lived in an area from San Francisco Bay to Monterey. Historical evidence of their presence remains in shellmounds along the Bay and indentations in many of the rock outcroppings in the Berkeley Hills, including Northbrae’s Mortar Rock Park. The Spanish referred to them as Costanoan or ‘Indians of the coast’ and they were later termed Ohlone, the name accepted by most today. Made up of distinct groups, they had similar languages and cultures. Present for thousands of years into present day Berkeley, the City and Landmarks Preservation Commission formally recognizes and honors their past, present and future presence, with a land acknowledgement statement, noting that Berkeley was
built on the territory of xu þyun (Huchiun (Hooch-yoon)), the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochenyo (Cho-chen-yo)-speaking Ohlone (Oh-low-nee) people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County. This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone Tribes and descendants of the Verona Band. As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000-year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shellmound, and the Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay.
We recognize that Berkeley’s residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unceded stolen land since the City of Berkeley’s incorporation in 1878.
As stewards of the laws regulating the City of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today. The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lisjan Tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.
But long before such acknowledgements, European arrival brought disease and displacement, with much of the local population pulled into area Missions by the early 1800s.
Rancho San Antonio
According to M.W. Wood’s History of Alameda County, California, the Rancho San Antonio, a nearly 45-thousand-acre Spanish land grant, was made to Luis María Peralta by Spanish governor Pablo Vicente de Sol on August 16, 1820. Peralta had served forty years in the Spanish military. The grant included present-day Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and northern San Leandro. In 1842, he divided the land among his four sons. One of them, Domingo, would receive all of what is present-day Albany and Berkeley and a small portion of northern Oakland.
He built an adobe house in 1841 at the present-day site of 1304 Albina and it is a California point of historic interest.
According to the Peralta Family History at http://www.peraltahacienda.org, annexation of California by the United States in 1848 and the Gold Rush of 1849 brought significant change.
While the Peraltas and their fellow Californios were promised recognition and protection of their property rights, squatters on the land and theft of cattle became a problem as new settlers arrived from around the world. A further burden came with the 1851 U.S. Federal Land, which required the Californios to prove their land titles in court, requiring much time and expense.
In 1852-1853, Domingo started selling parcels of his land, mostly to pay off debts. The parcels were defined on a map surveyed by Julius Kellersberger, hired to survey the northern part of Rancho San Antonio. Surveyed in 1853, the map covers Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, and part of Oakland. The site of the building is near the Southwest corner of Plot Number 60 of the Vicente and Domingo Peralta Ranchos.
Map of the Ranchos of Vincente & Domingo Peralta. Containing 16970.68 Acres. Surveyed by Julius Kellersberger, 1853. Courtesy of Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps, Inc. http://www.raremaps.com
Ocean View
In 1874, much of the developed area was part of the Berkeley Land and T own Improvement Association. This was organized by neighborhood leaders to facilitate the further development of Ocean View, with wharf and ferry services and industrial growth. This development, along with the University, led to new factories and a ten-fold increase in population. 2 T o the south of
the Berkeley LTI Association was the site of the buildings at San Pablo Avenue and Dwight Way. 2 For a comprehensive history of Ocean View, see Victorian Berkeley: The Community of Ocean View, Karen Jorgensen-Esmaili and The Berkeley Historical Society, 1981.
Map of Berkeley, Showing the Property of the Berkeley LTI Association, 1874.
With the joining of the two distinct communities as Berkeley in 1878, further growth followed, but the differences remained, and today’s common label of West Berkeley was already established.
San Pablo Avenue and Dwight Way
As shown in the following 1878 map, the original claimant for the 107.63 acre plot 60, was Jean Noel. This plot included the area along Dwight Way (north and south sides) from San Francisco Bay to San Pablo Avenue.
Map Number One, Thompson & West, 1878.
By the 1870s, the Union Investment site was in a portion of lot 60, immediately north of the Hardwick Tract, both in Block 141.
By the 1890s, the name of Clute appears in maps of the area along Dwight Way, from San Pablo Avenue to San Francisco Bay.
Map of Oakland and vicinity, Showing Real Estate & Electric Railways, Dingee, William J., 1891.
Berkeley, California 1911, an absolutely accurate map of Berkeley, Mason-McDuffie Co., 1911.
USGS Topographic Map, 1915
City of Berkeley, California 1923, Berkeley Chamber of Commerce, Berkeley Realty Board.
Property T ax Assessments
BAHA has property tax listings for the early years of the 20 th century, showing a Clute owning the subject site between 1900 and 1913 .
1911 Sanborn maps show little development in Plot 60.
By 1929, Sanborn maps show much more development in the blocks.
The Block Book for the area, circa 1905 to 1920 shows Union Investment with ownership for this portion of Plot 60. Note the City of Berkeley Landmark Kawneer Manufacturing Company on 8 th Street at Dwight Way and the future site of Cutter Laboratories, which later became Bayer and Miles Laboratories. (see image next page)
Starting with 2500 San Pablo in 1912 and ending in 1926, permits For Union Investment Company, signed by Alva Clute, President, many commercial and residential structures were built in the area and remain in place in 1924.
Alva B. Clute:
Berkeley Landowner, Investor and …
Street Cleaner
Alva Clute resided at 2516 San Pablo Avenue for several years. He was part of the original set of Directors for the Union Investment Company, active in San Francisco and Berkeley, including the 2500 block of San Pablo Avenue.
The San Francisco Examiner, Sep 26, 1896: 16.
Articles of incorporation of the Union Investment Company have been filed by Alva B. Clute, G.A. Coursen and C.S. Harney of San Francisco, William E. Davidson of Oakland and D.H.
Whittemore of San Rafael, who have been elected to serve as Directors for the first year. The capital stock is placed at $200,000, and of that amount $500 has been subscribed by the incorporators.
The San Francisco Examiner, July 17, 1905: 4.
Oakland Tribune, 7 July 1917
San Francisco Chronicle, May 5, 1928, page 4
CLUTE – In Oakland, May 2, 1928. Alva B. Clute, beloved husband of Gertrude Clute, a native of California, aged 64 years. A member of Crockett Lodge No. 139, F . & A.M.; Golden Gate Commandery No. 16, K.T ., and Islam T emple, Mystic Shrine.
Friends are invited to attend the funeral services Saturday, May 5, 1928, at 1:30 o’clock p.m., at Masonic Cemetery Sacramento, California. Mr. Clute will be at Truman’s Residence Chapel, T elegraph ave. and 30
th st., Oakland, until 8:30 a.m. Saturday.
San Francisco Chronicle, May 13, 1928, page 58
Alva Baker Clute Last Rites Held
Masonic funeral services for Alva Baker Clute, for many years following the fire of 1906, prominent in San Francisco building and construction circles, were held in Sacramento May 5.
He is survived by his widow. His father, Frank W. Clute, was an early California pioneer, crossing the plains in a covered wagon in 1849. He was a member of the Knights T emplar and Islam Shrine T emple.
Sources
Ɣ Sanborn Maps, 1929 and 1950
Ɣ Key System Transit Lines (Calif.), Clyde H. Sunderland Ɣ M.W. Wood, History of Alameda County, California, Pacific Press, Oakland CA, 1883.
Ɣ Peralta Family History at http://www.peraltahacienda.org/.
Ɣ Map of the Ranchos of Vincente & Domingo Peralta. Containing 16970.68 Acres. Surveyed by Julius Kellersberger, 1853. Courtesy of Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps, Inc. http://www.raremaps.com
Ɣ Map of Berkeley, Showing the Property of the Berkeley LTI Association, 1874.
Ɣ Victorian Berkeley: The Community of Ocean View, Karen Jorgensen-Esmaili and The Berkeley Historical Society, 1981.
Ɣ Map of Oakland and vicinity, Showing Real Estate & Electric Railways, Dingee, William J., 1891.
Ɣ Berkeley, California 1911, an absolutely accurate map of Berkeley, Mason-McDuffie Co., 1911. University of California, Berkeley, Digital Collections, Earth Sciences and Map Library.
Ɣ USGS Topographic Map, 1915.
Ɣ City of Berkeley, California 1923, Berkeley Chamber of Commerce, Berkeley Realty Board. University of California, Berkeley, Digital Collections, Earth Sciences and Map Library.
Some Longtime and Significant Tenants:
Earliest Occupants/Usage:
The first known occupants of the two fronts at 2510 – 2512 San Pablo Avenue was the “Swedish Bakery” that occupied these two storefronts from ca. 1922 to 1963 (Figure 23 and Figure 24). It was owned and operated by Jonas L Norlund and Gus Rydstrom ca. 1922-1963, under the business name of “Norlund & Rydstrom.” The 1923 U.S. City Directory for Berkeley notes that Jonas and Gus both worked at the bakery during this time. Gus and Jonas were both born in Sweden. Jonas lived with his wife Anna at 2007 Dwight Way. It is unknown where Gus lived. The Norlund family continued to own and operate the bakery with Gus Rydstrom until 1963.
Significant History of Music Clubs at 2504 (and extending to 2500) San Pablo Ave The Building has a long history of hosting music clubs including the San Pablo Ave Folk and Rock Music Clubs - Cabale, Cabale Creamery, Good Buddy, Caverns West, Questing Beast, Tito's, Babylon, and Long Branch Saloon.
Source: Questing Beast Research by Ross Hannan and Corry Arnold:
http://www.chickenonaunicycle.com/Questing%20Beast%20History.htm The music history of 2504 San Pablo Avenue is meticulously researched and documented in a series of blogposts on Rock Archaeology 101 - Photos and Artifacts from Mostly Forgotten Bay Area Rock Venues of the 1960’s and Early 70s - see
http://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/2021/03/2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkeley-ca-long.html , http://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/,
https://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/2024/07/2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkeley-ca-long.ht mlhttp://berkeleyfolk.blogspot.com/2009/08/cabale-creamery-2504-san-pablo-avenue.html https://berkeleyfolk.blogspot.com/2012/11/babylon-2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkeley.html and http://www.chickenonaunicycle.com/Questing%20Beast%20History.htm
The below history and imagery is all excerpted from Rockarcheology blogs:
Back during World War 2, with the Oakland and RIchmond shipyards full of workers on three shifts, San Pablo Avenue had been called “Music Row.”. There had been nightclubs and saloons all along the East Bay, as tired workers with their pockets full relaxed with some live music. Many musicians had relocated from the South or Soutwet to the West Coast, since that was where all the work was. Many other musicians had migrated for factory work, only to find playing music more lucrative (and probably more fun). Even into the 1970’s, there wer still several nightclubs along the San Pablo Avenue corridor, a final hint of the booming war years. 2504 San Pablo Avenue itself was a seminal address in Berkeley ‘60’s music history. It is a fact of zoning that use permits tend to persist, so a venue with a license to allow music will generally continue to offer music. It is far easier for a new proprietor to lease a building with an existing permit than lobby for a niew one, so clubs often change names, owners and musical styles, but not addresses. In the early 1960’s, 2504 San Pablo had been the site of The Cable, later The Cable Creamery, an essential stop on the early 60s folk circuit. In 1965, it briefly become The Good Buddy and then Caverns West, and in November of that year it became the pre-psychedelic Question Beast. It was at the Questing Beast where local folksingers Joe McDonald and Barry Melton got some friends and “plugged in” to become Country Joe and The Fish.”
The Questing Beast had closed in May 1966 and 2504 became Tito’s, which featured live music but was mostly a dance club. In late 1969, the club was re-named Babylon, and featured local bands playing original music. In 1971, a new owner Malcolm Williams doubled the capacity of the room from about 175 to 350 and renamed the club The Long Branch Saloon. The Long Branch featured original music, too, but it paid a little better with a correspondingly higher quality of performers
Cabale (Creamery) January 1963-April 1965
The Cabale, at 2504 San Pablo Avenue (at Dwight), was a folk club founded in late 1962 by Rolf Cahn and Debbie Green (two Cambridge, MA folkies), along with Howard Ziehm and Red Dog alum Chandler A. Laughlin III (later known as Travus T . Hipp). Cahn, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, had served in the US Army during the war and also played and taught classical, flamenco, and folk guitar. Cahn had also founded the Blind Lemon in 1958 (at 2362 San Pablo) , the first Berkeley coffee house to feature folk music.
Sandy Rothman, a Berkeley bluegrass musician from way back, recalled Berkeley's Cabale (in a reflection no longer accessible on the internet)
It was on San Pablo Avenue, a main north-south thoroughfare parallel to Telegraph on the opposite (west) side of town, at the southwest corner of Dwight Way and San Pablo. I don't recall how "Creamery" got attached to it -- maybe from the steamed milk that was in the cappuccinos and lattes? The name "Cabale" was taken from "Cabala," a medieval system of Jewish mysticism. (Other dictionary definitions are: "a traditional, esoteric, occult, or secret matter" and "an
esoteric doctrine or mysterious art." Do any of those terms resonate with bluegrass, nearly a cult in itself?! Hahaha.)”
A calendar for Berkeley's Cabale, for December, 1963.
According to Rockarceology101, Jerry Garcia made many pilgrimages from his home in Palo Alto to The Cabale in Berkeley to see folk musicians just as the Kweskin Band, and the Kentucky Colonels, both thought to be inspirations for the Grateful Dead.
The Questing Beast November 19, 1965-May 9, 1966
In addition to getting their start at the Questing Beast, Country Joe and The Fish were the very last musical performances on May 6 and 7th, 1966.
A calendar for the Questing Beast in May, 1966. In fact, most of these gigs were never played, since the City of Berkeley pulled the club's cabaret license. The final musical performers were Country Joe and The Fish on May 7, 1966 Source: Rockarcheology101.blocspot.cog
Tito's 1967-June 1969
Somewhere around early 1967, 2504 San Pablo Avenue re-opened as a place called Tito's. It sold beer and pizza, and it had music for dancing on weekends. Tito's didn't buy ads, nor list their bands in the local papers, so it seems to have just had bands playing dance music. Still, once in a while, a local band would print up their own flyer, so we have some traces of the club's existence (The Drongos, below, were a local Berkeley band).
Babylon July 1969-April 1971
In the Summer of 1969, Tito's became Babylon. Babylon featured original electric rock bands. A colleague looked into the bookings from July 1969 through November 1970, and they were all local Berkeley bands . The only name that stands out today is Purple Earthquake, a band of former Berkeley High students who would evolve into the band Earth Quake. Earth Quake released several albums in the 1970s, and they would also rule the Long Branch for five years.
By the Spring of 1971, the Babylon was owned by one Malcolm Williams. I don't know how long Williams had run or owned Babylon, but he decided to expand the club and rename it.
The Long Branch May 28, 1971-November 1976
A May 23, 1971 article in the San Francisco Chronicle about Bay Area rock nightclubs had an interview with Malcolm Williams. Williams had hired some of the staff from the old Avalon Ballroom, and he was planning to upgrade Babylon by doubling its capacity, from about 175 to around 350. A bigger club meant better acts, not just local bands who probably lived nearby.
Certainly, the Bay Area did not want for good local bands, but they were all trying to make a living.
Bands would build a following at the Long Branch, and the bands that headlined weekends at the Branch would play weeknights at the Keystone Berkeley, with a built-in audience. Although
it's hard to be sure, I think the Long Branch crowd lived relatively near the club, and was in the just-over-21 bracket. The Long Branch was definitely a hard-rocking club, with loud bands and patrons who liked to dance, with less of the University overlay that was included in the Keystone Berkeley audience. The Keystone was right near campus, so its audience was broader but to some extent more snobby. The Long Branch was in West Berkeley, and less pretentious.
Some more well-known acts that performed at Long Branch include Elvin BIshop Group, New Riders of the Purple Sage (Jerry Garcia’s vehicle for letting him play pedal steel guitar in a live band), T ower of Power, Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airmen, and Eddie Money and the Rockets, and The Tubes.
The Long Branch lasted a little over five years and closed around November 1976. For many years, 2504 San Pablo Avenue was a store called Good Vibrations. It wasn't a music store, but it was scandalous enough to live up to the Cabale history (don't google it at work). Eventually, as Berkeley got more and more wealthy, gentrification finally got all the way down to Dwight Way and San Pablo Avenue. The building was completely remodeled, and re-opened as a restaurant. The new address is 2512 San Pablo Avenue, but it's the same location. The first restaurant I am aware of was called Sea Salt, which opened about 2009 or so. Sea Salt closed, though, and a new restaurant opened on November 11, 2014.
The Long Branch Saloon, at 2512 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, ca. 2019
The name of the new restaurant? The Long Branch Saloon . It says "Upscale comfort food is served in a stylish setting with open rafters & butcher-block tables." Given the turnover in Berkeley's population, it's likely that the locals think the Long Branch is just a reference to Dodge City--which it is--and don't see the nod to a hard-rockin' past.
16. Significance:
From Chapter 3.24 of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance:
3.24.110 A. Landmarks and historic districts. General criteria which the commission shall use when considering structures, sites and areas for landmark or historic district designation are:
1. Architectural merit:
b. Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of periods, styles, architectural movements or construction, or examples of the more notable works of the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer or master builder; or
c. Architectural examples worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric.
2. Cultural value: Structures, sites and areas associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social and economic developments of the City;
3. Educational value: Structures worth preserving for their usefulness as an educational force;
4. Historic value: Preservation and enhancement of structures, sites and areas that embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County/California/United States.
5. Any property which is listed on the National Register described in Section 470A of Title 16 of the United States Code.
Under both 3.24.110 A.1.b., and 3.24.110 A.1.c., the Union Investment Building #1 qualifies as “an excellent example of Storefront Commercial Architecture and Classical Revival architectural style during Berkeley’s commercial development in the early decades of the 20th century. The extant building was constructed in 1907 (11) and retains many of its character-defining features, including: A formal symmetrical storefront, glazed and wood-framed front recessed entries, wood-framed single and double-doors flanked by display windows set on knee walls and topped with fixed and hopper transom wood windows. Character definition elements of Classical Revival design includes the brick masonry, which is laid out in a running bond pattern, a stone masonry beltcourse, a dentil, frieze boards with decorative triglyph, molded cornices, and pilasters, horizontal massing; symmetrical façade; classical architectural forms and arrangements.” (from page 5 of 7 2510 San Pablo Avenue HRE) An assessment of integrity found that the 1907 storefront commercial building retains all seven aspects of integrity, which is detailed within the associated Historic Resource Evaluation report. 1 Stacey De Shazo, Historic Resource Evaluation for the Proposed Blake Apartments Project at 2527 San Pablo Avenue,
Berkeley, Alameda County, California, Evans & De Shazo, Inc., 2021.
The Union Investment Building #1 exhibits several classical elements found in other Berkeley business districts and is one of a few intact examples left on an ever-changing San Pablo Avenue. In addition to this application, the Historical Resources Inventory Form (DPR Form DPR Form 523A (9/2013) prepared by Stacey De Shazo as part of the Historic Resource Evaluation for the Proposed Blake Apartments Project at 2527 San Pablo Avenue,
Berkeley, Alameda County, California, Evans & De Shazo, Inc., 202, indicates that the storefront commercial building appears eligible for individual listing on the NRHP under Criterion C.(Construction/Architecture): That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
While the HRE author determined no other significance for the building, we also find the following:
Under 3.24.110 A.2, the Union Investment Company Building #1 also qualifies for its cultural value and under 3.24.110 A.4 for its historic value by extending and maintaining San Pablo Avenue’s World War 2 roots as “Music Row”, when it was home to nightclubs and saloons hosting Oakland and Richmond Shipyard workers into the 60’s and 70’s Culturally and historically, 2504 San Pablo Ave was a seminal address in Berkeley ‘60’s music history serving as the site of The Cabale and later The Cabale Creamery, which was an essential stop on the early 60s folk circuit. It continued as a music hotspot for folk, bluegrass, pre-psychedelic and rock music during the sixties and seventies in numerous incarnations including The Good Buddy, Caverns West, and The Questing Beast before becoming Tito’s and finally the Long Branch Saloon.
While the building has seen updates over time, the overall appearance has changed little and it continues to serve as home to current “counterculture” tenants such as Good Vibrations, providing valuable service to residents of Berkeley and the East Bay.
Period of Significance: 1911 – Present, location of several significant tenants in succession.
Historic Value:
National State County City Neighborhood
Architectural Value:
National State County City Neighborhood
17. Is the property endangered? Yes, it is up for sale and the San Pablo corridor is experiencing rapid demolition of existing buildings and development of new multi-story mixed use development.
18. Photographs:
Date Photographer Repository
1993 Evans & De Shazo Inc. HRE_DPR Form San Pablo
2510
2024 Charles Enchill Personal Collection
2024 unknown Loopnet.com
2024 Susan Orbuch Personal Collection
1910 Unknown UC Berkeley Bancroft
Library
1925 Unknown Berkeley Public Library
1970s Unknown Rockarcheology website
2019 Unkonwn Rockarcheology website
19. Bibliography:
Ɣ Building Permit files, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA).
Ɣ Sanborn Maps, 1911, 1929 and 1950
Ɣ 2021-03-04_HRE_DPR Forms_San Pablo 2510.pdf
Ɣ Historic Resource Evaluation for the Proposed Blake Apartments Project at 2527 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, Alameda County, California Prepared for Jonathan Astmann, Senior Project Manager Satellite Affordable Housing Associates. Prepared By: Stacey De Shazo, M.A.
Principal Architectural Historian [email protected] Evans & De Shazo Archaelogy & Historic Preservation, January 28, 2021
Ɣ 1931 aerial photograph courtesy of U.C. Santa Barbara (fig 22) Ɣ Portion of the 1911 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map (updated in 1950) showing the 1910 building (EDS-09) (figure 25 HRE for Proposed Blake Apartments cited above) Ɣ Circa 1910 Photo of San Pablo Avenue (UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library) (figure 8 HRE for Proposed Blake Apartments cited above)
Ɣ 1925 photograph of the Key System and Berkeley sign at San Pablo Avenue and University Avenue (Berkeley Public Library) (sourced from HRE for Proposed Blake Apartments cited above)
Ɣ Map of the Ranchos of Vincente & Domingo Peralta. Containing 16970.68 Acres. Surveyed by Julius Kellersberger, 1853. Courtesy of Barry Lawrence
Ɣ Ruderman Antique Maps, Inc. http://www.raremaps.com
Ɣ Map of Oakland and vicinity, Showing Real Estate & Electric Railways, Dingee, William J., 1891.
Ɣ 1923 Swedish Bakery Advertisement in the “V estkusten” – California Digital Newspaper Collection
Ɣ 1953 Swedish Bakery Advertisement (California Digital Newspaper Collection) Ɣ 2504 San Pablo Avenue through the years flow chart – Questing Beast Research by Ross Hannan and Corry Arnold:
http://www.chickenonaunicycle.com/Questing%20Beast%20History.htm Ɣ Cabale Show Calendar December, 1963 – courtesy of Rockareology 101 http://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/2021/03/2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkeley-ca-lo ng.html
Ɣ Questing Beast Calendar May 1966
http://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/2021/03/2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkeley-ca-lo ng.html
Ɣ Drongos show flyer approx. 1967,
http://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/2021/03/2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkeley-ca-lo ng.html.
Ɣ Flyer from Babylon from March 13, 1970
http://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/2021/03/2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkeley-ca-lo ng.html
Ɣ October 1, 1971 Berkeley Barb promotes the New Riders of the ole’ Purple Sage and High Country at Long Branch Saloon (2500 [sic] San Pablo) $2.00 http://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/2021/03/2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkeley-ca-lo ng.html
Ɣ 2504 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, CA: The Long Branch Saloon 1971 Performance List (and Building History – Long Branch I) – March 11, 2021.
http://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/2021/03/2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkeley-ca-lo ng.html
Ɣ 2504 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley CA: The Long Branch Saloon Saloon Performance History (Long Branch II) , Friday August 11, 2023
https://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/2023/08/2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkeley-ca-long.html Ɣ 2504 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley CA: The Long Branch Saloon Performance History
October-December 1973 (Long Branch III) Friday, July 19, 2024 https://rockarchaeology101.blogspot.com/2024/07/2504-san-pablo-avenue-berkele y-ca-long.html
Ɣ The Questing Beast , 2504 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley CA, researched and prepared by Ross Hannan and Corry Arnold – latest Update Sept 13, 2011 http://www.chickenonaunicycle.com/Questing%20Beast%20History.htm ou Ɣ Tom Dalzell , Berkeley e-Plaque designation on San Pablo Avenue Folk Music Clubs, https://berkeleyplaques.org/e-plaque/san-pablo-avenue-folk-music-clubs/ Ɣ City of Berkeley Ordinance #4694 N.S. Landmark Application for the Borg Building, 2136-2154 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94702 - (#LMSAP2020-0004) as appended to LPC Notice of Decision dated October 6, 2020
20. Recorder: Susan Orbuch/Charles Enchill Date: 5 November, 2024 Organization: Landmark Preservation Commission
City of Berkeley
Ordinance #44694 N.S.
LANDMARK APPLICATION
Union Investment Company Building #1
2510 San Pablo Ave (2500, 2504, 2506, 2508, 2510, 2512 San Pablo Ave & 1094, 1096 & 1098 Dwight Way)
APPENDIX
Notes on early history of 2500 block, San Pablo Ave, Berkeley In 1906 and 1908, livestock for sale.
Berkeley Daily Gazette, Newspaper Archives May 23, 1906 Page 6 Berkeley Daily Gazette, Newspaper Archives November 18, 1908 Page 6 1909 and 1910 Directories (Clute on block, his listed occupation is contractor) Clute, Alva B, contractor, 2516 San Pablo Ave, Berkeley Articles mentioning Alva Clute:
https://cdnc.ucr .edu/?a=d&d=OLSF19021025.2.19&srpos=4&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-%22uni on+investment%22+clute-------
https://cdnc.ucr .edu/?a=d&d=SFC19101217.2.114&srpos=8&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-%22unio n+investment%22+clute-------
https://cdnc.ucr .edu/?a=d&d=SFC19080905.2.78&srpos=7&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-%22unio n+investment%22+clute-------
https://cdnc.ucr .edu/?a=d&d=SFC19050721.2.155&srpos=1&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-alva+clu te-------
https://cdnc.ucr .edu/?a=d&d=OT19280928.1.31&srpos=28&e=-------en--20--21--txt-txIN-alva+clu te-------
1910 Census
Alva B. Clute is listed at 2516 San Pablo Ave, occupation is Street Contractor 1911 Directory (Clute on block, his listed occupation is real estate) Clute, Alva B, real estate, 2516 San Pablo Ave, Berkeley
1912 Directory (Clute on block, his listed occupation back to contractor) Clute, Alva B, contractor, 2516 San Pablo Ave, Berkeley 1913 Directory (Clute on block, Gordon and Herold not yet on 2500 block) Gordon, Henry, drug clk, Owl Drug Co, rms 1708 San Pablo, Oakland Clute, Alva B, contractor builder, 2516 San Pablo Ave, Berkeley 1914 Directory (All 3 on 2500 block)
Clute, Alva B, contractor, 2516 San Pablo Ave, Berkeley 1915 Directory (Gordon and Herold on block, Clute at Shattuck Hotel) Gordon, Henry S, drugs 2500 San Pablo, r 1645 Ashby
Herold, Frank, Dry Goods, 2504 San Pablo
Clute, Alva B, contractor, Shattuck Hotel
1916 Directory
Gordon the Druggist is now listed at 3299 Adeline
Herold, Frank, Dry Goods, 2504 San Pablo
1917 Directory
Herold, Frank, Dry Goods, 2502 San Pablo
1918 Directory