Berkeley City Council
March 10, 2026

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
● San Francisco’s multi-channel outreach includes the “Three Golden Rules” campaign, social media messaging, and community events coordinated with local law enforcement.12
● San Francisco uses geofencing to limit speeds and restrict sidewalk riding, empowers parking officers with citation authority, and incentivizes compliant parking through dedicated programs.

Austin, TX
● Austin employs operator limits, fleet caps, and cost recovery mechanisms to fund enforcement and infrastructure improvements.13
● Austin enforces nighttime speed limits and deploys “force-park” technology to ensure proper device placement.

Portland, Oregon
● Portland integrates in-app reminders and widespread public education to promote safe riding and proper parking.14
● Portland mandates secure locking of devices post-trip and rapid removal of improperly parked scooters, supported by centralized 311 reporting.

Chicago, Illinois
● Chicago developed a sweep of educational campaigns to provide comprehensive and easy to assess and intake resources, including Rider Tips for How to Safely and Properly Use Shared Scooters.15 12 SFMTA, “Scooter Safety Campaign 2023,” https://www.sfmta.com/scooter-safety-campaign-2023 13 City of Austin, “Micromobility Program,” https://www.austintexas.gov/department/micromobility 14 Portland Bureau of Transportation, “Shared Electric Scooter Program,” https://www.portland.gov/transportation/escooter
15 City of Chicago, Rider Tips for How to Safely and Properly Use Shared Scootershttps://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/cdot/supp_info/escooter-share-pilot-project.html

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
An example of educational campaign material provided by Chicago, IL around safe use of microbiology devices.

BACKGROUND
Micromobility offers substantial benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, lower transportation costs, and increased access to transit.16 A survey in neighboring Oakland found that 37% of e-scooter riders used them to connect to public transportation at least once a week.17 Micromobility devices are used by a wide range of residents, including students, commuters, seniors, and visitors, offering convenient first- and last-mile connections to transit and local destinations.

Berkeley already has a vast library of materials relevant to the topic of micromobility, including laws, rules and regulations and contracts with operators, including the:
● Draft Plan for the 2025 Berkeley Bike Plan;18,19
16 California Air Resources Board, “Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation,” accessed August 2025, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/transportation-sector 17 City of Oakland Department of Transportation, “Micromobility Survey Report,” 2023, https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/e-scooter-evaluation-report 18 City of Berkeley, Draft Plan for the 2025 Berkeley Bike Plan https://berkeleybikeplan.org/storage/app/media/uploaded- files/draft/DRAFT_Berkeley_Bike_Plan_08072025.pdf
19 City of Berkeley, This Draft Plan for the 2025 Berkeley Bike Plan Update, https://berkeleybikeplan.org/#/recommendations

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
● Berkeley Electric Bike Equity Project (BEEP) 2025;20
● City of Berkeley, Public Works – Transportation Division; Shared Electric Micromobility Permit Program – Terms, Conditions, and Application 2024;21 ● City of Berkeley Electric Mobility Roadmap 202022
Berkeley has the opportunity to leverage an anticipated increase in shared micromobility vendor fees to further enhance its micromobility framework by drawing on successful approaches from peer cities that integrate safety, accountability, and infrastructure through clear regulations, effective enforcement, and robust public education.

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES CONSIDERED
Following numerous conversations with Transportation Division staff and based on FITES guidance when this referral was discussed in September 2025, the current version of this item prioritizes the development of an education program as a first step but outlines each of the below-referenced recommendations for completeness. Nothing in this section should be construed as precluding staff from implementing the elements below subject to alignment with existing City of Berkeley policy and existing staff resources.

1. Improved Incentives and Enforcement
a. Provide clear channels for residents, pedestrians, and people with disabilities to report issues quickly and easily.
b. The enforcement structure should be such that operators would consider progressive accountability measures for individual users (e.g., mandatory classes, increased fines, revoking ridership privileges). To the extent that, per conversations with shared micromobility vendors, these enforcement structures are already implemented, the vendors should be enforcing this directive.
c. Suggest mechanisms for imposing additional penalties by the city on operators failing to address violations in a timely and effective manner. 20 City of Berkeley, Berkeley Electric Bike Equity Project (BEEP) 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BEEP%20Data%20Analysis%20Summary%20Report %20February%202025-reduced.pdf
21 City of Berkeley, Shared Electric Micromobility Permit Program (SEMPP) Terms and Conditions Revised 2024
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SEMPP%20T%26C_Revised%202024_0.pdf 22 City of Berkeley, Electric Mobility Roadmap. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 01/City%20of%20Berkeley%20Electric%20Mobility%20Roadmap_2020.pdf

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
d. Include mechanisms for sharing enforcement data with the public, such as dashboards or annual reports, to increase trust and allow the community to monitor safety and compliance trends.
e. Enforcement can be more effective when paired with physical or digital infrastructure23, like clearly marked parking zones, geofenced no-ride areas, and device-locking features when they attempt to ride on the sidewalk or travel at excessive speeds.
f. Recommend any additional operator-funded city incentive programs that reward evidence-based best operational practices by operators.

2. Cost Recovering Fee and Penalty Structure
a. Implement an operator-paid fee and penalty schedule that fully covers the city’s costs of staff time and enforcement infrastructure.24 b. On a pilot basis, explore additional infrastructure contributions from operators, such as funding a specified number of parking corrals, bike racks, or signage based on fleet size, following models such as Bay Wheels in San Francisco.25 Such improvements should be subject to an engineering assessment for safety and feasibility.
c. Explore and negotiate leveraging data collected by micromobility devices for other city use.26
d. Consider the expansion of the agreed upon fee, incentive, and enforcement model beyond current e-scooter contracts (Veo Micromobility and Lime) to include other current or future micromobility options (e.g., Bay Wheels).

3. Right of Way and Accessibility Enforcement
Research and recommend additional effective and low-cost infrastructure upgrades,27 including standardized markings for appropriate parking zones, 23 City of Berkeley, Hundreds more e-bikes added to Berkeley’s bike share stations, https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/news/hundreds-more-e-bikes-added-berkeleys-bike-share- stations
24 City of Berkeley, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-09- 30%20Item%2015%20Refer%20to%20the%20City%20Manager%20in%20Collaboration%20with%20the %20CAO.pdf
25 SFMTA, https://www.sfmta.com/blog/sfmta-and-bay-wheels-reach-agreement 26 USDOT, Studying the Use of Low-Cost Sensing Devices to Report Roadway Pavement Conditions, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/78991#:~:text=This%20report%20investigates%20the%20application,ne twork%20longevity%20and%20user%20satisfaction
27 Nesic, Alex. The Medium.
https://alexnesic88.medium.com/parking-compliance-unleashing-the-potential-of-shared-micromobility- d979b1e3c950

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
creating parking corrals in daylighted zones to reduce sidewalk obstruction, and improve compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) (e.g., eliminating or mitigating for instances of micromobility devices impeding public right of way access to those with physical disabilities). Operators should consider enhancing ADA compliance and accessibility by incorporating features such as Braille labels on devices, emergency buttons accessible to wheelchair users, and prominently displayed contact information that is easily visible at all times of day, subject to technological and contractual feasibility.

The operator fee should, to the extent possible, incorporate the costs of all such measures.

4. Stronger Accountability Measures
The City of Berkeley should continue, through contracting tools, to reflect the shared responsibility of operators in ensuring that unsafe behaviors and public nuisances are proactively addressed, as negative perceptions could threaten the long-term viability of these services. Operators should be held accountable to protect the public perception and social acceptance of micromobility.

a. Revise operator reporting requirements. Expand the currently required frequency of quarterly submission by operators to City staff with the production of biannual (twice per year) reports to the full Council, including, but not limited to detailing moving and parking violations, number of repeat offenders, safety class attendance, warnings issued, penalties applied, and any ridership privileges revoked. b. The City of Berkeley can reinforce shared responsibility by holding operators accountable for unsafe behaviors and public nuisances, recognizing that public perception affects the long-term success of micromobility.

5. Community Engagement and Education
a. Centralize and streamline the city’s website to ensure all micromobility program details, rules, safety guidance, maps, and reporting instructions are easy to find and access in one location. The City might explore developing a comprehensive micromobility information hub—either as a standalone site or a robust, dedicated webpage—that consolidates policies, maps, FAQs, safety regulations, ADA requirements, and incident- reporting tools in plain, user-friendly language that could be visible to the public.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
b. Expand operator led education campaigns via signage, classes, media, and social media to increase awareness of proper micromobility use. c. All materials should be available in multiple, most used languages in Berkeley and should be designed for varying levels of familiarity, from first- time riders to frequent users, and should include visual guides and real- world examples.
d. Operators should be required to lead outreach efforts with City support when possible:
i. Align public education efforts with in-app onboarding, user prompts, and enforcement tools that are specific to each device type. Public– private partnerships should extend to schools, colleges, community organizations, advocacy groups, and affordable housing providers to ensure equitable, mode-appropriate outreach. Pay special attention to family and youth education. Operators and the City should partner with schools and community groups to equip parents with resources to educate their children on micromobility safety. e. The City should consider including outreach requirements in contracts with operators (i.e. tabling at a minimum # of outreach events, minimum # of in- person training classes with community organizations, etc.).

These coordinated approaches could integrate infrastructure improvements, rider safety, enforcement, operator accountability, public education, and rider incentives, providing a framework for a safer, more equitable, and sustainable micromobility system in Berkeley.

COMMUNITY IMPACT
Strengthening Berkeley’s micromobility regulations will enhance public safety, protect ADA accessibility, and reduce sidewalk obstructions. Consistent enforcement and updated operator contracts ensure accountability and equity, while expanded public education campaigns and improved infrastructure promote safe, orderly, and sustainable micromobility use.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Well-regulated micromobility directly supports Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan by providing low-emission alternatives to short car trips, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and traffic congestion. By investing in safe infrastructure, accessible parking, and public education, the City of Berkeley can encourage more people to adopt micromobility options, increasing the share of sustainable transportation in daily travel.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Igor Tregub, Council District 4
510-981-7140, [email protected]
Olga Bolotina, Chief of Staff, Council District 4
[email protected]

Shamaila Ahmed, Legislative Aide, Council District 4
[email protected]

Igor Tregub
Councilmember District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 10, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Tregub
Subject: Resolution Opposing Bureau of Land Management Oil and Gas Leasing and Drilling on California Public Lands and Parks

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution opposing the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposed oil and gas leasing and development on approximately 1.6 million acres of California public lands, including areas adjacent to Bay Area parks such as Mount Diablo State Park, Pinnacles National Park, Henry W. Coe State Park, and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve; and refer to the City Manager to send a letter to the BLM Central Coast Field Office, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, and California’s Congressional delegation urging withdrawal of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements and cessation of all new oil and gas lease sales on California public lands.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On January 13, 2026, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a Notice of Availability for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Central Coast Field Office Oil and Gas Leasing and Development program. Under this proposal, the BLM would open approximately 683,100 acres of federal mineral estate across 12 counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Fresno, Merced, and San Joaquin) to new oil and gas leasing and hydraulic fracturing (fracking). A parallel process through the Bakersfield Field Office covers an additional approximately 800,000 acres in south-central California.

The proposed leasing areas include lands directly adjacent to treasured Bay Area parks and open spaces, including Mount Diablo State Park, Pinnacles National Park, Henry W. Coe State Park, and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve. Due to the “split estate” nature of federal mineral rights, where the federal government owns subsurface mineral rights beneath state or locally managed surface lands, drilling operations could be authorized beneath or immediately adjacent to these protected areas, threatening their ecological integrity and recreational value.

10

Resolution Opposing BLM Oil and Gas Leasing and Drilling in California CONSENT CALENDAR

This proposal directly threatens Berkeley residents and the broader Bay Area community in several critical ways:
 Air Quality and Public Health: Oil and gas extraction and fracking operations release volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants that degrade regional air quality and endanger public health, particularly for vulnerable populations including children, elderly residents, and those with respiratory conditions.
 Water Resources: Fracking operations require millions of gallons of water and generate toxic wastewater that risks contaminating groundwater and surface water supplies upon which Bay Area communities depend.
 Climate Change: The BLM’s own Preferred Alternative (Alternative F) estimates that the Central Coast proposal alone would release approximately 660,977 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent emissions over a 30-year project life, directly undermining California’s climate goals and the City of Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan.
 Biodiversity and Habitat: The proposed leasing areas encompass critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, and drilling operations would fragment wildlife corridors connecting Bay Area open spaces.  Conflict with State Law: California’s oil and gas setback law (SB 1137) prohibits new drilling within 3,200 feet of sensitive locations including homes, schools, and parks. The BLM proposal would allow federal lessees to circumvent these state health protections on federal mineral estate.

This item aligns with the City of Berkeley Strategic Plan goals to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment, and to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

BACKGROUND
The BLM’s effort to open California public lands to new oil and gas leasing originated during the first Trump administration in 2019, when the agency released proposals covering approximately 1.2 million acres under the Bakersfield Field Office and approximately 800,000 acres under the Central Coast Field Office. Environmental organizations, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Earthjustice, along with Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties, filed lawsuits alleging that the BLM’s environmental reviews failed to adequately assess the impacts of fracking.

In 2020, the administration auctioned 4,000 acres in Kern County, but development was blocked by additional litigation. In December 2022, a federal court approved settlement agreements that suspended all new oil and gas leasing across more than one million acres of California public lands until the BLM produced new, adequate environmental analyses.

Resolution Opposing BLM Oil and Gas Leasing and Drilling in California CONSENT CALENDAR

The current Draft Supplemental EIS represents the BLM’s attempt to satisfy those settlement requirements. However, environmental organizations and public health advocates have stated that the new analyses remain inadequate, noting that the 100- page review’s conclusions that environmental and health impacts would be “minimal” fail to account for the cumulative effects of oil and gas development on regional air quality, water resources, and community health.

The public comment period for the Central Coast Field Office Draft SEIS closes on March 13, 2026, with a final decision expected by July 2026.

In 2017, the Berkeley City Council adopted a resolution opposing offshore drilling and fracking off the California coast. The current proposal presents analogous threats to public health, the environment, and community well-being on lands directly adjacent to Bay Area parks and communities.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
A resolution opposing BLM oil and gas leasing on California public lands and directing the City Manager to transmit a formal letter to federal officials is supported by the following considerations:
 The proposal threatens the ecological integrity of regionally significant parks and open spaces that Berkeley residents and Bay Area communities rely upon for recreation, clean air, and quality of life.
 New fossil fuel extraction is inconsistent with the City of Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan, its declaration of a climate emergency, and its commitment to environmental justice.
 The BLM’s environmental review has been challenged as inadequate by leading environmental organizations and was previously found deficient by federal courts.
 A formal resolution during the public comment period adds the City’s voice to the record and strengthens the legal and political case for protecting these lands.  Numerous municipalities, counties, and community organizations across California have opposed these leasing proposals, and Berkeley’s voice as a leader in environmental policy carries significant weight.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
This resolution directly advances the City’s environmental sustainability and climate goals. The proposed BLM leasing program would enable new fossil fuel extraction that is fundamentally incompatible with the City’s commitment to addressing climate change.

The estimated 660,977 metric tons of CO₂ emissions from the Central Coast proposal alone would work against regional greenhouse gas reduction targets. Additionally, drilling operations adjacent to Bay Area parks would threaten natural habitats,

Resolution Opposing BLM Oil and Gas Leasing and Drilling in California CONSENT CALENDAR

biodiversity, tree canopy, and watersheds—all of which the City has committed to preserving and protecting. Adoption of this resolution reinforces Berkeley’s leadership in protecting the environment and advancing a just transition away from fossil fuels.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial implications to the City from adopting this resolution and transmitting the associated letter. Staff time required to transmit the letter is minimal and can be absorbed within existing resources.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The alternative of taking no action was considered. However, given the urgency of the public comment deadline (originally March 6, and extended to March 13, 2026 due to issues with the BLM’s website), the proximity of the affected areas to Berkeley and the Bay Area, and the potential irreversible environmental harm, taking no action would represent a missed opportunity to formally register the City’s opposition during the critical public comment period.

CONTACT PERSON
Igor Tregub, Councilmember Council District 4
[email protected]
510-981-7140
Attachments:

1. Resolution Opposing BLM Oil and Gas Leasing on California Public Lands

2. Draft Letter to the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Secretary of the Interior

Resolution Opposing BLM Oil and Gas Leasing and Drilling in California CONSENT CALENDAR

RESOLUTION NO. _____ - N.S.

OPPOSING THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT’S PROPOSED OIL AND GAS

LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT ON CALIFORNIA PUBLIC LANDS AND PARKS,

AND URGING THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS FOR THE CENTRAL COAST AND

BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICES
WHEREAS, The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published on January 13, 2026, a Notice of Availability for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Central Coast Field Office Oil and Gas Leasing and Development program, proposing to open approximately 683,100 acres of federal mineral estate across 12 California counties to new oil and gas leasing and hydraulic fracturing; and WHEREAS, A parallel BLM planning process through the Bakersfield Field Office proposes to open approximately 800,000 additional acres in south-central California to oil and gas leasing, bringing the total proposed acreage to approximately 1.6 million acres of California public lands; and
WHEREAS, The proposed leasing areas include lands directly adjacent to regionally and nationally significant parks and protected areas, including Mount Diablo State Park, Pinnacles National Park, Henry W. Coe State Park, Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and areas near Los Padres National Forest and the Pacific Crest Trail; and WHEREAS, The “split estate” nature of federal mineral rights means that the federal government may authorize oil and gas extraction beneath or adjacent to state and locally managed parklands, threatening the ecological integrity and recreational value of these protected areas; and
WHEREAS, Oil and gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing operations release volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, methane, and other hazardous air pollutants that degrade air quality and endanger public health, with disproportionate impacts on low-income communities and communities of color; and
WHEREAS, Fracking operations require millions of gallons of water and produce toxic wastewater that poses risks to groundwater and surface water resources; and WHEREAS, The BLM’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative F) for the Central Coast proposal estimates the release of approximately 660,977 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent emissions over the 30-year life of the project, directly undermining California’s climate goals and the Paris Agreement targets; and
WHEREAS, California enacted SB 1137, establishing health and safety setback zones that prohibit new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, parks, and other sensitive receptors, and the BLM proposal would allow federal lessees to circumvent these state health protections; and

Resolution Opposing BLM Oil and Gas Leasing and Drilling in California CONSENT CALENDAR

WHEREAS, In December 2022, a federal court approved settlement agreements suspending all new oil and gas leasing across more than one million acres of California public lands after courts found the BLM’s prior environmental reviews inadequate; and WHEREAS, Leading environmental organizations, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, have stated that the current Draft SEIS analyses remain inadequate and fail to account for cumulative impacts on public health and the environment; and WHEREAS, The City of Berkeley has declared a climate emergency and adopted a Climate Action Plan committing to significant greenhouse gas reductions, and new fossil fuel extraction on nearby public lands directly undermines these commitments; and WHEREAS, The City of Berkeley’s Strategic Plan includes goals to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment, and to preserve and protect natural habitats, biodiversity, tree canopy, and watersheds; and
WHEREAS, In 2017, the Berkeley City Council adopted a resolution opposing offshore drilling and fracking off the California coast, establishing a precedent for the City’s opposition to fossil fuel development that threatens California’s environment and communities; and
WHEREAS, The public comment period for the Central Coast Field Office Draft SEIS closes on March 13, 2026, making timely action by the City Council essential to ensuring Berkeley’s voice is included in the public record.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley strongly opposes the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed oil and gas leasing and development on California public lands as set forth in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements for the Central Coast Field Office and Bakersfield Field Office, and calls upon the BLM to withdraw these proposals and refrain from holding any new oil and gas lease sales on California public lands.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley calls upon the BLM to honor the spirit and intent of the 2022 federal court settlement agreements that suspended oil and gas leasing on these lands, and to conduct thorough, adequate environmental review that fully accounts for the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development on public health, air quality, water resources, climate, wildlife, and environmental justice.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley urges the BLM to respect and not preempt California’s health and safety protections, including the setback requirements established by SB 1137, on all oil and gas operations on federal mineral estate within the state.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to transmit a letter on behalf of the City Council to the BLM Central Coast Field Office, the BLM Bakersfield Field Office, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, and California’s U.S. Senators and Congressional representatives, conveying the City’s opposition and requesting that the

Resolution Opposing BLM Oil and Gas Leasing and Drilling in California CONSENT CALENDAR

BLM withdraw the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements and cease all new oil and gas leasing on California public lands.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be transmitted to organizations working to protect California public lands from oil and gas development.

Resolution Opposing BLM Oil and Gas Leasing and Drilling in California CONSENT CALENDAR

Date
Bureau of Land Management
Central Coast Field Office
940 2nd Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
Bureau of Land Management
Bakersfield Field Office
3801 Pegasus Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93308
The Honorable Doug Burgum
Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20240
Re: Opposition to Proposed Oil and Gas Leasing on California Public Lands — Central Coast Field Office and Bakersfield Field Office Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements
Dear Secretary Burgum and BLM Field Office Managers:

On behalf of the City of Berkeley, California, I write to express our strong opposition to the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed oil and gas leasing and development program as set forth in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEIS) for the Central Coast Field Office and Bakersfield Field Office. We respectfully urge the BLM to withdraw these proposals and refrain from holding any new oil and gas lease sales on California public lands.

The Berkeley City Council adopted Resolution No. _____ on March 10, 2026, unanimously opposing the BLM’s proposal to open approximately 1.6 million acres of California public lands to new oil and gas leasing and hydraulic fracturing. This letter conveys the substance and intent of that Resolution.

Threat to Bay Area Parks and Protected Lands
The proposed leasing areas include lands directly adjacent to some of the Bay Area’s most treasured parks and open spaces, including Mount Diablo State Park, Pinnacles National Park, Henry W. Coe State Park, and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.

These parks serve millions of visitors annually and provide critical habitat, watershed protection, and recreational opportunities for the residents of Berkeley and the surrounding region. The “split estate” nature of federal mineral rights means that drilling

Resolution Opposing BLM Oil and Gas Leasing and Drilling in California CONSENT CALENDAR

and fracking could occur beneath or immediately adjacent to these protected lands, causing irreversible harm to their ecological integrity.

Public Health and Environmental Concerns
Oil and gas extraction operations, particularly hydraulic fracturing, release volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, methane, and other hazardous pollutants that degrade air quality and endanger public health. These impacts are borne disproportionately by low-income communities and communities of color, raising serious environmental justice concerns. Furthermore, fracking operations consume millions of gallons of water and generate toxic wastewater that threatens groundwater and surface water resources throughout the region.

Climate Impacts
The BLM’s own analysis estimates that the Central Coast proposal alone would generate approximately 660,977 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent emissions over its 30- year lifespan. At a time when the scientific consensus demands rapid decarbonization to avert the worst consequences of climate change, authorizing new fossil fuel extraction on public lands is unconscionable. The City of Berkeley has declared a climate emergency and adopted ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets; new oil and gas development on nearby public lands directly undermines these efforts and the State of California’s climate goals.

Inadequacy of Environmental Review
We note that the BLM’s prior environmental reviews for these same leasing proposals were found deficient by federal courts, resulting in the 2022 settlement agreements that suspended leasing on more than one million acres. Leading environmental and public health organizations have stated that the current Draft SEIS analyses remain inadequate, failing to properly assess cumulative impacts on air quality, water resources, public health, and environmental justice communities. We urge the BLM to conduct a thorough, legally adequate environmental review before any leasing decisions are made.

Conflict with California Law
California’s SB 1137 establishes health and safety buffer zones prohibiting new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of sensitive locations, including homes, schools, and parks.

The BLM’s proposal would effectively allow federal lessees to circumvent these vital state protections. We urge the BLM to respect California’s democratically enacted health and safety laws and to refrain from authorizing operations that would undermine them.

Request
For the foregoing reasons, the City of Berkeley respectfully requests that the Bureau of Land Management:

Resolution Opposing BLM Oil and Gas Leasing and Drilling in California CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Withdraw the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements for both the Central Coast Field Office and Bakersfield Field Office oil and gas leasing programs;

2. Refrain from holding any new oil and gas lease sales on California public lands;

3. Honor the intent of the 2022 federal court settlement agreements that recognized the inadequacy of prior environmental review;

4. Conduct thorough, legally adequate environmental analysis that fully accounts for cumulative impacts on public health, air quality, water resources, climate, wildlife, and environmental justice; and

5. Respect and not preempt California’s health and safety protections, including the setback requirements established by SB 1137.

We appreciate your consideration of the City of Berkeley’s position on this critically important matter. Our community stands with the many municipalities, counties, environmental organizations, and public health advocates across California who are working to protect our public lands, parks, air, water, and climate from the harms of new fossil fuel extraction.

Sincerely,
Mayor Adena Ishii and Members of the Berkeley City Council cc:

U.S. Senator Alex Padilla
U.S. Senator Adam Schiff
U.S. Representative Lateefah Simon

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe (Author), Councilmember Brent Blackaby (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Igor Tregub (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Citywide Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager to develop official, citywide guidelines for the secure, ethical, and effective use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools by City of Berkeley employees. The policy should align with Berkeley’s values, promote innovation and progress, and safeguard privacy and public trust.

The City Manager should review policies adopted by other California cities and develop Berkeley-specific principles to guide staff usage of AI. The following principles should form the foundation of Berkeley’s policy:

1. Create safeguards against introduction of bias through use of AI systems

2. Protect data privacy and ensure cybersecurity compliance

3. Maintain human oversight and accountability

4. Explore opportunities to integrate AI into operations management

5. Foster collaboration and cross-departmental exchange of AI knowledge

6. Ensure transparency and compliance with Public Records Laws

7. Periodic review and improvement
Developing a clear and responsible AI policy will help the City of Berkeley harness emerging technologies to better serve the community while upholding equity, integrity, and public confidence in city operations and services.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On Wednesday, February 11, 2026 the Health Policy Committee adopted the following action:

M/S/C (Taplin/Tregub) to send item to Council with a positive recommendation. Vote: All Ayes.

BACKGROUND
In recent years, the development and adoption of generative artificial intelligence tools – or AI that can generate text, images, and other content based on prompts from a user and the data it

11

was trained on – has accelerated dramatically. California, specifically, is at a unique juncture as both the birthplace of AI and the home to a majority of top AI companies in the world.1 The rapid rise of AI provides both an opportunity and a challenge for public and private sector employers and organizations. According to a survey conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research, “as of late 2024, nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population age 18-64 uses generative AI. 23 percent of employed respondents had used generative AI for work at least once in the previous week, and 9 percent used it every work day.”2 When used responsibly, artificial intelligence can automate repetitive tasks, facilitate efficiency, support decision making and advanced data analysis, and minimize errors. For local governments operating with limited resources and navigating staffing shortages, these tools can assist with communications and the delivery of public goods and services. However, the usage of AI is not without its risks and concerns. The technology also introduces ethical, legal, and operational risks including those related to privacy, cybersecurity, bias in decision making, accuracy, and transparency.

As the usage of AI becomes more common in the workplace, cities and counties across California have developed guidelines for employees including San Francisco3, San Jose,4 Long Beach,5 and Santa Cruz County.6 With no official citywide policy, City of Berkeley employees are left using their best judgement when it comes to the appropriate uses of AI. Therefore, the City must ensure that the use of AI aligns with its values of equity, innovation, and progress.

This item proposes the development of guidelines for City of Berkeley staff based on best practices from other jurisdictions, which include the following:

Addressing Bias
City Staff should use caution when procuring or using any artificial intelligence systems that have documented or reasonably identifiable bias, discriminatory outcomes, or fairness concerns. Numerous instances of AI bias have been documented in the law enforcement, 1 California, S. of. (2025, September 29). Governor Newsom signs SB 53, advancing California’s world- leading artificial intelligence industry. Governor of California. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/09/29/governor-newsom-signs-sb-53-advancing-californias-world-leading- artificial-intelligence-industry/
2 Bick, A., Blandin, A., & Deming, D. (2024). The rapid adoption of Generative AI. National Bureau of Economic Research . https://doi.org/10.3386/w32966
3 San Francisco generative AI guidelines. City of San Francisco . (2025, July 8). https://www.sf.gov/reports--july-2025--san-francisco-generative-ai-guidelines 4San José AI guidelines and policies. City of San José. (2025). https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/departments-offices/information-technology/itd-generative-ai-guideline 5 Generative AI guidance. City of Long Beach . (n.d.).
https://www.longbeach.gov/smartcity/projects/generative-ai-guidance/ 6 County of Santa Cruz Artificial Intelligence Appropriate Use Policy . County of Santa Cruz . (2023, September 13).
https://www2.santacruzcountyca.gov/personnel/vpolandproc/ProceduresManual/PM6476.pdf

criminal justice, and healthcare industries.789 San Francisco’s guidelines include monitoring for and manually correcting instances of bias.

Data Protection
The City should develop careful and detailed policies surrounding the input of sensitive, confidential, or legally protected data – such as personally identifiable information, health information, or privileged communications – into AI tools. Though there are AI tools designed to work specifically with private data, all AI usage must comply with City data protection policies, cybersecurity standards, and state and federal privacy laws. Long Beach prohibits the use of certain AI systems that carry serious concerns about privacy, transparency, and security.

Human Oversight
While AI may support human judgement in decision-making, it must never replace human oversight. Staff remain responsible for the content, recommendations, and decisions made with the assistance of AI. Consequential decisions that impact human welfare and stand to have a high-impact – such as those affecting rights, benefits, or public services – must undergo human review and sign-off. In certain cases, the use of AI should be prohibited entirely. Santa Cruz County prohibits the use of AI to make decisions related to hiring, benefits, or other sensitive matters where bias could play a role.

AI Integration in Operations
Incorporating AI into operations management could help improve efficiency, consistency, and service quality. When implemented thoughtfully, AI could help support staff and increase organizational resilience. Other potential positive benefits could include improved service delivery and maximizing the impact of limited public resources.

Cross-Department Collaboration
The City should consider how best to encourage the proactive sharing of insights and best practices across departments. This could include quarterly or annual staff meetings that promote the exchange of information, ensuring refinement over time and continuous innovation.

Public Records Act Compliance
AI-generated materials created or used for official City business are city records and may be subject to the California Public Records Act (PRA). Staff should preserve such records accordingly.

Review and Improvement
7 Artificial Intelligence in Predictive Policing Issue Brief. NAACP. (n.d.). https://naacp.org/resources/artificial-intelligence-predictive-policing-issue-brief 8 Taylor, J. (n.d.). Code without conscience: How ai discrimination puts black lives at risk. NCNW. https://ncnw.org/code-without-conscience-how-ai-discrimination-puts-black-lives-at-risk/ 9 Glass , M. (2023, February 23). Algorithms were supposed to reduce bias in criminal justice-do they?.

Boston University. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/do-algorithms-reduce-bias-in-criminal-justice/

The artificial intelligence landscape is quickly evolving. The City should consider reviewing and amending its AI guidelines annually to reflect feedback from staff, changes in state and federal law, and advances in technology.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
While currently the City of Berkeley has not yet adopted a formal policy guiding staff usage of artificial intelligence, it is our understanding that a draft AI Administrative Regulation is under development by the City Manager, and this item is intended to inform that process.

Recognizing the AI sector is ripe for regulation, the State of California recently became the first in the nation to adopt an artificial intelligence transparency and safety law – dubbed the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act. Additionally, the state also recently adopted a new series of regulations, specifically addressing Automated Decision-Making Technology in employment decisions due to concerns over bias.10 With the state recognizing the impact and consequences of unregulated artificial intelligence, there is also opportunity for local leadership and governance.

ACTIONS/ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
While the City may choose not to take action on artificial intelligence, City employees may already be using AI tools to support their work. Without proper guidance and oversight, there could be many consequences to unregulated AI use, including the spread of misinformation, data and privacy risks, poor or biased decision making, and more. Right now, the City has an opportunity to lead by providing its workforce with a guided approach.

Should the City Manager decide not to pursue official guidelines, the City could consider creating risk tiers – based on San Jose’s model – that can help employees understand when additional review is necessary.11
10California, S. of. (2025a, June 30). Civil Rights Council secures approval for regulations to protect against employment discrimination related to Artificial Intelligence. Civil Rights Department. https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/2025/06/30/civil-rights-council-secures-approval-for-regulations-to-protect- against-employment-discrimination-related-to-artificial-intelligence/ 11San José AI guidelines and policies . City of San José. (n.d.). https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/departments-offices/information-technology/itd-generative-ai-guideline

CONSULTATION/OUTREACH OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Councilmember O’Keefe’s office consulted with the City Manager’s office on the guidelines and the City Manager expressed interest in pursuing the policy. Councilmember O’Keefe has also consulted with the Office of the City Attorney.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley currently has no official citywide policy or guidance for employees who wish to use artificial intelligence to support their work. While a draft AI Administrative Regulation is under development by the City Manager, the City has an opportunity to use this item to help inform and shape that forthcoming guidance. With other cities adopting policies to ensure that AI is used securely, responsibly, and transparently, Berkeley should similarly work toward developing its own framework grounded in best practices.

As AI continues to integrate across all sectors, its role in municipal operations is likely to expand. To keep pace with this evolving technological landscape, the City of Berkeley should proactively advance policy development that safeguards privacy, maintains public trust, and provides clear direction for staff use of AI tools. Consideration of this item by the City Council will help ensure that the final Administrative Regulation reflects both policy priorities and community values.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
N/A

FISCAL IMPACTS
Staff time.

CONTACT
Shoshana O’Keefe, [email protected], 510-981-7150

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Lunaparra (Author), Councilmember Taplin (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Ishii (Co- Sponsor)
Subject: Berkeley Free Clinic Critical Renovations: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Vice Mayor Lunaparra’s discretionary fund, $500 from Councilmember Taplin’s discretionary fund, and funds from any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute, to the Berkeley Free Clinic for critical renovations at its new location at 830 University Avenue, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose.

BACKGROUND
Founded in 1969 during the People's Park era, the Berkeley Free Clinic (BFC) has served as a cornerstone of community health for over five decades. Operated as a volunteer-run collective, the BFC provides 100% free acute medical care to anyone in need—regardless of income, insurance, or immigration status. Its services include STI and UTI testing and treatment, HIV linkage and PREP, TB testing, and peer counseling.

It also assists clients with benefits enrollment, housing referrals, and access to community resources. The BFC primarily serves unhoused, uninsured, undocumented, and low-income residents who often face the greatest barriers to care. By offering zero- cost services, the BFC reduces pressure on local safety nets and contributes to better public health outcomes across the city.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
After operating for decades at 2339 Durant Avenue in District 7, the BFC was forced to relocate when that building, owned by a local church, was sold and deemed unsuitable for occupation. Its move to 830 University Avenue (formerly the Ann Chandler Public Health Center) allows the BFC to maintain continuity of care in the city it has proudly served for over 50 years. To meet OSHPD standards, the BFC undertook extensive renovations, including demolition, carpentry, plumbing, HVAC, drywall, flooring, and expansion of exam and restroom areas. These upgrades, which cost $196,809, a major investment for a volunteer-driven organization, were necessary to bring the facility into compliance with OSHPD standards for medical settings and to ensure safe, high-quality care for Berkeley residents. The renovated facility will allow the BFC to expand

12

capacity, extend clinic hours, and continue serving Berkeley's most vulnerable residents in a safe and compliant environment. Financial assistance from the Berkeley City Council for the renovations would help the BFC maintain its vital role in the local safety net and support equitable healthcare in our community.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No anticipated impacts.

FISCAL IMPACTS
No General Fund impact. $500 is available from both Vice Mayor Lunaparra and Councilmember Taplin’s office budget discretionary accounts.

Attachments:

1. Resolution

CONTACT PERSON
Vice Mayor Cecilia Lunaparra, (510) 981-7170
Jonah Gottlieb, Chief of Staff

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

SUPPORT FOR CRITICAL RENOVATIONS AT THE BERKELEY FREE CLINIC WHEREAS, the Berkeley Free Clinic (BFC), a registered 501c(3) nonprofit organization operated as a volunteer-run collective, has provided 100% free acute medical care to anyone in need—regardless of income, insurance, or immigration status—for over five decades; and
WHEREAS, the BFC’s services include STI and UTI testing and treatment, HIV linkage and PREP, TB testing, and peer counseling. The BFC also assists clients with benefits enrollment, housing referrals, and access to community resources; and WHEREAS, the BFC primarily serves unhoused, uninsured, undocumented, and low- income residents who often face the greatest barriers to care. By offering zero-cost services, the BFC reduces pressure on local safety nets and contributes to better public health outcomes across the city; and
WHEREAS, after operating for decades at 2339 Durant Avenue in District 7, the BFC was forced to relocate when that building, owned by a local church, was sold and deemed unsuitable for occupation; and
WHEREAS, the BFC’s move to 830 University Avenue (formerly the Ann Chandler Public Health Center) allows the BFC to maintain continuity of care in the city it has proudly served for over 50 years; and
WHEREAS, to meet OSHPD standards, the BFC undertook extensive renovations, including demolition, carpentry, plumbing, HVAC, drywall, flooring, and expansion of exam and restroom areas; and
WHEREAS, these upgrades were necessary to bring the facility into compliance with OSHPD standards for medical settings and to ensure safe, high-quality care for Berkeley residents. The renovated facility will allow the BFC to expand capacity, extend clinic hours, and continue serving Berkeley's most vulnerable residents in a safe and compliant environment; and
WHEREAS, the BFC seeks funds in the amount of $500 from Vice Mayor Lunaparra’s office, $500 from Councilmember Taplin’s office, and up to $500 from each Councilmember to help cover the cost of renovations. Vice Mayor Lunaparra and Councilmember Taplin each have surplus funds in their office expenditure accounts.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Berkeley City Council that up to $500 relinquished by Councilmembers – including $500 from Vice Mayor Lunaparra and $500 from Councilmember Taplin – shall be granted to the Berkeley Free Clinic to help cover renovations at its new location.

Berkeley City Councilmember
Mark Humbert, District 8
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected]
www.MarkHumbert.com

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026
To: Members of the Berkeley City Council
From: Councilmember Mark Humbert (Author);
Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Author);
Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Co-Author)
Subject: Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) Rezoning

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager the Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) as a standalone rezoning effort to proactively and equitably increase housing stock in southeast Berkeley’s high-resource areas. This project would seek to:

1. Rezone the Telegraph Avenue corridor south of Parker Street to the Oakland border at Woolsey Street from the current C-C (Commercial-Corridor) district to the C-T (Telegraph Avenue Commercial) district (or similar), allowing for taller mixed-use housing development, with a goal of base zoning of 8 stories/85 feet.

2. Identify and upzone specific auto-oriented C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) parcels in the Claremont and Ashby area (near Domingo Avenue) from their current 2–3 story limits to 4–6 stories using existing or new zoning districts.

3. Allocate funding from the District 8 office budget to begin required planning and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the proposed zoning changes.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On February 2, 2026 the Land Use, Housing & Economic Development Policy Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Bartlett/Tregub) to send the item to the City Council with a qualified positive recommendation with the following amendments: 1.

Provide a more precise description of where the balance of the proposed funding would come from. 2. Look at a variety of density bonus scenarios for projections related to units and stories. 3. Clarify that the boundary runs from south of Parker Street to the Oakland border. Vote: All Ayes.

SUMMARY
This item proposes a new, targeted rezoning effort to deliver a substantial and equitable increase in zoned housing capacity in District 8 (and limited portions of District 3 along

13

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026

Telegraph). The Project to Increase Telegraph and Claremont Housing (PITCH) focuses on the under-utilized Telegraph Avenue corridor, which offers significant capacity (estimated up to 5,700 new units), excellent transit access, and larger, more easily developable parcels.

By simultaneously applying targeted upzoning to auto-oriented sites in the highest-resource Claremont neighborhood, the project would fulfill Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and other Housing Element goals by expanding housing opportunities into the highest-resource parts of Berkeley. This strategic approach ensures a significant and geographically equitable contribution to Berkeley's housing goals, while potentially relieving pressure on more commercially and architecturally sensitive areas.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The estimated cost to execute the necessary initial planning, staff time, and comprehensive environmental review (CEQA) for PITCH is $250,000. To ensure the viability and timely commencement of this project, Councilmember Humbert commits to funding:
● $100,000180,000 from his Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 office budget. ● $50,00070,000 from his FY 2027 office budget.

The total contribution of $1250,000 helps make the project viable for immediate launch, allowing theany unexpected balance or contingency to be secured from other general City fundsthe City’s general fund and/or grant opportunities in FY 2027/2028.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Telegraph Avenue, from Parker Street south to the Oakland border, is currently zoned C-C, which sets a base zoning for development of 3-story mixed-use or residential buildings. This represents a severe under-utilization of a key corridor located in a High Resource zone (slated to be upgraded to a Highest Resource area by 2026 TCAC maps) and which features wide street sections (~66’ of traffic lanes) and large parcels ideal for higher-density housing.

Furthermore, new housing production has been disproportionately low in the highest-resource neighborhoods of District 8, such as Claremont. Although certain portions of the Claremont area have recently seen their housing capacity increase due to the City’s Middle Housing efforts, fire risks and a limited number of underutilized non-residential parcels mean that, absent this project, this area is unlikely to contribute appreciably to the creation of new homes in Berkeley.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has a State mandate and made local commitments to increase housing production in high-resource, transit-rich areas. Telegraph Avenue's length, infrastructure, and under-developed parcels present an excellent opportunity for high-density housing. The State of California's new law (SB 79) will already require upzoning near Ashby BART (District 3) and the

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026

adjacent Telegraph/Alcatraz area, making a comprehensive upzoning of the entire Telegraph corridor both a logical and proactive step.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This project is an effective approach to better meeting Berkeley’s housing and equity goals:
● Increasing Housing Capacity on Telegraph: Rezoning Telegraph to C-T (8-stories) is projected to create a zoned housing capacity of up to around 5,700 units—a vital contribution to Berkeley’s housing stock.
● Equitable Development:
○ The Telegraph corridor is located in a High Resource area and the project will better satisfy Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals. ○ Including the Claremont area (targeting auto-oriented uses near Ashby and Domingo) creates new housing opportunities in one of Berkeley’s highest resource neighborhoods, diversifying housing options and providing walkable retail access to residents.
● Infrastructure Alignment: The project aligns new development with the City's investment in the Telegraph Multimodal Corridors project, which includes bus lanes and a protected cycletrack to improve transit and cycling infrastructure.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The project promotes environmental sustainability and climate action by increasing housing development along the high-frequency 6-Telegraph AC Transit bus route, which also features good access to jobs, shopping, and other urban amenities. This location encourages car-free or car-lite living and would serve to reduce the carbon footprint associated with auto use relative to housing in other areas of Berkeley and especially outside Berkeley.

Encouraging infill development also has the effect of reducing development pressure on agricultural and wildland areas, helping preserve them as natural and working lands.

Subsequent CEQA review will ensure all environmental impacts are fully assessed and, if necessary, mitigated before zoning changes are enacted.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
This referral represents the first step in a longer process that would involve substantial additional staff work, public engagement, subsequent Council input, environmental review, and subsequent Council votes to approve any rezoning and associated CEQA documentation.

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The project is made more fiscally viable by the immediate financial commitment from Councilmember Humbert's office. Subsequent fiscal impacts include increased property tax revenue from new housing development, increased sales tax revenue from more residents and subsequent foot traffic, and increased transit ridership on the 6-line, which will help AC Transit address its fiscal shortfall.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Mark Humbert — [email protected], 510-981-7180

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Preliminary Buildout Analysis

ATTACHMENT 1 Preliminary Buildout Analysis
Improving Corridor Upzoning in District 8
Telegraph Avenue is currently zoned C-C and allows for just 3 stories, mixed-use or fully residential.

By continuing the C-T zone from the Southside Plan down Telegraph Avenue, District 8 would be making possible thousands of new housing units on a corridor with plentiful underutilized automotive land-use, office properties, drive-thrus, and parking lots, and with streets wide enough for homes taller than 4-6 stories. Telegraph is equal to College Ave. in state resource designation.

North of Ashby is High Resource and south of Ashby is Highest Resource.

To estimate the housing unit capacity of a Telegraph Avenue re-zoning, assume 1,000 sqft units with first-floor commercial uses. If a building is 7 stories, then the housing capacity is 6 stories by the number of 1,000 sqft units that fit within the parcel. Telegraph Avenue has more space for much higher-density housing than is being proposed on all the corridors, and has high-density zoning that can be extended from the Southside Plan (C-T zone).

College (Current D8 proposal) Telegraph (Proposed)
Acreage 7 acres (only 1.9 acres likely to
be developed)
20 acres
Zoned Housing Capacity Proposed C-E up-zoning (only
130 units are expected, best
case, on likely to be developed
parcels.):
4-stories: 615 units
6-stories: 1,025 units
C-T Zoning (8 stories/FAR

8.0):
5,705 units
The gas station parcel on the northwest corner at Ashby and Telegraph alone fits 259 units, pre- density bonus, more than the best-case scenario for the entire proposed College Ave. rezoning.

In addition to adding Telegraph Avenue to the Corridors Plan and changing the Elmwood upzoning to a spot-zoning of the least sensitive lots without contingent commercial structures, the Claremont neighborhood has several car-oriented parcels ideal for new housing. Claremont is the Highest Resource neighborhood in Berkeley. Housing on the gas stations and auto shops in the C-N zone around Ashby and Domingo Avenue would provide future residents with walkable retail, a 5- minute walk to Star Grocery, and a local bus line.

The following is a comprehensive table of zoned capacity under the proposed changes to District 8 rezoning.

Location Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Rationale APN (if
applicable)
Dwelling
Unit Zoned
Capacity
Telegraph
Ave south
of Parker
Street
C-C
2-3
stories
C-T
85 feet (8
stories)
Good transit service,
wide street, many
suitable sites. 5 minute
walk to Elmwood
shopping district;
Whole Foods, Berkeley
Bowl within walking
range.
8 stories w/
ground floor
retail:
5,705 units
Claremont
& Ashby:
two gas
stations, a
car repair
shop, and a
parking lot
C-N
2-3
stories
4 - 6 stories
(Same as
Solano)
Creates new housing in
the wealthiest district
of Berkeley. 5 min.
walk to Star Grocery.

Domingo Ave.
businesses next door.
12 minutes to BART by
bus.

Gas stations will be
obsolete in the near
future as the
population continues
shift to EVs.
'64-4234-3-3'
'64-4235-8-4'
'64-4236-4',
'64-4236-2'
4 stories w/
ground floor
retail: 159
units.
6 stories w/
ground floor
retail: 265
units.
4 stories: 212
units
6 stories: 318
units.

Elmwood:
7-11 strip
mall, Wells
Fargo Lot,
and Post
Office
C-E
2-3
stories
4 - 6 stories
(Same as
Solano)
Rezone three parking
lot parcels on College.

Would allow building
types such as senior or
affordable housing, to
be added to the
Elmwood.
52-1567-62-
6, 53-1696-
15, 52-1567-
16 4 stories w/
ground floor
retail: 84
units.
6 stories w/
ground floor
retail: 140
units.

Total Units
Zoned
Proposed
~6,100 units
zoned

Current
Plan (C-E)
C-E 4 - 6 stories Entirety of College
commercial re-zoned
615 - 1,025
units
Additional Notes:

1. The Telegraph Multimodal Corridors project is investing in transportation for future population growth along Telegraph Ave.

2. SB 79 will likely require some rezoning of or near the west side of Telegraph Ave., via Ashby BART in District 3. This is an opportunity to rezone Telegraph comprehensively, rather than rely on the state and a portion of Telegraph and the LeConte neighborhood in District 3, only.

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
March 10, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Amendments to BMC Title 23 (Zoning) to update the regulation of Nonconforming Lot Coverage, Floor Area Ratio and Density for Residential Uses in selected Zoning Districts

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt the first reading of an ordinance amending BMC Title 23 Section 23.324.050 to update the regulation of nonconforming lot coverage, FAR and density for residential uses in the Residential Multi-Unit 1 (R-1), Residential Multi-Unit 2 (R-2), Residential Multi-Unit 2A (R-2A), and Mixed Use- Residential (MU-R) Zoning Districts.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of the recommended amendment would not result in any costs or revenues for the City.

BACKGROUND
The need for the proposed amendment to BMC Section 23.324.050 (Conforming and Nonconforming Structures and Buildings) was identified during the implementation of the Middle Housing zoning changes, which were adopted on July 8, 2025. The Middle Housing zoning changes allow multi-family uses and residential additions through ministerial approval (i.e., with a Zoning Certificate) in the R-1, R-2, R-2A and MU-R zoning districts.

Middle Housing established new objective development standards and a minimum density that define a project’s allowable density and maximum building envelope.

Projects that meet these objective development standards can be approved ministerially.

The provisions of BMC Section 23.324.050 conflict with the intent of Middle Housing because they require applicants to obtain a Use Permit to expand structures that do not conform with the parcel’s required minimum density, even though they would otherwise

14

Amendments to Title 23 regarding Nonconforming Uses, PUBLIC HEARING FAR, and Density in certain Residential Zoning Districts March 10, 2026

meet the objective development standards. BMC Section 23.324.050 also conflicts with Middle Housing because it includes a provision that permits nonconforming residential uses to exceed maximum lot coverage and FAR by obtaining a Use Permit, even though Middle Housing standards were established to definitively define the building envelope through objective standards that cannot be exceeded with additional permits.

On January 21, 2026, staff presented a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing (Attachment 2). The Planning Commission unanimously adopted a resolution recommending an amended version of the staff recommendation for adoption by City Council.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The existing provisions of BMC Section 23.324.050 maintain discretionary approval pathways for residential projects, and therefore conflict with the legislative intent of the Middle Housing zoning changes in two primary ways:
1) By requiring a Use Permit for residential additions that comply with objective development standards, they contradict City Council’s intent to allow ministerial approval of code-compliant additions in the R-1, R-2, R-2A and MU-R zoning districts; and
2) By allowing a project to exceed the maximum lot coverage standard with a Use Permit, they establish a discretionary pathway to exceed objective development standards that were established to definitively proscribe the maximum building envelope.

DISCUSSION
The proposed amendments would remove the Use Permit requirement for residential projects that do not conform with minimum density and prohibit residential projects from exceeding maximum lot coverage and FAR through the Use Permit process in the R-1, R-2, R-2A, & MU-R zoning districts by exempting them from the provisions of BMC Section 23.324.050(D)(3) (Nonconforming Coverage, FAR, and Density) (Attachment 1), as follows:

3.  Nonconforming Coverage, FAR, and Density.
(a)  A Use Permit is required for an addition to and/or enlargement of a structure or building that exceeds the maximum allowed lot coverage, or maximum floor area ratio, or is nonconforming to minimum or maximum residential density.
(b)  The ZAB may approve the Use Permit only if the project does not:

Amendments to Title 23 regarding Nonconforming Uses, PUBLIC HEARING FAR, and Density in certain Residential Zoning Districts March 10, 2026

i.  Increase or exacerbate the nonconformity; or
ii.  Exceed the height limit.
(c) The provisions of this section do not apply to Residential Uses in the R-1, R- 2, R-2A or MU-R Zoning Districts.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
By exempting residential projects in the Middle Housing zoning districts from the provisions of 23.324.050(D)(3), the proposed amendment would:
 Reflect Middle Housing’s intent to permit ministerial approval of code-compliant residential projects by removing the requirement for a Use Permit when a proposed residential addition to a nonconforming structure complies with objective development standards.
 Reflect Middle Housing’s intent to have a single set of objective development standards that definitively proscribe the maximum building envelope by removing a discretionary pathway to exceed the Middle Housing development standards.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
At its January 21, 2026 meeting the Planning Commission agreed that BMC Section

23.324.050(D)(3) conflicts with the legislative intent of Middle Housing by retaining discretionary approval pathways for additions to, and enlargements of, nonconforming residential structures in the R-1, R-2, R-2A and MU-R zoning districts. The Planning Commission amended the proposed Zoning Ordinance language intending to prevent nonconforming projects from further exacerbating nonconformities:

D. Expansion and Alteration

3. Nonconforming Coverage, FAR, and Density.
(a) A Use Permit is required for an addition to and/or enlargement of a structure or building that exceeds the maximum allowed lot coverage, or maximum floor area ratio, or is nonconforming to minimum or maximum residential density.
(b) The ZAB may approve the Use Permit only if the project does not:
i. Increase or exacerbate the nonconformity; or
ii. Exceed the height limit.

Amendments to Title 23 regarding Nonconforming Uses, PUBLIC HEARING FAR, and Density in certain Residential Zoning Districts March 10, 2026

(c) The provisions of this section do not apply to Residential Uses in the R-1, R-2, R-2A or MU-R Zoning Districts, as long as the project does not increase or exacerbate the nonconformity nor exceed the height limit.

The Planning Commission’s intent was to ensure that the exemption did not inadvertently exclude projects that would otherwise comply with development standards. However, staff finds that the Commission’s proposed language retains a discretionary approval pathway that would permit projects to exceed Middle Housing development standards that were established to definitively proscribe the maximum building envelope. The Planning Commission’s language exempts projects from the requirements 23.324.050(D)(3), “as long as the project does not increase or exacerbate the nonconformity nor exceed the height limit.” This language implies that if a project does increase or exacerbate a nonconformity, it would be subject to this section, and could therefore apply for a Use Permit to exceed maximum lot coverage. At its meeting of January 21, 2026, the Planning Commission members agreed that they did not want to create a discretionary pathway to exceed Middle Housing standards. Their proposed language, however, preserves a discretionary pathway. To address this, the Ordinance presented with this report reflects staff revisions to the Planning Commission language, to meet its intent of removing the discretionary pathway.

In addition, BMC Section 23.324.050(D)(1) permits additions or enlargements to nonconforming structures, as long as “the addition or enlargement complies with all applicable laws.” An addition, therefore, can be added to a nonconforming structure as long as it complies with all other Middle Housing development standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment does not include any allowances for additional development capacity or other new physical changes to the environment that are not already permitted and previously evaluated under CEQA. Adoption of the proposed amendment would in no way have a significant effect on the environment and therefore is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption).

The Middle Housing zoning changes are intended to encourage dense, infill development in existing urbanized areas. Such development is associated with fewer transportation-related emissions and greater overall energy efficiency, helping the City meet the goals of its Climate Action Plan.

CONTACT PERSON
Faye Mingham, Assistant Planner, Planning and Development Department, (510) 981- 7484

Amendments to Title 23 regarding Nonconforming Uses, PUBLIC HEARING FAR, and Density in certain Residential Zoning Districts March 10, 2026

Attachments:
1: Ordinance
2: PC Staff Report 01-21-2026
3: Public Hearing Notice

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONFORMING AND NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS CHAPTER (BMC 23.324.050) TO UPDATE THE REGULATION OF

NONCONFORMING LOT COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) AND DENSITY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL MULTI-UNIT 1 (R-1), RESIDENTIAL MULTI-UNIT 2 (R-2), RESIDENTIAL MULTI-UNIT 2A (R-2A), AND MIXED USE- RESIDENTIAL (MU-R) ZONING DISTRICTS.

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.324.050(D)(3) is amended to read as follows:

23.324.050 Conforming and Nonconforming Structures and Buildings.

D. Expansion and Alteration

3. Nonconforming Coverage, FAR, and Density.
(a) A Use Permit is required for an addition to and/or enlargement of a structure or building that exceeds the maximum allowed lot coverage, or maximum floor area ratio, or is nonconforming to minimum or maximum residential density. (b) The ZAB may approve the Use Permit only if the project does not:
i. Increase or exacerbate the nonconformity; or
ii. Exceed the height limit.
(c) The provisions of this section do not apply to Residential Uses in the R-1, R- 2, R-2A or MU-R Zoning Districts.

Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 21, 2026
To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Faye Mingham, Assistant Planner
Subject: Amendments to BMC Title 23 (Zoning) to update the regulation of Nonconforming Lot Coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Density for Residential Uses in the Residential Multi-Unit 1 (R-1), Residential Multi- Unit 2 (R-2), Residential Multi-Unit 2A (R-2A), and Mixed Use-Residential (MU-R) Zoning Districts.

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing, receive public comment, and upon conclusion, make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt proposed amendments (Attachment 1) to BMC Title 23 (Zoning) Section 23.324.050 to update the regulation of nonconforming lot coverage, FAR and density for residential uses in the R-1, R-2, R-2A, & MU-R zoning districts.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The proposed amendments to BMC Section 23.324.050 (Conforming and Nonconforming Structures and Buildings) were identified during the implementation of the Middle Housing zoning changes, which were adopted on July 8, 2025, to allow multi-family uses and residential additions through ministerial approval (i.e. with a Zoning Certificate) in the R-1, R-2, R-2A and MU-R zoning districts.

The provisions of BMC Section 23.324.050 require applicants to obtain a Use Permit for residential additions to, or enlargements of, structures that do not conform with the parcel’s required minimum density. BMC Section 23.324.050 also includes a provision that permits nonconforming residential uses to exceed maximum lot coverage and FAR by obtaining a Use Permit.

These existing provisions conflict with the legislative intent of the Middle Housing zoning changes in two primary ways:

Staff Report
Planning Commission
January 21, 2026
ATTACHMENT 2

Title 23 Amendments to Nonconforming Coverage,
FAR and Density for Residential Uses in the
R-1, R-2, R-2A or MU-R Zoning Districts

1) By requiring a Use Permit for residential additions that comply with objective development standards, they contradict City Council’s intent to allow ministerial approval of code-compliant additions in the R-1, R-2, R-2A and MU-R zoning districts; and
2) By allowing a project to exceed the maximum lot coverage standard, they establish a discretionary pathway to exceed objective development standards that were established to proscribe the maximum building envelope.

The proposed amendments would remove the Use Permit requirement for residential projects that do not conform with minimum density and prohibit residential projects from exceeding maximum lot coverage and FAR through the Use Permit process in the R-1, R-2, R-2A, & MU-R zoning districts by exempting them from the provisions of BMC Section 23.324.050(D)(3) (Nonconforming Coverage, FAR, and Density) (Attachment 1), as follows:

3. Nonconforming Coverage, FAR, and Density.
(a) A Use Permit is required for an addition to and/or enlargement of a structure or building that exceeds the maximum allowed lot coverage, or maximum floor area ratio, or is nonconforming to minimum or maximum residential density.
(b) The ZAB may approve the Use Permit only if the project does not:
i. Increase or exacerbate the nonconformity; or
ii. Exceed the height limit.
(c) The provisions of this section do not apply to Residential Uses in the R-1, R- 2, R-2A or MU-R Zoning Districts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed amendments do not expand permissible development capacity or other new physical changes to the environment that are not already permitted and previously evaluated under CEQA. Adoption of the proposed amendments would in no way have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption).

NEXT STEPS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive public comment, discuss the proposed ordinance amendments, and forward a recommendation Item 10B: Nonconforming Uses BMC Amendments
Staff Report
Planning Commission
January 21, 2026

Title 23 Amendments to Nonconforming Coverage,
FAR and Density for Residential Uses in the
R-1, R-2, R-2A or MU-R Zoning Districts

to the City Council to adopt the amendments, including any modifications identified through Commission discussion and action.

CONTACT PERSON
Faye Mingham, Assistant Planner [email protected], (510) 981-7484.

Attachments:

1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Ordinance Amendments

2.Public Hearing Notice
Item 10B: Nonconforming Uses BMC Amendments
Staff Report
Planning Commission
January 21, 2026

Attachment 3

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENTS TO BMC TITLE 23 ZONING
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2026 at 6:00 P.M. a public hearing will be conducted to consider the Planning and Development Department proposal to update the regulation of Nonconforming Lot Coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Density for Residential Uses in the Residential Multi-Unit 1 (R-1), Residential Multi-Unit 2 (R-2), Residential Multi-Unit 2A (R-2A), and Mixed Use-Residential (MU-R) Zoning Districts.

The hearing will be held on March 10, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

For further information, please contact Faye Mingham, Assistant Planner at (510) 981- 7484.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of February 26, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

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

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Published: February 27, 2026 - The Berkeley Voice
Public Hearing required by BMC 23.412.050 and Govt Code 65853; notice provided according to Govt Code 65090 and BMC 23.404.040.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 February 26, 2026.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Fair Campaign Practices Commission

PUBLIC HEARING
March 10, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Fair Campaign Practices Commission
Submitted by: Kitt Saginor, Chair, Fair Campaign Practices Commission Subject: Amendments to the Berkeley Election Reform Act

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt an ordinance amending the Berkeley Election Reform Act, BMC Chapter 2.12.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The proposed amendments to the Berkeley Election Reform Act (BERA) were adopted by the Fair Campaign Practices Commission (FCPC or Commission) at its regular meeting of January 15, 2026.

Action: Approve the BERA amendments as presented and submit to City Council with cover report for consideration and adoption.

Vote: M/S/C: Lee/Haugh; Ayes: Lee, Ching, Silverberg, Soichet, Lazarus, Haugh, Saginor ; Noes: none; Absent: Shere, Sudharsen
Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 2.12.051, BERA may be amended by the “double green light” process. This process requires that the FCPC adopt the amendments by a two-thirds vote and the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the amendments by a two-thirds vote.

BACKGROUND
During the 2024 election year, the Commission and Commission staff identified a number of areas for possible amendments to BERA based upon requests received from City candidates regarding their obligations under BERA and the Commission’s experience with administering BERA.

15

The attached Ordinance (Attachment 1) was adopted by the Commission at its January 15, 2026 regular meeting and would amend BERA in the following ways:

1. Expressly add the “one bank account” rule to BERA
Under state law, all candidate campaign expenditures must be made from the candidate’s campaign committee bank account. (Cal. Gov. Code § 85201.) This includes any of the candidate’s personal funds expended to promote the election of the candidate, with the exception of the candidate’s payment for a filing fee and statement of qualifications. (Id.) This requirement is known as the “one bank account” rule. While BERA currently requires the creation of a campaign checking account, it does not expressly require that all expenditures be made from that account. The attached Ordinance would amend Section 2.12.250.A of BERA to expressly require that all candidate campaign expenditure be made from the bank account, including personal funds of the candidate used to promote the candidate’s election, except for payment for a filing fee and statement of qualifications, which the candidate may pay directly.

Including this language in BERA would provide clear authority for the Commission to enforce the “one bank account” rule in City elections.

2. Revisions to the timeline for returning unspent Fair Elections funds Under the City’s public financing program, a participating City candidate can receive public matching funds provided the candidate adheres to additional requirements, including being subject to a lower contribution limit. (BMC § 2.12.500.A.7.) Following the election, the candidate must return to the City all unspent campaign funds up to the total amount of public matching funds received by the candidate. (BMC §

2.12.505.) Currently, the deadline for returning unspent funds is sixty days after the election. As a result, the deadline to return unspent funds for the 2024 election was January 4, 2025.

Because the semi-annual reporting period immediately following the election ends on December 31st, the Committee’s disposition of unspent funds could remain unreported until the reports for the subsequent semi-annual reporting period are filed on July 31st.

Additionally, BERA currently requires the Clerk to “immediately” notify the FCPC if any candidate has not returned unspent funds. This has resulted in the Clerk notifying the Commission that a participating candidate “may” have not returned unspent funds when no funds were returned by the sixty-day deadline. However, candidates may have outstanding debts and expenditures which are not reported until January 31st or even July 31st for which the remaining funds are spent. As a result, it is difficult for the Clerk to effectuate the “immediate” notification required by BERA.

This Ordinance would revise the deadline for a participating candidate to return unspent funds from sixty days after the election to the end of the semi-annual reporting period

immediately following an election (e.g., December 31st). This will mean that unspent funds must be returned a few days sooner (four days sooner in the case of the 2024 election). However, as a result, a participating candidate’s obligation to return funds would end with the calendar year and the disposition of any returned funds would be reported on the year-end semi-annual report due January 31st.

The ordinance would also revise the requirement that the Clerk “immediately” notify the FCPC of candidate’s failure to return any unspent funds. Instead, the Clerk would be required to refer to the FCPC a candidate who has not returned unspent funds following the reporting deadline for the semi-annual campaign statement occurring immediately after the election (i.e. the report due January 31st covering the period ending December 31st). This would mean that such a referral would only occur after unspent funds were due and the report for that period indicating whether the candidate had any unspent funds was filed.

3. Allowing for the reuse of campaign materials from a prior election During the 2024 election, the Commission received a request for an opinion from a candidate who asked whether he could reuse plastic yard signs left over from his 2020 campaign. For both elections, the candidate participated in public financing. The Commission concluded that BERA’s public financing provisions prohibited the candidate from reusing the leftover 2020 campaign signs in support of his 2024 campaign.

The Commission noted that reuse of the signs would constitute a contribution from the candidate’s 2020 committee to his 2024 committee. (See Fair Political Practices Commission, Menis Advice Letter I-20-007 (reused campaign signs are in-kind contribution to new committee from prior committee).) BMC Section 2.12.530.B.3.c prohibits a publicly financed campaign committee from making contributions to any other committee, and Section 2.12.500.A prohibits a publicly financed candidate from accepting non-monetary contributions with a fair market value greater than $60.

This Ordinance would expressly permit the reuse of campaign materials such as signs, mailers, posters, door hangers and similar items provided they were initially purchased with the intention of being used in the previous election. This would be permitted where the materials were either initially purchased with public matching funds or where the candidate is presently participating in public financing.

The Commission has discussed the concern that a candidate who previously participated in public financing would be receiving the benefit of public funds twice through the reuse of campaign materials previously purchased with public matching funds. Likewise, the Commission discussed the concern that a candidate currently participating in public financing would receive an unfair advantage over other participating candidates who would otherwise not be able to circumvent the in-kind contribution limit for publicly financed candidates. As a result, the Ordinance requires the candidate to submit payment for the fair market value of the materials into the City’s public financing fund.

4. Cleanup amendment to cost of living adjustment rounding language A number of dollar amounts in BERA are subject to cost-of-living adjustments in odd- numbered years. This Ordinance would simplify the language in Section 2.12.545 describing how the adjusted amounts are to be rounded to the nearest ten or thousand dollars.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Possible reductions in waste from reuse of campaign materials.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed amendments provide administrative clarity for the City and campaigns, permit the reuse of campaign materials by publicly financed candidates and simplify BERA language.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Kitt Saginor, Chair, Fair Campaign Practices Commission, 981-6998 Samuel Harvey, Commission Secretary, Fair Campaign Practices Commission, 981- 6998
Attachments:
1: Ordinance

1 ORDINANCE NO.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.12
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

S
ection 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 2.12.250.A is amended to read as follows:

A.  A campaign treasurer for each candidate and for each and every committee shall establish and manage a campaign expenditure and contribution checking account for the candidate or committee. All monetary contributions to the candidate, to a person on behalf of the candidate or to a person on behalf of a committee shall be placed in the candidate’s or committee’s checking account promptly. All campaign expenditures shall be made from the campaign account. Any personal funds of a candidate which will be utilized to promote the election of the candidate shall be deposited in the account prior to expenditure, except for a candidate’s payment for a filing fee and statement of qualifications which may be made from the candidate’s personal funds.

Section 2. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 2.12.505 is amended to read as follows:

2.12.505 Fair Elections fund payments.

A.  A candidate who is certified as an eligible participating candidate shall receive payment of Fair Elections funds equal to six-hundred percent (600 percent) of the amount of qualified contributions received by the candidate during the election cycle with respect to a single election subject to the aggregate limit on the total amount of Fair Elections funds payments to a candidate specified in Section 2.12.505.B.

B.  The aggregate amount of Fair Elections funds payments that may be made to a participating candidate during an election cycle may not exceed:
1) $129,000* for a candidate running for the office of Mayor; 2) $43,000* for a candidate running for the office of City Council; 3) $20,000* for a candidate running for the office of Auditor; 4) $20,000* for a candidate running for the office of Board of Education;

2 5) $8,000* for a candidate running for the office of Rent Stabilization Board.

C.  A participating candidate’s application for Fair Elections funds, including an initial request submitted with an application for certification as a participating candidate, shall be made using a form prescribed by the Commission and shall be accompanied by qualified contribution receipts and any other information the Commission deems necessary. This application shall be accompanied by a signed statement from the candidate indicating that all information on the qualified contribution receipts is complete and accurate to the best of the candidate’s knowledge.
1) All Qualified Contributions, of any dollar amount, eligible for matching Fair Elections funds must be publicly disclosed with the contributor information required under Sections

2.12.280 and 2.12.283.
2) All campaign filings must be current in order for a Participating Candidate to receive a disbursement of Fair Elections funds and the Participating Candidate and a Participating Candidate’s controlled committee must not have any outstanding fines related to campaign filings or violations of municipal, state or federal election law. All applications for Fair Elections funds shall include a certification by the Participating Candidate that the Participating Candidate or his or her controlled committee does not have any outstanding fines or penalties related to campaign filings. Upon submission of outstanding campaign filings and payment of any outstanding fines, withheld Fair Elections funds will be disbursed at the next regularly scheduled distribution for that election cycle.

D.  The City shall verify that a candidate’s qualified contributions meet all of the requirements and restrictions of this Act prior to the disbursement of Fair Elections funds to the candidate. A participating candidate who receives a qualified contribution that is not from the person listed on the qualified contribution receipt shall be liable to pay the Fair Elections Fund the entire amount of the inaccurately identified contribution, in addition to any penalties.

E.  The City shall make an initial payment of Fair Elections funds within seven business days of the City’s certification of a participating candidate’s eligibility, or as soon thereafter as is practicable. City staff shall report a certification or denial to the Commission no later than the Commission’s next regular meeting, consistent with the Brown Act.

F.  The Commission shall establish a schedule for the submission of Fair Elections funds payment requests, permitting a candidate to submit a Fair Elections funds payment request at least once per month. However, the Commission shall schedule a minimum of

3 three payment request submission dates within the thirty days prior to an election.

G.  The City shall provide each participating candidate with a written determination specifying the basis for any non-payment of Fair Elections funds. The Commission shall provide participating candidates with a process by which they may immediately upon receipt of such determination petition the Commission for reconsideration of any such non-payment and such reconsideration shall occur within seven business days of the filing of such petition. In the event that the Commission denies such petition then it shall immediately notify the candidate of his or her right to seek judicial review of the Commission’s denial pursuant to Section 2.12.235.

H.

1.  Unspent campaign funds of any Participating Candidate who does not qualify as a candidate for the ballot at the election for which the funds were distributed, up to the total amount of funds that the participating candidate received as Fair Election Funds distributions in that election cycle and after accounting for campaign debts and expenditures, must be returned to the City no later than the date of the election for which the funds were distributed. All funds returned under this paragraph must be accompanied by any required supporting documentation. In such cases, the participating candidate must return the unspent funds to the City, up to the total amount of funds that the participating candidate received as Fair Election Funds distributions, prior to refunding any contributions to individual contributors.

2.  Any campaign funds that remain unspent by a Participating Candidate following the date of the election for which they were distributed, up to the total amount of funds that the Participating Candidate received as Fair Elections Funds distributions in that elections cycle and after accounting for campaign debts and expenditures, must be returned to the City, no later than the close of the semi-annual reporting period immediately following within sixty (60) days after the date of the election. All funds returned under this paragraph must be accompanied by any required supporting documentation.

3.  All unspent campaign funds returned to the City shall be deposited in the Fair Elections Fund pursuant to the City Charter.

4.  Following the deadline for filing the semi-annual campaign statement occurring immediately after the election, t The City Clerk shall immediately refer to the Commission for enforcement any participating candidate who has notdoes not returned unspent funds as required by this subsection.

4 5.  After the deadline to return unspent funds in 2.12.505.H.2, a participating candidate may continue to raise funds in accordance with Article 8 of Chapter 2.12 to pay campaign-related debt from the most recent election. Any such contributions received shall not be eligible for matching funds.

I.  Any request by a Participating Candidate for a refund of any amount of unspent campaign funds previously repaid to the City, for a qualified campaign expenditure or other permissible campaign purpose, shall be submitted to the Commission to approve, in whole or in part, or deny. The Commission shall make a final determination on the refund within 45 days of receipt.

J.  Requests for matching funds may be submitted no later than 30 days after Election Day for the election at which the participating candidate qualified as a candidate.

K.  Upon approval of a participating candidate’s Initial Qualifying Request, the candidate is prohibited from withdrawing from the Public Financing Program and receiving contributions pursuant to Section 2.12.415 for the same office at the same election for which they are a participating candidate.

Section 3. T
hat Berkeley Municipal Code Section 2.12.530 is amended to read as follows:

2.12.530 Use of Fair Elections funds.

A.  A participating candidate shall use Fair Elections funds and contributions only for direct campaign purposes to further the candidate’s own campaign for the relevant office and election cycle.

B.  A participating candidate shall not use Fair Elections funds or contributions for:
1) Costs of legal defense in any campaign law enforcement proceeding under this Act, or penalties arising from violations of any local, state, or federal campaign laws; 2) The candidate’s personal support or compensation to the candidate the candidate’s family, or a business in which the candidate or candidate’s immediate family member has a ten (10) percent or greater ownership interest;
3) Indirect campaign purposes, including but not limited to:

5 a) Any expense that provides a direct personal benefit to the candidate, including clothing and other items related to the candidate’s personal appearance; b) Capital assets having a value in excess of five hundred dollars ($500)* and useful life extending beyond the end of the current election period determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
c) A contribution or loan to the campaign committee of another candidate or to a party committee or other political committee;
d) An independent expenditure as defined in Berkeley Municipal Code Section 2.12.142 as may be amended;
e) Any payment or transfer for which compensating value is not received C. Notwithstanding any provision of this Chapter, a candidate may use campaign materials, including campaign signs, mailers, posters, door hangers and similar items, purchased by a committee for the same candidate during a previous election so long as the campaign materials were purchased with the intention of being used in the previous campaign, in the following circumstances:
a. A candidate may use campaign materials paid for with Fair Elections funds in a previous election provided that the candidate submits payment to the City in an amount equivalent to the fair market value of such items for deposit in the Fund. b. A participating candidate may use campaign materials purchased by a committee for the same candidate in a previous election provided that the candidate submits payment to the City in an amount equivalent to the fair market value of such items for deposit in the Fund.

D. For the purposes of subsection C of this section, the fair market value shall be the purchase price of the campaign materials at the time they were initially purchased for the previous campaign minus any cost to affix updated disclaimer language to the campaign materials. All campaign materials must comply with Section 2.12.335 and any other applicable disclaimer requirements.

CE.  The term "Contribution" is defined in 2.12.100 and includes "Qualified Contributions" as defined in 2.12.167 and contributions from non-residents of Berkeley as described in 2.12.500.A.7.

DF.  The dollar amounts in Section 2.12.530.B.3.b may be adjusted for cost-of-living changes by the Commission through regulation, pursuant to Section 2.12.545.

6 Section 4. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 2.12.545 is amended to read as follows:

2.12.545 Cost of living adjustments.

A.  The Commission shall adjust the dollar amounts specified in Sections 2.12.167,

2.12.271, 2.12.335, 2.12.500.A.3, 2.12.500.A.6, 2.12.500.A.7, 2.12.500.A.8, 2.12.505.B and 2.12.530.B.3.b for cost of living changes pursuant to Section 2.12.075 in January of every odd-numbered year following Council implementation. All sSuch adjustments shall be rounded to the nearest ten dollars ($10), except for adjustments to the amount specified in Section 2.12.505.B, which shall be rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars ($1,000). with respect to Sections 2.12.167, 2.12.500.A.3 and 2.12.530.B.3.b and one thousand dollars ($1,000) with respect to Section 2.12.505.B.

B.  As soon as practicable after adoption of the amendments providing for the adjustment of Sections 2.12.271 and 2.12.335, but no later than December 31, 2024, the Commission shall perform an initial adjustment of the dollar amounts in those sections.

Section 5. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL

AMENDMENTS TO THE BERKELEY ELECTION REFORM ACT
The Fair Campaign Practices Commission is proposing amendments to the Berkeley Election Reform Act. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 6:00PM in the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.CityofBerkeley.info as of February 26, 2026. For further information, please contact Samuel Harvey, Commission Secretary at 981-6998.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, 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 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Posted: Thursday, February 26, 2026
Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code section 2.12.051
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 February 26, 2026. __________________________________
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
March 10, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning & Development Department Subject: Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar Street

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt a Resolution denying the property owners’ appeal of a special assessment tax lien and of the necessity and cost of City abatement actions and allowing the special assessment lien for $24,831.37 for 2750 Cedar Street (APN 058 221102001) to be recorded with the County of Alameda.

SUMMARY
This report is in response to an appeal of an impending special assessment tax lien and of the necessity and cost of summary abatement actions taken by the City at 2750 Cedar Street in October 2024. The lien reflects costs incurred by the City to abate unpermitted and unsafe construction that continued despite repeated notices and orders, Stop Work Orders, and administrative citations.

City staff documented ongoing demolition of a dilapidated existing structure and new construction performed without the required City permits or inspections, including continued construction work conducted in violation of six Stop Work Orders and two citations. Due to the hazardous conditions created by the partially demolished existing structure and the construction of an unpermitted structure—particularly given the site’s steep slope, location in a California Geological Survey Landslide Zone and in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a failing retaining wall, close proximity to neighboring properties, and limited fire access—the City obtained an administrative warrant and performed a lawful summary abatement to eliminate the hazards.

The property owners, through their architect, Michael Tolleson, appealed the proposed lien and the need for and cost of abatement in a timely manner. The issues raised by the owner in the appeal are addressed in this report. Based on the administrative record, staff concludes that the abatement action was necessary and properly authorized, and that the costs reflected in the lien are accurate and recoverable under applicable law.

16

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The lien of $24,831.37 will allow the City to recover its costs from the abatement of unpermitted construction at 2750 Cedar Street.

In addition, administrative citations of $18,000 were issued and remain unpaid. Those citations are not included in the amount proposed in the lien.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On November 13, 2025, the Building and Safety Division notified the legal property owners, Paul T Mak and Ping H Mak, that a lien would be placed for the unpaid balance of $24,831.37 owed for the abatement of unpermitted construction at 2750 Cedar Street. On November 19, 2025, Michael Tolleson, Architect, acting on behalf of the owners, submitted a timely objection to the proposed lien. On December 10, 2025, Mr.

Tolleson submitted an additional “basis for appeal” letter. Due to the hazardous condition of the property, the City proceeded with the summary abatement. The appellant’s prior appeal of the need for the abatement action is being heard together with their appeal of the lien. Collectively these appeal documents are included with this report as Attachment 2. This Council hearing is required to decide both aspects of the appeal, the lien and the need for the abatement actions.

BACKGROUND
Property Description and Timeline of Events
The property 2750 Cedar Street is an irregularly shaped parcel on a steep grade without direct road access. It is located in the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in the Wildland Urban Interface, and in the California Geological Survey Landslide Zone. The property is located just east of La Loma Ave. and has no existing driveway.

The City has been addressing code enforcement and permitting issues at 2750 Cedar Street since 2013. At that time, the architect was unable to obtain approvals to reconstruct a dilapidated structure under Building Permit Application No. B2014-00236.

The project was subsequently abandoned for approximately seven years. When the architect later requested an extension of the expired permit application, the request was denied due to the permit application having previously deemed abandoned. Permit applications are considered abandoned after 12 months of inactivity.

On April 5, 2024, the Building and Safety Division received a complaint alleging unpermitted construction at the property. City staff responded by conducting a site visit and determined that, at that time, demolition and construction had not yet begun.

Limited grading activity was observed, which did not require permits. The inspector advised the reporting party to notify the City if construction activity commenced.

On April 29, 2024, the architect submitted a new building permit application, B2024- 02077, proposing substantial demolition and reconstruction of the existing single-family

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

residence. During plan review, staff determined that the expanded scope of work triggered additional land use review requirements.

The Building and Safety Division received another complaint on June 17, 2024. An inspector visited the site and confirmed that no construction activity requiring a permit was occurring at that time.

The Land Use Division issued a correction on June 27, 2024 requiring two Use Permits by stating, “The proposed project constitutes a demolition… and the creation of a new standing structure requires a use permit entitlement application first for the demolition of more than 50% or more of the enclosing exterior walls and 50% or more of the roof and another use permit is required for the creation of a new and improved structure.” The building permit application submitted to reconstruct the structure underwent five rounds of plan review between April 29, 2024, and September 16, 2024. Throughout this period, the applicant failed to adequately address repeated plan check comments issued by Building and Safety, Fire Prevention, and Zoning, nor were revised construction documents submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable City codes. Instead, in a response letter to the City dated August 27, 2024, the Architect stated, in part:

We find that it is no longer productive to respond to Berkeley comments, as they are inapplicable and contrary to the California Existing Building Code (CEBC), which governs Cedar. This review has devolved into a discussion of two entirely different Projects, in which Berkeley comments have become non sequiturs. […] After this needlessly convoluted process, we are starting repair construction.

Berkeley is welcome to inspect the work at our invitation at each phase, but we will use independent inspectors, if necessary.

Based on these statements, the City understood that construction was being contemplated without the issuance of a building permit. The City issued a final set of plan check corrections on September 16, 2024; no response was received. The application was due to expire on April 29, 2025. the Architect requested an extension of the application, which the City granted, but the required fees were not paid, and the building permit application ultimately expired.

On September 17, 2024, the Building and Safety Division received a report from the original complainant indicating that unpermitted demolition of the remaining structure had begun. An inspector visited the site and observed that demolition and construction activities had commenced without the required permits.

On September 25, 2024, Building and Safety received an additional complaint from a neighboring property owner regarding ongoing unpermitted construction. In response, City staff confirmed that demolition and new construction were actively occurring without required permits.

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

Between April 9 and October 18, 2024, City staff conducted eleven code enforcement inspections. These inspections resulted in the issuance of six Stop Work Orders, six Notices of Violation, six Notices and Orders to Correct, and two Administrative Citations.

Despite these enforcement actions, the owner and architect continued unpermitted construction activities in violation of issued orders. All notices clearly informed the owner that permits were required for the demolition and construction work occurring on the site. City staff were denied access to the property on several occasions.

Due to the continued noncompliance and the presence of hazardous conditions, the City sought an inspection and abatement warrant from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on October 10, 2024. The warrant was issued on October 14, 2024, and was valid through October 31, 2024.

On October 16, 2024, the property owner and architect met with City representatives, including staff from the City Attorney’s Office, Fire Department, Planning Department, and Public Works. At that meeting, the owner was formally notified that the unpermitted construction was required to be removed by October 25, 2024.

When the owner failed to meet the October 25, 2024 deadline, the City retained a contractor to remove the unpermitted structure and associated flammable debris from the property. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 1.24.040(D), once summary abatement is completed, a property owner may contest both the necessity and the cost of the abatement action.

Given the continued noncompliance and the hazardous conditions associated with the partially demolished structure particularly considering the site’s steep slope, location within a landslide zone, failed retaining wall, limited site access, proximity to neighboring properties, and location within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the City executed the inspection and abatement warrant on October 30, 2024. On September 25, 2025, the City issued a demand for payment and on November 13, 2025, a notice of intent to record a special assessment lien, which is the subject of this appeal.

A detailed timeline of events in this case is provided as Attachment 3.

Rationale for the Abatement Action
 Unsafe Demolition:

The original structure at 2750 Cedar was legally permitted but had become dilapidated and structurally unsafe. However, the applicant never received a demolition permit for its removal, making the demolition unlawful and creating additional unsafe conditions due to the steep slope, the location within the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and the California Geological Survey Landslide Zone, and the accumulation of flammable construction debris from the unlawful demolition. This created a serious risk to surrounding properties, with an unsound, partially demolished structure and debris within one to two feet of the

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

property line, and a risk of collapse, endangering the lives and property of the occupants immediately downhill.
 Unpermitted Construction:

Mr. Tolleson was well informed of City permit requirements, and in fact submitted applications and engaged in dialogue regarding plan check corrections but nevertheless failed to follow processes and never received permits for demolition or construction. After stating directly to City staff that he intended to proceed in the absence of permits, he removed the remaining existing structure and began construction of a new structure. This unpermitted work continued in violation of six Stop Work Orders issued by the City.

Construction of a new structure of this kind in Berkeley requires a Use Permit, but no Use Permit application was ever submitted. The structure was being constructed within a couple of feet from the property line, which a Use Permit application process would not have allowed, as it violates setback requirements.

The construction underway had not been reviewed for compliance with fire setbacks and fire separation code requirements.
 Owners’ Refusal to Stop Work or Abate the conditions:

The owners and their architect were repeatedly told they needed permits for the work, and were issued six Stop Work Orders directing that construction halt until required permits had been issued. On each occasion the construction work continued despite City orders, and the hazardous site conditions were left unabated.
 Time of Year:

The unpermitted demolition work occurred during red flag warning days, signifying high fire risk. The City will halt construction activities during high risk periods due to spark-producing activities common in construction and demolition activities, to help ensure the safety of residents in High Fire Hazard Severity zones. Numerous recent wildfires in the state have demonstrated these risks, including the Post Fire in Southern California (June 15, 2024) and the Park Fire in Northern California (July 24, 2024), both of which had just occurred immediately prior to the time the illegal construction at 2750 Cedar was beginning.

Additionally, the failing retaining wall at this site posed an increased risk of landslides during the wet season. The City had seen exactly this kind of slide in the recent past, including the January 2023 slide in the Middlefield Road area, which is located in the same California Geological Survey Landslide Zone as the 2750 Cedar site. In the case of 2750 Cedar Street, the City’s Deputy Director of Public Works informed City staff that “…. we also observed the failed timber retaining wall and noted that the soil was already sliding, which is likely to worsen with upcoming rainfall.”

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

The declaration from the City Building Official which accompanied the application for a warrant summarized these issues as follows:

The property has been derelict and unoccupied for several years and is currently in a state of dilapidation, although Michael Tolleson, who claims to own the property, has begun to unlawfully erect wall framing atop the existing foundation footings without permits. This unpermitted work including both the unpermitted demolition of portions of the remaining structure, the accumulation of flammable demolition debris onsite, and the unlawful new wall framing create an unsafe and hazardous condition onsite. The site is unsafe and presents a hazard to neighboring properties for several reasons. The partially demolished structure is obviously structurally unsound and inadequately braced, and is therefore likely to collapse. The new framing (including the materials, connections, fasteners and hardware) has not been approved for construction and has not been inspected, so the Building and Safety Division has no way to assess whether the new framing is structurally sound, and no approved plans exist for this work so the framing cannot be inspected for conformity to its eventual use.

City’s Costs
The following table summarizes the costs of the abatement action.

DESCRIPTION TOTAL
B Bros – Contractor

1. Demolition
 Removing all wood structure including wood studs,
wood floor joist, plywood sheeting
 All wood to be salvaged
$16,390.00
Dump Fee $825.44
Container Fee $6,196.88
City of Berkeley Personnel expenses $1,419.05
TOTAL COST $24,831.37
The Public Works Department engaged the firm B Bros Construction to remove the unpermitted structure and salvage wood materials. All work was completed manually,

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

as heavy equipment could not be utilized because the site is on a hillside without an access road.

The City of Berkeley personnel expenses include:
 Public Works Operations and Engineering
o Coordination of storage of the lumber and drop off and pick up of the roll- off dumpster with Zero Waste.
o Meeting with the City contractor and the owners’ architect numerous times to allow access.
o Covering the material with plastic sheathing to protect it from the elements and monitoring the bin to make sure it remained protected from the rain. o Site visit, planning, demolition coordination, closeout.  One Police Officer and one Building Inspector present during the abatement action to ensure that it was carried out safely.
 Administrative staff providing support to facilitate the abatement action.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The issues raised in the appellant’s letters (Attachment 2) and staff’s responses are detailed below. For the sake of brevity, the appeal issues are not re-stated in their entirety.

ISSUE 1: The property at 2750 Cedar consisted of a permitted and approved 725- square-foot, one-story single-family residence that was 50% demolished as of 2015.

The intent of the Architect was to reconstruct the residence to match the original structure and to add an ADU and associated site work in phases and to submit a Zoning Use Permit for the full project. The applicant maintains that reconstruction of the original single-family residence, identical to the pre-existing structure, should be permitted by right.

RESPONSE 1: While the property contained a previously permitted single-family residence, the original structure was previously partially demolished (with a permit) in 2013. The remaining structure was not properly maintained, nor was a building permit to rebuild ever issued. During the recent demolition of the remaining structure the

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

demolition was no longer considered partial, per the definition of Demolition in BMC

23.502.020(D)(2), and any new project being considered on the site would require a Use Permit, per BMC 23.202.020 Table 23.202-1. Any subsequent construction constitutes new work subject to current permitting, plan review, and code requirements.

An intent to entirely build a structure “virtually identical” to the original structure does not confer by-right approval; there is no such provision in the building standards code. The project is for a new structure and must comply with all applicable City regulations and permit requirements in effect at the time of a completed building permit application.

Land Use clearly informed Mr. Tolleson of the Use Permit requirement.

The Land Use Division issued a correction during the permit application review on June 27, 2024 requiring a Use Permit stating, “The proposed project constitutes a demolition… and the creation of a new standing structure requires a use permit entitlement application first for the demolition of more than 50% or more of the enclosing exterior walls and 50% or more of the roof and another use permit is required for the creation of a new and improved structure.” On October 23, 2025, the Land Use Manager confirmed that a Use Permit application had not been submitted to date.

ISSUE 2: The appeal letter states, “The heart of this dispute with Berkeley revolves around its failure to allow the use of ’CRC R105.2 Work exempt from permit.’ The CRC is the California Residential Code that, in this case, applies to single-family residences and accessory dwelling units…. The language allows ’one-story detached accessory structures…not greater than 120 square feet’ and ’decks not exceeding 200 square feet’ exempt from permit…. Our solution was to build three of these exempt structures and then join them together once the permit was issued.”
RESPONSE 2: The expressed intent of the applicant was to build an occupiable structure, in this case a Single Family Dwelling. As such, Building and Safety staff could not accept the applicant’s interpretation of CRC R105.2. The applicant was informed on multiple occasions that while CRC R105.2 does allow construction of one story detached accessory structures not greater than 120 square feet, it does not allow for a series of 120 square foot accessory structures to be built and conjoined into a single- family home. Additionally, CRC R105.2 defines qualifying decks as “not exceeding 200 square feet in area, that are not more than 30 inches above grade at any point, are not attached to a dwelling and do not serve the exit door required by Section R311.4.” The deck being constructed was intended to be the main floor of the dwelling and was more than 30 inches above grade for at least 30% of the perimeter. The Building Inspector also observed that all the so-called separate accessory structures were being built on a continuous foundation, supporting the previously existing single-family home with associated sill plates, double plates and floor framing, making it a single structure and not a series of detached accessory structures.

The intent of CRC Section R105.2 and corresponding section CBC Section 105.2 is to allow “One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses.” Section 105.2 also states “Exemptions from permit

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.” The Berkeley Building Code has an amendment that states “All of the administrative provisions contained in Article 1 of Chapter 19.28, the Berkeley Building Code, shall apply to this Code (the Residential Code) as well and take precedence over any California Residential Code (CRC) administrative provisions that may conflict.”
On December 4, 2025, The International Code Council (ICC) provided an opinion via email on this matter which stated the following regarding Section 105.2: “Item 1 under “Building” in Section 105.2 uses the term accessory structure, which implies a subordinate relationship to a principal building on the same lot. When no principal building exists, determining whether a proposed structure is accessory is a zoning and land-use matter.” The ICC further states that its codes “do not intend to permit exemptions as a mechanism to allow phased construction of multiple unpermitted structures knowing that the intent is to later combine them into a single occupiable building.”
The Code and Commentary, a reference book published by ICC, defines an accessory structure under section R202 as “A structure that is accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and that is located on the same lot.” It goes on to state, “… this term describes structures that are designed for accessory use to one- or two-family dwellings and multiple single-family townhouses. These structures are commonly used as garages, carports, cabanas, storage sheds, tool sheds, playhouses and garden structures. The structures all house uses that are incidental to the primary use, which is the dwelling unit, and the activities that take place in accessory structures occur as a result of the primary building. Their use is secondary or minor in importance to the primary residence.”
ISSUE 3: The appeal letter states, “Berkeley has refused to address the use of R105.2, treating the work as if it needed a permit. […] Every effort was made to communicate in written detail the code applications deployed to all involved. […] It is common for plan checkers and inspectors to not entirely understand their own code, particularly the exceptions that establish the fullest intent of the codes.” RESPONSE 3: Building and Safety Division did address the use of R105.2. In all the Notice and Orders and Stop Work Orders it was clearly conveyed to the applicant that the construction work being performed on site required a permit. Additionally, during all five cycles of plan review the Building and Safety Division provided detailed plan check corrections based on specific code requirements. The applicant failed to respond to all of the 30 corrections issued by Building Division, 18 corrections from the Fire Prevention Division, and 2 corrections from the Zoning Division.

It is the responsibility of the Building Official, not project applicants, to interpret and enforce the requirements in the adopted Building Standards Code. Per BMC 19.28.20

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

Section 104.1, “The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code.” This ensures that through the permitting process any structure built in Berkeley meets the fire life safety requirements prescribed within the code, and keeps the community as safe as possible within the limits of civil authority.

ISSUE 4: The appeal letter states “We have had Berkeley Building inspectors tell us that a temporary compromise was approved only to learn the next day that it was not.

We have had inspectors from Berkeley Fire approve of us to proceed only to find their position reversed...”
RESPONSE 4: Staff reviewed all Code Enforcement records for this property and found no evidence that either Building or Fire inspectors approved a temporary compromise or authorized work that was later reversed. No inspection notes or emails indicate that any approval was granted and then rescinded. The appellant’s statement does not align with the written inspection history or with the verbal or written accounts provided by Building and Fire Inspectors. In an email dated December 1, 2025, a Fire Inspector states, “For the record, I absolutely did not support Mr. Tolleson’s position at any point.” ISSUE 5: The appeal letter states, “The Architect provided ’continuous special inspection’ and the Engineer provided ’periodic inspection’, an enhanced legal process, per CRC Chapter 17, on each day work was underway, subjecting work to the most rigorous standards.…”
RESPONSE 5: The unpermitted structure was legally removed by the City with an abatement warrant because the owners and their representative failed to abate the structure themselves and continued building after receiving six stop work notices.

When referencing special inspections, the appellant appears to be referring to Chapter 17 in the California Building Code (not the California Residential Code). When the project’s approved structural design requires special inspection of specific structural elements the special inspections performed are not in lieu of the required building inspections. Work that requires a building permit must be inspected by a building inspector per CBC 110.1, “General. Construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official and such construction or work shall remain visible and able to be accessed for inspection purposes until approved.” The appellant’s reliance on “continuous” or “periodic” inspection by private design professionals does not substitute for required City permits, inspections, or approvals under the Berkeley regulations, nor does it legalize unpermitted construction.

ISSUE 6: The appeal letter states, “The structure did not pose any safety threat, yet those facts were omitted from the warrant obtained by Berkeley, rendering it inaccurate and legally defective. The individuals who signed the warrant are responsible for the false statements that led to its invalidity.”

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

RESPONSE 6: The appellant’s claim is not supported by the record. The property is located in the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in the Wildland Urban Interface, and is located in the California Geological Survey Landslide Zone, proximate to other neighboring properties, and unpermitted site activities took place during periods of heightened risk. Without the benefit of approved plans and permits, or permission to enter the property, City plans examiners and inspectors could not verify the safety of the construction, which was undertaken in an extremely unconventional way. Rather than completing demolition prior to beginning construction, the builder was doing both concurrently, while also claiming that the result would be a series of detached "modules" rather than a conventional structure. The condition of the existing foundation and piers is unknown, and the inspector determined that the combination of these elements presented a hazard. By definition, unpermitted construction has not been verified as compliant with City regulations, including the Building Codes, Zoning Code, and Fire Code, which ensure that work is done to meet fire life safety conditions.

The administrative warrant was lawfully sought and issued based on sworn statements and an independent determination by the warrant court that reasonable cause existed.

The warrant court independently evaluated the declarations and made the required findings. The appellant’s disagreement with the City’s safety determination does not establish that the warrant contained false statements or was improperly issued, and does not invalidate the enforcement action, abatement, or lien.

ISSUE 7: The appeal letter states, “Berkeley has now sought to inflict a lien on the property, effectively seeking reimbursement for their own errors.” RESPONSE 7: The lien was imposed to recover City costs incurred in abating documented code violations, as authorized by law. The lien is not reimbursement for “errors” but is a standard cost recovery mechanism when abatement actions are taken by the City. Imposition of liens for abatement of building code hazards is extremely rare in Berkeley, as most owners address the violations on their properties long before they reach the lien stage.

ISSUE 8: The applicant asserts that the only known opposition comes from an immediate neighbor whose recent conduct has been disruptive, despite the Architect having provided fencing, privacy, and view enhancements at no cost. The applicant further alleges that the neighbor’s actions interfered with lawful work and impeded the permit review process. In contrast, the applicant states that they have received positive support from an uphill neighbor and have worked cooperatively with all affected neighbors to address view impacts. Additionally, the applicant contends that the immediate neighbor attempted to influence the approval process by repeatedly involving a City Councilmember, and that involvement by a Councilmember and the City Manager introduced bias into what should have been a neutral development review process.

RESPONSE 8: Enforcement and permitting decisions are based on applicable codes and regulations, not on neighbor support or opposition. Allegations regarding neighbor

Appeal of Special Assessment Tax Lien and of the Need for PUBLIC HEARING Abatement Action at 2750 Cedar St March 10, 2026

communications or elected official involvement do not alter the requirement that construction comply with City regulations, and do not establish bias or entitlement. The issue of “by-right” rebuilding entitlement is a Zoning matter, not a Building Code issue, and is addressed under Issue 1 above.

ISSUE 9: The appeal letter states, “Berkeley issued notices to us that also ignored CRC R105.2 and the BMC and has recently waived all administrative fines associated with them. We consider this an admission of error or wrongdoing which weighs in favor of removal of its actions to follow.”
RESPONSE 9: The City did not “waive” any administrative fines. The decision was made not to pursue collection of administrative fines under this appeal and focus on recovery of the abatement costs and the need for abatement. Not pursuing the administrative fines at this time does not constitute an admission of error or wrongdoing, nor does it invalidate the underlying notices, code violations, abatement actions, or resulting lien, which were issued pursuant to applicable law.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
David Lopez, Building and Safety Manager, Planning & Development Department, 510-981-7441
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Appeal Letter, parts A and B
3: Timeline of Events
4: Photo slide presentation of unpermitted work
5: B Bros Construction Invoice and Proposal
6: Administrative Record including email correspondence

7. Notice to Property Owner of Hearing Date

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

DENY THE APPEAL AND AFFIRM THE CITY ABATEMENT ACTION AND

IMPOSITION OF LIEN FOR THE ABATEMENT OF UNPERMITTED CONSTRUCTION AT 2750 CEDAR STREET
WHEREAS, the Building and Safety Division received two requests for service related to unapproved construction at 2750 Cedar St; and
WHEREAS, the Building and Safety Division performed six inspections, issued six Stop Work Orders, six Notices of Violation, six Notices and Orders to Correct, and two Administrative Citations; and
WHEREAS, the owner and architect continued construction in violation of six Stop Work Orders; and
WHEREAS, Alameda County issued a warrant for inspection and abatement; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley hired a contractor and incurred a cost of $24,831.37 to remove the unpermitted structure and complete abatement; and WHEREAS, Paul T. Mak and Ping H. Mak are the Owners of said property at 2750 Cedar Street, Berkeley, California; and
WHEREAS, once summary abatement action has been completed, the property owner may contest the need for and cost of abatement action per BMC 1.24.040(D); and WHEREAS, the owners were served with Notices of Proposed Lien and Hearing Rights on November 13, 2025, and on November 19, 2025 the City received a timely objection to the proposed liens submitted by Michael Tolleson, architect, on behalf of the owners; and

WHEREAS, a hearing on property owners’ objections was conducted on March 10, 2026 by the Council of the City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, in evaluating the testimony given during the hearing, and upon review of all documents submitted, the Council of the City of Berkeley considered and made determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and the extent to which the evidence was cumulative and/or probative.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council finds that the proposed lien amount totaling $24,831.37 is an accurate sum of the cost of abatement, and that the abatement action was lawfully and properly undertaken, and dismisses the appeal and upholds the proposed lien, and authorizes the City Manager or their designee to effectuate the recording of said lien with the County of Alameda.

Attachment 2, Part A
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 3:15 PM Michael Tolleson <[email protected]> wrote:

Attn: Mark Numainville

Mark,
Attached please find our received copy on November 17, 2025 of a Notice of Proposed Lien and Hearing Rights dated November 13, 2025 from Jordan Klein.

We have been given a deadline of November 23, 2025 to submit this letter to the Berkeley City Clerk.

On three of the remaining days Berkeley is closed, so please give this your immediate attention.

This lien amount is contested in its entirety.

We herein request a hearing as allowed to present all related evidence to support our position with Berkeley City Council and its representatives.

Please confirm and log receipt of this send asap and advise if you require further information.

I am the Architect and authorized representative for Property Owners Paul & Ping Mak.

Sincerely,

Michael Tolleson, Architect, C-22075
555 Pierce St
Unit 1626
Albany, CA 94706
510 332 9520
[email protected]

Date December 10, 2025
Subject 2750 Cedar > Lien Appeal
Re Permit Application B2024-02077
Project Description > Pre-SFR
Code > CRC R105.2 & BMC
Michael Tolleson, Architect
Paul Mak, Structural Engineer, & Ping Mak, Owners
1 2750 Cedar was a 725 square foot, permitted & approved existing, 50% demolished, one-story SFR, as of 2015.

See Addendum 3.

It had received Building permit approval and lacked only payment of permit fees to commence, but stalled under a previous owner.

See Addendum 2.

It remained in its partially demolished condition until it was purchased by my clients in 2022.

During that time, Berkeley found no threat and took no action to improve its vacant and open condition.

Our intention was to rebuild the structure to a state virtually identical to the original, add a new ADU and site work in phases.

Completion and new exterior materials and interior sprinklers would increase its fire-resistivity and provide detailed articulation of all structures.

Our current intention is to submit a Zoning Use Permit for the entire development.

We continue to find that we should be able to rebuild the original SFR exactly By-Right. 2 The heart of this dispute with Berkeley revolves around its failure to allow the use of “CRC R105.2 Work exempt from permit.”
The CRC is the California Residential Code that, in this case, applies to single-family residences and accessory dwelling units.

The CRC has been adopted into the BMC.
of 112
Attachment 2, Part B

Berkeley’s own excerpted publications to educate its community specifically reference the CRC & BMC language.

See Addendum 1.

The language allows “one-story detached accessory structures…not greater than 120 square feet” and “decks not exceeding 200 square feet” exempt from permit.

It does not limit the number of these structures.

We found that the BMC allowed a more efficient means to navigate plan check, where staff disappear or are replaced frequently and review time has no real meaning.

Our solution was to build three of these exempt structures and then join them together once the permit was issued.

We built typical wood frame modules on the existing concrete foundation to CRC R105.2 specifications and separated existing usable wood for reuse in the work to follow.

See Addendum 8.
3 Berkeley has refused to address the use of R105.2, treating the work as if it needed a permit.

The extent of this refusal is severe and has resulted in the demolition, by Berkeley, of all construction.

Every effort was made to communicate in written detail the code applications deployed to all involved.

Only 3 of 12 senior staff even read our responses in preparation for our meetings and correspondence.

In this case, Berkeley’s lack of cooperation includes staff’s refusal to even answer questions.

It is common for plan checkers and inspectors to not entirely understand their own code, particularly the exceptions that establish the fullest intent of the codes.

No living person has memorized the entire California Title 24 codes, but professionals know where to find them.

Most staff and inspectors correct their errors.
4 Similarly, we have had Berkeley Building inspectors tell us that a temporary compromise was approved only to learn the next day that it was not.

We have had inspectors from Berkeley Fire approve us to proceed only to find their position reversed.

We have witnessed Berkeley renege repeatedly on permit approvals without basis. 5 Berkeley now seeks reimbursement for its illegal demolition, misrepresenting in its statements the actual condition of the structure and its legal standing.

The Architect provided “continuous special inspection” and the Engineer provided “periodic inspection”, an enhanced legal process, per CRC Chapter 17, on each day work was underway, subjecting work to the most rigorous standards.

As a compromise during efforts at resolution of the dispute, we even offered to panelize the framing, lay it flat and cover it all with fire-resistive tarps and corrugated metal.

No response, to these resolution offers has ever been forthcoming. 6 The structure was never “unsafe” or a threat of any kind. of 212

All of these factual conditions were ignored in the warrant Berkeley secured from the warrant court to such an extent that the warrant is a false document.

The signees and their false statements in the warrant are directly responsible for its illegality. 7 Adding to its disregard for professional evaluation and communication, Berkeley has now sought to inflict a lien on the property, effectively seeking reimbursement for their own errors. 8 We find that the only complaint we are aware of comes from our immediate neighbor, from whom we now expect unstable behavior, such as running around her backyard in her pajamas taking pictures.

This is in spite of the Architect’s designing both her front and rear fences and privacy and view enhancements at no cost.

Her recent actions include her providing access through her property to our property, effectively obstructing legal work and promoting the failure to allow CRC R105.2.

Note that we have positive support from our uphill neighbor, whose view we have cooperatively shared with all impacted neighbors.

See Addendum 9 & 10.

However, we also find that there is evidence that our immediate neighbor has sought to influence the approval process by repeatedly involving a City Councilperson without involvement of the Architect or Owner.

We also find that a Councilperson and City Manager have interjected a bias into the neutral development review process while permit completion was underway.

We consider these actions significant enough for recusal, censure or resignation, although they also support rebuild of the original By-Right.

See Addendum 4, which includes additional Council errors. 9 Berkeley issued notices to us that also ignored CRC R105.2 and the BMC and has recently waived all administrative fines associated with them.

We consider this an admission of error or wrongdoing which weighs in favor of removal of its actions to follow.
10 So then, we find our construction legal by CRC R105.2 and the BMC.

We find that the appropriate response for the Council is nullification of any proposed lien and reimbursement to the Owner for all labor, materials and the professional services of the Architect and Engineer from permit application to the present.

We also request a reestablished extension of 180 days for submittal of revised construction documents from the date of submission.

The extended delays are Berkeley’s responsibility as we have been continuously shuffled through numerous plan checkers and supervisors for years.
of 312

The California Title 24 codes are not the mere opinion of interested parties or subject to uninformed interpretations.

The codes are the codes and Berkeley would be well served by acknowledgement of them.

We remain open to questions from City Council and staff or settlement prior to the public appeal hearing.

Addendum 1
CRC R105.2
of 412

Addendum 2
All Agency Approvals
of 512

Addendum 3
50% Demoliiton Approval

of 612

Addendum 4
Susan Wengraf, Laura Schmidt, Nara Dahlbacka

Visual Translation of Correspondence > Italics & Highlights Added Date: Friday, June 2014 at 10:24:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Nata Dahlbacka
To : Laura Schmidt
Hi Laura,
Susan wanted me to let you and the neighbors know that the project has been red flagged. Susan has met with the city manager and will meet with the city manager again on Monday about this project.

However, the owner of the property is allowed to rebuild what was exactly there. By Right. They do not have to notice neighbors if they are not increasing by more than or [sic] 500 (sf).

The plans as they were turned in on June 9th will not be approved. They were the same plans that they turned in in January without any of the changes staff asked for. They are also incomplete. The other thing I noticed is that the plans do not have any indication of what was standing there now, a site plan, or a drawing with the property Ines visible. All of these things are the requirements of plan check, and need to be included in the plans for them to be deemed complete. of 712

So everyone should enjoy their weekend, and know that all of the hell they raised has been heard and Susan and the city are doing everything they can at this point.

It’s a “win” for us. We will update next week. It would be really nice if you and you neighbors sent Susan a short email thanking her for her very quick work on this.

Best
Nara
Addendum 5
City Council

of 812

Addendum 6
Original Condition
View Looking Northeast
September 22, 2013
of 912

Addendum 7
50% Demolished > Permitted & Approved
Aerial View
October 18, 2022
of 10 12

Addendum 8
Legal CRC R105.2 Module
View Looking North > Module
October 28, 2024
Addendum 9
Neighbor Support
of 11 12

Addendum 10
Cooperative View
View Looking West
October 18, 2022
of 12 12

ATTACHMENT 3
2750 Cedar St. Timeline
Abbreviation Legend
CE = Code Enforcement Related
NOV= Notice of Violation
PDD = Planning and Development Department
PP = Permit Processing related
RFS = Request for Service
SWO = Stop Work Order
CE/PP Date What Occurred Notes
CE 10/7/2013 1st NOV Issued
PP 10/24/2013 Permit issued B2013-04915 to comply with NOV To remove damaged construction not more than 50% removal.

PP 11/8/2013 Permit received approved Final inspection with reservation due to demo beyond scope of permit
Inspector's note: APP DECK DEMO WITH CORRECTION.

OBSERVED BUT DID NOT FINAL

DEMO OF HOUSE UNTIL CONSULT WITH PEMMONS

AND/AROSHELLE

1.REMOVE GLASS FROM NW PORTION OF HOUSE

2.REMOVE ALL DEBRIS FROM SITE

3.EXISTING DEER FENCE WILL NOT SUFFICE AS

SUITABLE BARRIER TO PREVENT PERSONS FROM

ACCESSING THE DANGEROUS SITE
PP 1/21/2014 Submitted Application B2014-00236
Mr. Tolleson was applicant for Building Permit. The
application was to remodel existing house. Permits did not get issued.

PP 7/21/2015 Application B2014-00236 Expired
PP 11/10/2022 Mr. Tolleson requested an extension for B2014-00236 The Building Official denied extension as the application had been abandoned for over 1 year.

PP 12/20/2022 Confirmed in a meeting with Mr. Tolleson that B2014-00236 expired
CE 4/5/2024 Request For Service (RFS) entered by Building Admin PDD Director forwarded complaint to Building and Safety CE 4/9/2024 1st Site Visit by Building Inspector Minimal Grading no action taken by Building and Safety PP 4/29/2024 Mr. Tolleson submitted a Building Permit Application B2024- 02077
Description on record, "Remove all walls but one to
reconfigure residence. Relocate kitchen, add one bathroom and bedroom. Remove deck and build new entry stairs.

Replace heating system, tankless water heater, exterior finish, replace all windows, add new and enlarge some
openings."
PP 5/22/2024 First set of Plan Check Corrections were issued for Building Permit Application B2024-02077
Building requested the drawings were to clearly identify which walls were being removed and which kept.

PP 5/30/2024 Mr. Tolleson resubmitted in response to first set of plan check corrections
CE 6/17/2024 An RFS was received by Building and Safety regarding unpermitted construction occurring on site.

CE 6/17/2024 2nd Inspection: A Building Inspector visited the site and confirmed no construction work was occurring on site. Only brush clearing was being done PP 6/27/2024 Second Set of Plan Check Corrections issued for Building Permit Application B2024-02077
Building and Safety notified Zoning that Zoning review was required due to removal of walls over 50% of the structure.

Zoning Correction notified owner that a Use Permit was
required.

PP 7/12/2024 Mr. Tolleson resubmitted in response to second set of corrections
Mr. Tolleson notes, "We find that it is no longer productive to respond to Berkeley comments…" in his response to the City.

PP 7/26/2024 Third Set of Plan Check Corrections issued for Building Permit Application B2024-02077
Zoning Correction notified owner that a Use Permit was
required.

PP 7/31/2024 Mr. Tolleson resubmitted in response to third set of corrections PP 8/16/2024 Fourth Set of Plan Check Corrections issued for Building Permit Application B2024-02077
Zoning Correction notified owner that a Use Permit was
required.

PP 8/28/2024 Mr. Tolleson resubmitted in response to fourth set of corrections
PP 9/16/2024 Fifth Set of Plan Check Corrections issued for Building Permit Application B2024-02077
Zoning Correction notified owner that a Use Permit was
required.

CE 9/17/2024 Building and Safety received an RFS by phone Complainant notified Building and Safety that construction was occurring at site.

ATTACHMENT 3
CE 9/18/2024 3rd Inspection: Building Inspector visited the site and 1st NOV issued a Stop Work Order (SWO)
Part of existing structure removed. New Sill Plates Installed.

Mr. Tolleson first insisted he had a permit which inspector advised him was only an application number. Then he
insisted that permits were not required for the work he is doing. Permits were required.

CE 9/19/2024
4th Inspection: Building Inspector viewed the site from neighbors property to confirm work had stopped but was
required to issue a 2nd NOV issued a Stop Work Order
(SWO)
Inspector was denied access. Work was continuing in site.

CE 9/21/2024 1st Notice and Order to Correct and Warning of Administrative Citation was issued
The order notified Mr. Tolleson that permits were required for the work.

CE 9/21/2024 2nd Notice and Order to Correct was issued After Inspector visit on the 19th.

CE 9/25/2024 Building and Safety received an additional RFS Complainant notified Building and Safety that construction was occurring at site.

CE 9/25/2024 Building Inspector viewed the site from neighbors property to confirm work had stopped
Inspector took photos and construction continued in
violation of SWO
CE 10/1/2024 First Citation issued for $2,000 for the period Sep 20 -

30. For violating several SWO
CE 10/2/2024 5th Inspection: Building Inspector viewed the site from neighbors property to confirm work had stopped
Inspector took photos and construction continued in
violation of SWO
CE 10/3/2024 First Fire Inspection by Interim Fire Chief and Fire Inspector CE 10/4/2024 6th Inspection: Building Inspector viewed the site from neighbors property to confirm work had stopped
Inspector took photos and construction continued in
violation of SWO
CE 10/7/2024
7th Inspection: Building Inspector viewed the site from neighbor's property to confirm work had stopped. He
confirmed that construction continued and was required to issue a 3rd NOV issued a Stop Work Order (SWO)
Inspector was denied access, Work was continuing in
violation of SWO
CE 10/8/2024 3rd Notice and Order to Correct was issued CE 10/8/2024 Second Fire Inspection by Interim Fire Chief. Violation observed from neighboring parcel. Access to the site was denied by Mr. Tolleson.

CE 10/9/2024
8th Inspection: Building Inspector viewed the site from neighbors property to confirm work had stopped but was
required to issue a 4th NOV issued a Stop Work Order (SWO) Work was continuing in violation of SWO
CE 10/10/2024 4th Notice and Order to Correct was issued CE 10/10/2024 City requested an inspection and abatement warrant from Alameda County Superior Court including declarations by Building Official, Planning Director, Senior Building Inspector and Interim Assistant Fire Chief.

CE 10/11/2024
9th Inspection: Building Inspector viewed the site from neighbors property to confirm work had stopped but was
required to issue a 5th NOV and a Stop Work Order (SWO) Work was continuing in violation of SWO
CE 10/14/2024 Inspection and Abatement Warrant was issued by Alameda County Superior Court The warrant was valid until 10/31/2024 CE 10/16/2024 5th Notice and Order to Correct was issued CE 10/16/2024
10th Inspection: Building Inspector viewed the site from neighbors property to confirm work had stopped but was
required to issue a 6th NOV and a Stop Work Order (SWO) Work was continuing in violation of SWO
CE 10/16/2024 Mr. Mak and Mr. Tolleson met with City officials City confirmed that the unpermitted structure was to be removed by October 25th, 2024
CE 10/17/2024 6th Notice and Order to Correct was issued CE 10/18/2024 11th Inspection: Building Inspector viewed the site from neighbors property to confirm work had stopped. Work had been stopped CE 10/18/2024 2nd Notice of Admin Citation issued with order to abate Mr. Mak the legal owner confirmed receipt CE 10/23/2024 Appeal Letter from Mr. Tolleson to Director and Councilmember
Appeal letter was sent to Jordan and Vice Mayor Wengraf by Tolleson requesting staying of enforcement, removal of demand for demolition and removal of work, removal of
fines and granting of protection of construction while all plan check review processes are completed with permits from all departments.

ATTACHMENT 3
CE 10/25/2024 Deadline to remove structure was not met
CE 10/28/2024 Appeal for staying of enforcement was deemed invalid.

In order for the appeal to be considered complete, the
property owner would have to provide an advance deposit of the fines imposed by the citation or a hardship waiver.

Even after receiving this instruction neither fine nor waiver was submitted.

CE 10/30/2024 City commenced abatement of unpermitted structure pursuant to the warrant obtained from the superior court
CE 10/31/2024 City finished abatement of unpermitted structure pursuant to the warrant obtained from the superior court.

PP 11/6/2024 Mr. Tolleson resubmitted in response to fifth set of corrections issued. Building Permit Application B2024-02077
PP 5/6/2025 Mr. Tolleson Submits an Building Permit Application Extension Request
PP 7/14/2025 Application Extension approved with fees due Email was sent to Mr. Tolleson communicating that fees were due.

CE 9/25/2025 Demand for Payment Notice Sent
PP 10/9/2025 Mr. Tolleson submits a 2nd Building Application Extension request Building Permit Application B2024-02077
PP 10/16/2026 2nd Building Application Extension request denied Fees for the first extension request had not been paid.

Therefore extension was denied and application was
expired.

CE 11/19/2025 Appeal Filed by Mr. Tolleson
The appellants’ arguments contesting the need for and cost of the abatement action are being considered together with the lien appeal in this Council report persuant to BMC

1.24.040 D.

CE 12/10/2025 Basis of Appeal submitted by Mr. Tolleson

PHOTOS TAKEN JUNE 17, 2024

SITE VISIT IN RESPONSE TO NEIGHBOR COMPLAINT

STRUCTURE AS IT APPEARED PRIOR TO START OF UNPERMITTED WORK These walls were
removed prior to the
September 18
th site visit.

These walls were also
removed prior to the
September 18
th site visit.

West elevation, looking
Southeast.

West elevation, looking
Northeast.

North elevation,
looking south.

These walls and this floor
framing were removed prior to
the September 18
th site visit.

ATTACHMENT 4

SEPT 18, 2024, WEST ELEVATION
STOP WORK NOTICE, 1 ST NOV ISSUED, MR. TOLLESON WAS PRESENT New mudsill installed
on existing foundation.

North and east walls
removed here.

Center wall
and floor
removed
.

SEPT 19, 2024
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CONTINUING. MR TOLLESON PRESENT, STATED THEY WOULD CONTINUE BUILDING AND DENIED PERMISSION TO ENTER; PHOTOS ARE TAKEN FROM 1601 LA VEREDA.

INSPECTOR MONTES ADVISED WORK IN VIOLATION OF STOP WORK ORDER AN D POSTED 2 ND NOV.

C
Construction activity
continuing in defiance
of Sept 18 “STOP
WORK” order.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024
PANORAMIC PHOTO SHOWING PROGRESS 6 DAYS LATER
West elevation, looking
East.

New floor framing and
walls.

OCTOBER 2, 2024
14 DAYS AFTER ORIGINAL “STOP WORK” ORDER
CITATION WAS ISSUED ON OCT 1, 2024
Despite gap in floor sheathing, entire structure is
connected by continuous foundation and
continuous west cripple wall and rim.

South section of cripple
wall leaning out. South
wall minimally braced
with old material.

New framing of roof
or second level.

New floor framing at middle section

OCTOBER 7TH, 2024
MR. TOLLESON CONTINUED TO DENY PERMISSION TO ENTER THE PROPERTY TO INSPECT.

POSTED A 3 RD “STOP WORK” NOTICE
At this stage, new framing
occupied > 50% of the
original building footprint.

Combustible construction
debris is piled under the
trees in the background.

OCTOBER 9, 2024

ALL OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED EXCEPT FOUNDATION AND ONE GIRDER BEAM. NEW WORK FORMS ONE CONTINUOUS STRUCTURE CONNECTED BY FOUND ATION AND CRIPPLE WALL. POSTED A 4 TH “STOP WORK” NOTICE.

OCTOBER 11, 2024
FLOOR FRAMING ADDED TO SOUTH PART OF BUILDING.

COMBUSTIBLE DEBRIS PILE UNDER TREES HAS GROWN.

OCTOBER 16, 2024
WALL FRAMING ADDED TO SOUTH SECTION OF BUILDING.

A SECOND CITATION WAS ISSUED OCTOBER 18, 2024 WITH AN
ORDER ISSUED TO DISMANTLE STRUCTURE BY OCTOBER 25, 2024 ON OCTOBER 17 -19,2024 THE CITY ISSUED A RED FLAG WEATHER WARNING FOR EXTREME FIRE DANGER

OCTOBER 25, 2024
STRUCTURE HAS NOT BEEN DISMANTLED AND REMOVED AS ORDERED ON OCTO BER 18, 2025

Invoice No. 2024‐11‐07
Invoice Date: November  7, 2024
2988 Teagarden Street Bill To: City of Berkeley
San Leandro CA 94577 For
Demolition of the Illegal Object  2750 Cedar
Street   Berkeley, CA
2750 Cedar street   Berkeley, CA
Address: Public Works Departmant
1947 Center Street Berekley CA
PH# (510) 351‐3048 Phone:

FAX# (510) 351‐9575 E‐mail:

E‐MAIL  [email protected] Fax:

Description Unit Amount Total
B Bros Construction Inc. proposes to perform work as recommended by City Representatives in field on site walk meeting;

1. Demolition:
o Removing all wood structure what is built in including. o Wood studs, wood floor joist, plywood from floor, plywood sheeting o All wood to be salvage in maximum possibilities,
o All salvage and all pieces to bi deliver at the location provided by PM o B Bros not included removing nails from lumber ( all nails will be bended and they stay in lumber)
100.0% 16,390.00$         16,390.00$
Invoice Subtotal   $16,390.00
Over Head   $0.00
Sales Tax   ‐
Other
Payments Received total
TOTAL   16,390.00$
Make all checks payable to B Bros Construction Inc
B Bros Construction Inc
Thank you for your business!
Scope of Demolition of the Illegal Object
ATTACHMENT 5

B-Bros Construction Inc
License # 825551 B
DIR # 1000002766
10/22/2024
TIME: 00:00Hours
Project; Demolition of the Illegal Object
Proposal Duration ------------- 3 working days

To: City of Berkeley
Public Works Department
1947 Center Street Ca Berkeley

ATTN; Uriel Gonzalez, Assistant Public Works Engineer

Re: - Demolition of the Illegal Object
2750 Cedar street
Berkeley, CA
Scope of Demolition of the Illegal Object

B Bros Construction Inc. proposes to perform work as recommended by City Representatives in field on site walk meeting;

1. Demolition:
o Removing all wood structure what is built in including. o Wood studs, wood floor joist, plywood from floor, plywood sheeting o All wood to be salvage in maximum possibilities,
o All salvage and all pieces to bi deliver at the location provided by PM o B Bros not included removing nails from lumber ( all nails will be bended and they stay in lumber)

Price $21,854.00
Permit and permit fees bond and builders Risk Insurance are not included in this estimate.

All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be perfor med in accordance with the cod and regulation .

Qualifications
.

1. No additional work with the exception of the above described work is included in the change request.

2. The project is estimated to take 3 working days, assuming:

3. 5 working days per week.

This timeframe can vary based on the number of workers, weather conditions, and unforeseen site conditions Exclusions

1. Temporary Construction barricades both interior and exterior.

2. Removal of hazardous material other then specified and priced by our subcontractor.

3. Overtime and off-hours shifts are excluded (normal working hours are Mon. – Fri. 7am – 5pm).

If there are any questions or further information required please don’t hesitate to contact us. Thank you in advance for your assistance as well as for the opportunity, we look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,
B Bros Construction Inc.

Izet Pandzic
[email protected]

2988 Teagarden Street / San Leandro CA 94577
(510) 351-3048 / (510) 351-9575 (fax)

B Bros Construction, Inc Page 1 Demolation the Illegal Object 2750 Cedar Street Berkeley, CA Phase Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Productivity Labor Hours
Labor Price Labor
Cost/Unit
Labor
Amount
Material Cost/Unit Material
Amount Sub Amount Equip
Cost/Unit
Equip
Amount
Total Amount

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
01-31-13 Project Manager & Vehicle 1.00 da 4.00 hr / wk 4.00 140.00 /hr 560.00 /wk 560.00 0.00 /wk - - 0 /wk - 560.00 01-31-13 Project Startup & Closeout - 1.00 wk 0.00 hr / wk - 95.00 /hr - /wk - 0.00 /wk - - - - 01-31-13 Project Superintendent & Vehicle - 1.00 wk 0.00 hr / wk - 135.00 /hr - /wk - 0.00 /wk - - 0 /wk - -

QUALITY CONTROL -
01-45-16 Drug Testing 1.00 ea - - - 0.00 /ea - - - - 01-45-16 First Aid Kit 1.00 ea - - - 125.00 /ea 125.00 - - 125.00

TEMPORARY UTILITIES -
01-51-05 Construction Power - Set-up 1.00 ls - - - - - - -

CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES -
01-52-05 Temporary Toilet (1 toilets + 1 handwash) 1.00 mo - - - 0.00 /mo - - - - 01-52-05 Ice Cups Water 1.00 mo - - - 0.00 /mo - - - -

TOOLS & EQUIPMENT
01-54-05 GC Small Tools 1.00 ls - - - - - 500.00 /ls 500.00 500.00 01-54-05 Dump Triler 1.00 ls - - - - - 600.00 /mo 600.00 600.00

CLEANING & WASTE MANAGEMENT
01-74-05 Final Cleanup 1.00 sf - /sf - - - - - - 01-74-05 Daily Clean-up & Covid 1.00 wk 0.00 hr / wk - 88.77 /hr - /wk - 0.00 /wk - - - - Phase Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Productivity Labor Hours
Labor Price Labor
Cost/Unit
Labor
Amount
Material Cost/Unit Material
Amount Sub Amount Equip
Cost/Unit
Equip
Amount
Total Amount
DIVISION 2 - SITEWORK
24000 Demolation all structure 1.00 /ls 0.00 - 88.77 /hr - - /ls - 15,000.00 - 15,000.00 -
- -
Estimate Totals
Description Amount Totals Hours Rate
Labor 560 4 3.34%
Material 125 0.74%
Subcontract 15,000 89.37%
Equipment 1,100
400.0

6.55%
Other
16,785.00 76.80%
Ower head 503.55 3.000 % T 2.30%
Builders Risk 251.78 1.500 % T 1.15%
General Liability 251.78 1.500 % T 1.15%
P & P Bond NV 419.63 2.500% B 1.92%
Profit 3,642.35 20.000% B 16.67%
Total
Percent of
Total Cost Basis
16,785.00
21,854.07

Asbestos Management Group of California, Inc.

Asbestos, Lead, Mold Remediation,
and Demolition
# 586844, A, B, C-2, C-21
ASB (DOSH 271), HAZ

3438 Helen Street / Oakland, California 94608
(510) 654-8441 / (510) 654-8447 (fax)
October 22, 2024.

Re: St
ructure Deconstruction.
2750 Cedar Street Berkeley.

Asbestos Management Group of California, Inc. (AMG) is pleased to provide you with a pric e quotation for the demolition at the above referenced project. Below please find AMG’s scope of work, qualifications, and pricing for your review & approval.

Scope of Work

 Structure Decon struction:
• AMG to decon
struct structure.
• AMG to cut and remove 2x4.
• AMG to remove plywood.
• AMG to take all wood down and deliver to a designated place. • AMG will perform this work in two days.

Total price: $ 15,000.00

Exclusions & Inclusions

1. Work to be done on regular hours.

2. Water and power to be provided by GC.

3. Hard barriers, special protection to be done by GC.

4. Work to be done under 1 mobilization.

5. All disconnections capping and safe off to be done by GC.

6. All lay out to be done by GC any other demo not in drawings listed or listed as demo drawings is excluded.

7. Lead paint removal from metal beams and full stripping paint removal is excluded.

8. AMG excludes any site demolition.

The Asbestos Management Group of California, Inc. Acceptance Of Proposal

Alejandro Garcia, Estimator/ Project Manager. __________________________Date___________

ATTACHMENT 6: ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
2750 Cedar St
DOCUMENT DATE PAGE # of
pages

A INDEX

B REFERENCED BUILDING CODES
1 Building Code Section 105.2 and commentary 1/1/2023 1 2 Residential Code Section R202 and commentary 1/1/2023 2

C ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD OF UNPERMITTED CONSTRUCTION
3 Revised: First Notice and Order to Correct 10/7/2013 4 4 Defensible Space Inspection Report 11/17/2023 17
5 Extension to correct violations 11/17/2023 4
6 Request for Service 4/5/2024 7
7 Request for Service 4/8/2024 5
8 Completed Request for Service 4/10/2024 12
9 Defensible Space Report Summary 7/1/2024 7
10 First Notice and Order to Correct 9/24/2024 2
11 Second Notice and Order to Correct 9/24/2024 2
12 Request for Service 9/27/2024 2
13 Citation and Citation letter 10/1/2024 7
14 Third Notice and Order to Correct 10/9/2024 41
15 Fourth Notice and Order to Correct 10/10/2024 4
16 Application for Inspection Warrant with Declarations 10/10/2024 2 17 Inspection and Abatement Warrant 10/14/2024 4
18 Fifth Notice and Order to Correct 10/16/2024 2
19 Second Citation 10/18/2024 6
20 Sixth Notice and Order to Correct 10/21/2024 2
21 Appeal 10/23/2024 4
22 City Attorney Email indicating the appeal was invalid 10/28/2024 1 23 Invoice and Cover Letter 3/25/2025 2
24 Demand letter 9/25/2025 1
25 Lien letter 11/13/2025 3
26 Appeal of Lien 11/19/2025 1
27 Basis of Appeal 12/10/2025 12
D BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DOCUMENTS B2024-02077
28 First Land Use Zoning Corrections on plan check 4/29/2024 2 29 First set of Corrections as a result of first plan check 5/22/2024 3 30 Response from Mr. Tolleson to the first set of plan check corrections 5/30/2024 8 31 Second set of Corrections as a result of plan check of resubmitted documents 6/27/2024 7 32 Response from Mr. Tolleson to the second set of plan check corrections 7/12/2024 32 33 Third set of Corrections as a result of plan check of resubmitted documents 7/26/2024 9 34 Response from Mr. Tolleson to the third set of plan check corrections 7/31/2024 3 35 Fourth set of Corrections as a result of plan check of resubmitted documents 8/16/2024 18 36 Response from Mr. Tolleson to the fourth set of plan check corrections 8/28/2024 2 37 Fifth set of Corrections as a result of plan check of resubmitted documents 9/16/2024 14 38 Site Plan 5/9/2025 1
39 Denied Application Extension Request 5/9/2025 1

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 1/17 Report Summary
Address: 2750 CEDAR St, Berkeley, CA 94709 Parcel: 58-2211-20-1 11/6/2023 at 1:28 PM
Street Only:

Evaluators were not able to evaluate the entire property . Observations included in this report were taken from pub
lic spaces.
2 Defensible Space Violation(s) were observed.

Defensible space violations must be corrected within 30 days. A reinspection will occur 30 days or more after the initial discovery of a violation. If during the reinspection violations have not been corrected, a second notice will be issued, and a second reinspection will occur after an additional 14 days. A Reinspection fee of $98 per 15 minutes of reinspection time will be assessed where violation(s) have not been corrected. No reinspection fee will be assessed when violations are found to be corrected. If a violation is still present after two reinspection’s, a citation will be issued. 5 Home Hardening Details were observed.
“Home Hardening” using fire and ember resistant construction materials and features is often the most important factor in determining whether a structure will survive a wildfire. Evaluators have assessed your home to help you understand its vulnerability. These are recommendations only, and should be prioritized based on budget after defensible space issues are corrected.

Wildfire Risk
Multiple factors determine a property’s wildfire risk. As a property owner, you can make changes to your landscaping and defensible space, and you can “harden” your home to resist ignition during wildfires.

Some factors can’t be controlled - if your location and topography are higher risk, you may need to take greater measures to mitigate the hazards you do control.

Berkeley Fire Wildland & Urban Interface
Division
Defensible Space
Report

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 2/17 Location & Topography High Risk
Home Hardening High Risk
Defensible Space High Risk

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 3/17 Defensible Space Zones for:  2750 CEDAR St, Berkeley, CA 94709 Zone 0 Zone 1 Zone 2 Access Zone Parcel Boundary

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 4/17 0'-5' (Immediate Zone)
The area nearest your house, 0'-5', including the
surfaces of the structure itself. There should be
ZERO combustibles in this zone.

Learn more
5'-30' (Intermediate Zone)
The "Lean, Clean, and Green" zone extends 0'-30'
out from buildings, structures, decks, etc. Extra care
is required in this zone.

Learn more
30'-100' (Extended Zone)
Extends from 30' to at least 100' or to the property
line. Dead vegetation should be removed and some
less intensive maintenance is required in this zone.

Learn more
(From Road to Property)
Owners must maintain vegetation at least 15’
overhead and 10’ from the edge of roads and
driveways adjacent to their property, even in the
public right-of-way.

Learn more

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 5/17 Inspector's Discovery Locations
These are the approximate locations where inspectors observed issues or documented other information.

The following pages will help you understand what must be corrected immediately, and other actions to help you reduce your property's wildfire vulnerability. • Defensible Space issues or Home Hardening vulnerability • Home Harding Resilient feature

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 6/17 Property Owners & Responsibility
Property owners are responsible for the zones on their property only. In most cases, your neighbors are NOT required to provide defensible space for your property. We encourage property owners to cooperate with each other and be "good neighbors." When all hazards have been addressed on your own property, consider working with neighbors or asking permission to reduce hazards on neighboring properties.

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 7/17

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 8/17 Defensible Space Violations
Defensible space violations must be corrected within 30 days. A reinspection will occur 30 days or more after the initial discovery of a violation. If during the reinspection violations have not been corrected, a second notice will be issued and a second reinspection will occur after an additional 14 days. A Reinspection fee of $98 per 15 minutes of reinspection time will be assessed where violation(s) have not been corrected. No reinspection fee will be assessed when violations are found to be corrected. If a violation is still present after two reinspection’s, a citation will be issued.

1. Combustible Vegetation near or contacting structure
Combustible Vegetation was observed in within 5' of structures Combustible Vegetation within 5' of a structure is likely to ignite from embers and spread fire to the building, and often hides dead leaves and debris near the base of walls. This is the most vulnerable location to embers in a typical home's defensible space and landscaping.

Violation found. Action required. Remove combustible vegetation in Zone 0 (within 5' of structure). Cut vegetation away from the structure, and from under eaves. Remove vegetation near doors, windows, and vent openings.

Irrigate regularly. Provide ongoing maintenance including removal of dead materials. A reinspection to verify compliance will occur 30 days after initial notice or 14 days after second notice.

Berkeley Fire Code, Section 4907; California Fire Code, Section 4907; CA Public Resources Code 4291; CA Gov't Code 51182
Resources & Information:

Learn more at FireSafe Marin

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 9/17

2. Cut annual grasses & weeds
Annual grasses and/or weeds were observed within 100' of structures Dry, annual grasses ignite easily and spread fires quickly. Cut dry grasses and weeds within 100' of structures with a weed eater or mower. Cut grass in the morning, when temperatures are cool, and be careful not to create sparks. Never cut grasses during a Red Flag Warning. Rake and remove clippings within 30' of structures.

Violation found. Action required. Cut annual grasses and/or weeds within 100' of structures to 4 inches or less. A reinspection to verify compliance will occur 30 days after initial notice or 14 days after second notice.

Berkeley Fire Code, Chapter 49; California Fire Code, Chapter 49; CA Public Resources Code 4291; CA Gov't Code 51182
Inspector Notes:

Issue still present
Resources & Information:

Learn more at FireSafe Marin
1 2
3

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 10/17 Home Hardening Details
Home “hardening” using ember and ignition resistant construction materials and design is one of the most important factors in determining a structure’s likelihood of survival. Recommendations are based on actual observations at your property and will help you prioritize upgrades and retrofits to protect your home from wildfires. These are not required, and should be prioritized based on budget after defensible space issues are corrected.

1. Protect wood doors from embers
Wood doors were observed
Wood doors have been shown to ignite when subject to an ember storm and heat of wildfire. Using a metal screen is a great mitigation approach
Install metal screen or consider replacing the door with metal when possible
Resources & Information:

Learn more at FireSafe Marin

2. Vent screens are not ember resistant

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 11/17 Unprotected, unscreened vents that are vulnerable to embers were observed Replace or retrofit with flame and ember resistant vent screens approved and listed by the California State Fire Marshal or WUI vents tested to ASTM E2886 and meeting acceptance criteria provided in Chapter 7A of the California Building Code.

Upgrade is recommended for existing structures.

Resources & Information:

Learn more at FireSafe Marin

3. Wood Plank Siding
Wood plank siding was observed
Wood plank siding can be relatively resistant to ignition if well maintained. Pay attention to area where the siding meets the ground - the lowest 12" of siding are most vulnerable.

Resources & Information:

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 12/17 Learn more at FireSafe Marin

4. Any opening in siding where embers could enter
Openings greater than 1/8" were observed
Openings in siding are similar to vents in that it can enable embers to enter the structure and ignite insulation or other material inside the walls.

Use caulk, fine metal mesh or similar non-combustible materals to prevent ember entry
Resources & Information:

Learn more at FireSafe Marin

5. Unidentified Roofing Material
Roofing material could not be identified
All roofs require regular cleaning and routine maintenance to maintain ignition resistance. Learn more about roofing and how to protect different types of roofs from wildfires, then take appropriate steps to protect the roof.
1 2

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 13/17 Inspector Notes:

No roof
Resources & Information:

Learn more at FireSafe Marin
No home hardening resilient items discovered

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 14/17 Property Owner Check List
2750 CEDAR St, Berkeley, CA 94709
You are required to correct the listed Defensible Space Violations. A Follow up reinspection will occur 30 days or more after the initial discovery of a violation, and 14 days or more after a second notice of the same violation. You may clear violations by providing photo evidence of correction(s). To self-report corrections , simply “check-it-off” below and attach photo evidence (required) for each issue that has been resolved. Additionally, you can attach invoices or itemized receipts from provider(s) who performed the mitigation work on the property (not required). Items listed under the Home Hardening/Evaluation Only are recommendations and are not required. Home hardening addresses the most vulnerable components of your house with building materials and installation techniques that increase resistance to heat, flames, and embers that accompany most wildfires. Please use this checklist to organize an action plan to mitigate your property’s wildfire hazards.
2 Defensible Space Violations - Required:

1. Combustible Vegetation near or contacting
structure

2. Cut annual grasses & weeds
5 Home Hardening/Evaluation Only - Not Required:

1. Protect wood doors from embers

2. Vent screens are not ember resistant

3. Wood Plank Siding

4. Any opening in siding where embers could enter

5. Unidentified Roofing Material

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 15/17 Additional Resources
2750 CEDAR St, Berkeley, CA 94709
Below are links to organizations, events and programs that are useful to help you prepare and provide key information and advice.

Fire Weather and Evacuation
Learn how to take control before a fire starts. Make a household fire weather plan . Be ready to leave the hills when the Berkeley Fire Department proclaims Extreme Fire Weather. Review Berkeley's Wildfire Evaluation Checklist to learn what to put in your go-bag.

Fire Weather and Evacuation
Understand Berkeley’s fire weather and get ready for fire evacuation. Watch Fire Department videos and download planning guides so you can protect yourself and your family.

Fire Weather and Evacuation

ZONEHAVEN COMMUNITY EVACUATION INTERFACE
Zonehaven provides residents with critical evacuation updates, resources and latest information on active incidents, all in one place.

Zonehaven
AC Alert
Sign up now to get emergency information and instructions via cell, text, and email.

AC Alert

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 16/17 Berkeley Chipper Program
Your next neighborhood chipper day:

Week of December 11
The Berkeley Fire Department is proud to sponsor the new Berkeley Chipping Program! The program provides for regular curbside pickup, chipping, and disposal of vegetation material from residential properties.

Advance reservations are required.

Questions, comments, or concerns?
For questions, comments, or concerns related to this inspection, please contact the Defensible Space Evaluation Team at [email protected] for (510) 981-5620

REGISTER NOW

11/17/23, 10:49 AM Defensible Space Inspection Report
https://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkele/report/d6352984-6299-4db7-bd82-f7231d9bb74e/checklist 17/17 Defensible Space Resident Assistance Program
Thank you for your interest in this program. Language re: no resources, options available. Please click here.

Copyright © 2023 fire aside. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy

From: Wodaje, Hanna [email protected]
Subject: RE: Tolleson > 2750 Cedar St
Date: November 17, 2023 at 4:13 PM
To: Michael Tolleson, Architect [email protected] Cc: Wild Fire wildfi[email protected], Pinto, Chris [email protected] Hello Michael,

Thank you for your pa4ence. As you requested, we have updated our Defensible Space Inspec4on plaAorm to reflect you as the primary owner, and we have updated your mailing address. In addi4on, we will be giving you an extension to July 1, 2024 to correct all noted viola4ons.

Below you will see the updated Defensible Space Inspec4on Report that will reflect all your corrected and updated informa4on. Keep in mind you are able to upload pictures of corrected viola4ons under the “correc4on checklist.” Once corrected our inspectors will review the photos and update your report within 48 hours.

Berkeley Fire Inspec2on Report Access for 2750 Cedar St

Resident Report URL :
hQps://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkeley/address/624534a13bbfec1ae501917e

Code: C4EQ9G

If you have any other ques4ons, comments, and/or concerns please do not hesitate to reach back out to us.

Have a wonderful weekend.

Warmest Regards,

Hanna Wodaje, Office Specialist
Wildland Urban Interface Division
Berkeley Fire Department
www.BerkeleyFire.com

Office: 510-981-5620
wildfi[email protected]

From: Michael Tolleson, Architect <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 11:23 AM
To: Wodaje, Hanna <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tolleson > 2750 Cedar St

Hanna,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

I am reques4ng that the date of inspec4on be cleared out to allow a clean start date.

I will complete all Defensible Space mi4ga4ons within the new schedule upon receipt of the corrected ownership and no4fica4on dates.

Development of the property is in progress and will include complete repair to the exis4ng SFR and a new ADU.

While Home Hardening Details are “not required” per page 10/17 of the Report, these features will be incorporated into the design of both structures.

I have aQached a rendering of the SFR to substan4ate the approved improvements.

Please confirm receipt of this send.

Sincerely,

Michael Tolleson, Architect, C-22075
555 Pierce St
Unit 1626
Albany, CA 94706
510 990 6335
510 332 9520 iPhone
[email protected]

On Nov 17, 2023, at 10:08 AM, Wodaje, Hanna <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Michael ,

Thank you for reaching out, it was nice speaking to you earlier .

Here is the link and code to your Defensible Space Inspec4on Report for 2750 CEDAR St. Should you need further assistance, please call us at 510-981-5620.

Resident Report
URL: hQps://www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkeley/address/624534a13bbfec1 ae501917e

Code: C4EQ9G

Warmest Regards,

<image002.png>
Hanna Wodaje, Office Specialist
Wildland Urban Interface Division
Berkeley Fire Department
www.BerkeleyFire.com

Office: 510-981-5620
wildfi[email protected]

From: Michael Tolleson, Architect <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:44 AM
To: Wild Fire <wildfi[email protected]>
Subject: Tolleson > 2750 Cedar St

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or aQachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

AQn: Hanna & Chief Chris Pinto

Parcel clearing no4ce not received for 2750 Cedar St, Berkeley, 94708 Believe no4ce was sent to previous owner who has not provided.

Current Owner: Michael Tolleson, Architect & Paul Mak, PE

Paul & I purchased the parcel about a year ago.

Need file updated to reflect current condi4ons.

Need no4ce resent to my address below or email to comply with any clearing inspec4on concerns.

Adjacent to: 1609-1611 La Vereda
Neighbor/Owner
Arlene Crooks
Ms. Crooks informs me she has received no4ce and two inspec4ons.

Sincerely,

Michael Tolleson, Architect, C-22075
555 Pierce St
Unit 1626
Albany, CA 94706
510 990 6335
510 332 9520 iPhone
[email protected]
<image001.gif>

v. 12/14/2023
[email protected] • Phone (510) 981-7410, TDD (510) 981-7450 Planning and Development
1947 Center St, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
/gid00001

APPLICATION CITY OF BERKELEY LAND USE PLANNING

GENERAL

INFORMATION
This supplemental
application must be
submitted with any building
permit application that
is subject to review for
zoning, design review, or
landmarks. This typically
includes, but is not limited
to:
• In-kind repair and
replacements
• Conversion of basements,
cellars, attics, garages or
accessory structures into
habitable floor area
• Interior or exterior
work on commercial and
nonresidential buildings
• New buildings or enclosed
accessory structures
• Additions to an existing
structure
• Demolition
• All exterior or facade
changes
• Addition, expansion, and
replacement of decks
• Remodeling of an existing
building
• Addition or removal of
a dwelling unit, Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) or
Junior ADU, bedrooms,
tenant spaces, residential
kitchens, and/or parking
• Construction related
to an approved land use
entitlement
Additional information
Look up your zoning and
parc
el information
Title 23 of the Berkeley
Municipal Code for
zoning requirements and
development standards
How to apply for a
building permit
ZONING CERTIFICATE APPLICATION – BUILDING PERMIT
ZONING CERTIFICATE APPLICATION –

BUILDING PERMIT

PROJECT INFORMATION
Unit(s)/Suite(s) #:

Assessor Parcel Number(s):

Project Address:

Project Description:

This application must accompany any building permit application subject to zoning, design review, or landmark review. Please complete and submit with your building permit application.

APPLICANT’S NAME:

Mailing Address:

Phone Number:

Email:

ZCBP#: BP#:

YES

EXISTING

PROPOSED
NO
Is the site a designated landmark, structure of
merit, or located in a historic district?
(check designation on this map)
Zoning and Overlay District (s)?
(check designation on this map)
USE OF BUILDING/PROPERTY?

RELATED LAND USE OR ZONING PERMITS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) Administrative Use Permit (Conditions of Approval must be printed on sheet 2 of plan set) Permit Number
Use Permit / Variance (Conditions of Approval must be printed on sheet 2 of plan set) Permit Number
Design Review Permit Number
Landmark Structural Alteration Permit (SAP):

Permit Number LMSAP20
DR20
ZP20
ZP20

v. 12/14/2023

APPLICATION CITY OF BERKELEY LAND USE PLANNING
1Bedroom. Any habitable space in a dwelling unit or habitable accessory structure other than a kitchen or living room that is intended for or capable of being used for sleeping with a door that closes the room off from other common space such as living and kitchen areas that is at least 70 square feet in area, exclusive of closets and other appurtenant space, and meets Building Code standards for egress, light and ventilation. A room identified as a den, library, study, loft, dining room, or other extra room that satisfies this definition will be considered a bedroom for the purposes of applying this requirement. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces. (BMC 23.502.020(B))
ZONING CERTIFICATE APPLICATION – BUILDING PERMIT
OWNER’S SIGNATURE:

APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE:

Printed Name:

Printed Name:

Date:

Date:

I hereby certify that the above information is true
and complete to the best of my knowledge.

PROJECT DETAILS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
In-kind repair/replacement (includes windows, decks, siding, etc.) Conversion of garage, basement, or attic to habitable space (gross floor area: ___________ square feet) Interior or exterior work on a commercial or nonresidential building New building or enclosed structure (gross floor area: ___________ square feet) Addition to existing building or enclosed structure (gross floor area: ___________ square feet) Demolition (includes removal/replacement of exterior wall or roof framing) ____percent walls; ____ percent roof) Removal or pruning of coast live oak tree – indicate circumference at 4 feet above ground: _____ inches.

EXTERIOR CHANGES
(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
Windows, doors, and openings
(new/enlarged)
Decks (expanded or ne
w)
Water heater/HVAC
Other: ___________
ADDITION OR REMOVAL OF:
(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
Dwelling unit
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)/
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU)
Bedrooms
1 Interior walls separating commercial
spaces
Parking spaces
Residential kitchens
YES
YES
Affordable or Inclusionary Housing (BMC 23.328)
provisions apply to the project? (check one)
Bird Safe Building Requirements apply to project? (check one) (for projects vested on/after April 2, 2023, submit an Affordable Hou
sing Compliance Plan form with building permit application and i
nclude applicable information in plan set)
: ____________ square feet
(submit required stormwater checklist with building permit application)
NO
NO
NO

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED

FOR SOME PROJECTS
If the following items are required for your project and are not provided with the building permit application submittal and plans, you will receive corrections from the zoning reviewer requesting these items.

YES (submit Bird Safe Building Requirements Attestation with building per
mit application, and include product/material compliance and building elevations in plan set)
Impervious Surfaces (check one) Does the project create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface area? (If this ZCBP is not associated with a building
permit application, owner’s signature, or
signed letter authorizing applicant to apply
on owner’s behalf, is required. )

Internal
Plan Check Correction List

Permit Service Center
Building & Safety Division
Planning and Development Department
1947 Center Street – 3rd Floor Tel: (510) 981-7500
Berkeley, CA 94704-1113 TDD: (510) 981-7450
https://permits.cityofberkeley.info [email protected] Application #: B2024-02077 May 22, 2024
Project Address: 2750 Cedar St.

Dear Project Applicant,
The City of Berkeley has completed review of the construction documents submitted under the building permit application number specified above. This letter includes comments and corrections from all City of Berkeley reviewing agencies, which must be addressed in order to obtain the permits for the proposed work indicated in the construction documents.

Plans revised in response to corrections must be accompanied with a written response letter, which explicitly addresses each correction and the corresponding plan sheet number, revision number and date. Incomplete or unclear responses to corrections may result in delays.

Document formatting requirements:
• All permit documents must be submitted in electronic format, as unsecured PDF files. • Documents with multiple pages must be combined and named according to content. • Documents that are incomplete or improperly formatted will not be processed. • Code Enforcement cases must be indicated by case number. Dates specified in Notice(s) of Violation take precedence over any timelines specified in this document.

Document submittal options (choose one):
1) Permits Online: Upload submittal documents directly to the permit record at the Permits Online Portal, by selecting Record Info > Attachments > Add. Permit documents are accessible from the registered Accela Citizen Access (ACA) account associated with the permit.
2) In-Person: Schedule an appointment for in-person processing through the Permit Service Center webpage. Note that for all in-person submittals, documents must be saved on a USB thumb drive.

Expiration of an application: An application for a permit for any proposed work shall expire one year after the date of filing, unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued. The building official or the permit service center coordinator are authorized to grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding a 180 days per extension. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. Requests for time extensions shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee set by resolution of the City Council. [BMC 105.3.2] To apply for an application extension, complete an Application Extension Request form, and choose one of the two submittal options listed above.

Internal
Permit Service Center
Building & Safety Division
Planning and Development Department May 21, 2024
1947 Center Street – 3rd Floor Tel: (510) 981-7440
Berkeley, CA 94704-1113 TDD: (510) 981-7450
[email protected] Page 1 of 2 Fax: (510) 981-7450

Building and Safety Prepared by: Elysia Miller
Application #: B2024-02077 2750 Cedar St [email protected] Administrative

1. Construction documents produced by licensed architects are required to be stamped with a wet or digital signature. Prior to permit approval for this project, the applicant responsible for the project shall submit a complete set of final construction documents with all sheets stamped and signed by the licensed individuals in responsible charge of their preparation. [CBPC 5536.1]

2. The valuation of $50,000 as provided by the applicant is substantially understated.

Please provide an updated valuation that includes all work as required per CBC Section 109.3: “Permit valuations shall include total value of work, including materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment and permanent systems.” The updated valuation will be considered by the building official; if the updated valuation is not accepted, a minimum valuation will be provided by the building official as authorized by City of Berkeley Resolution 67,047- N.S.

3. The reproduction quality of the drawings provided for plan check is inadequate because the drawings are improperly scaled, lightly rendered (pink font color), and/or difficult to read. Please provide clean clear drawings with dark lines and easily legible text that is a minimum ⅛ inch high. [CRC R106.1.1]
Nonstructural

1. It appears that the scope of work includes newly framed walls, however, all walls are currently shown the same on the plans. Provide a construction legend and visual means of clearly distinguishing between existing walls to be removed, existing walls to remain and new walls. Identify bearing walls and non-bearing walls. [CRC R106.1.1]

2. Revise the drawings to visually identify and detail exterior wall assemblies tested for fire-resistance in accordance with ASTM E119, UL 263, or CBC 703.3 with exposure from both sides at locations with less than 5 feet of fire separation distance. [CRC R302.1]

3. Openings in walls facing property lines located within 5 feet are limited to 25% maximum of the wall area. Openings in walls facing property lines located within 3 feet are not allowed. Please revise the drawings to provide a wall area to window opening area analysis demonstrating that the proposed design complies. [CRC R302.1]

4. This property is in Fire zone 2 and is required to comply with the Wildland Urban Interface. Provide details and specifications showing that the proposed exterior wall covering or wall assembly shall be materials that are noncombustible, ignition-resistant, heavy timber construction, the exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive wall assembly or comply with SFM Standard 12-7A-1. [CRC R337.7.3]

5. Revise the drawings to provide details and specifications demonstrating that the proposed stairs will comply with the applicable requirements for sizing, clearance, landings, guards, handrails and illumination. [CRC R311.7]

Internal
Permit Service Center
Building & Safety Division
Planning and Development Department May 21, 2024
1947 Center Street – 3rd Floor Tel: (510) 981-7440
Berkeley, CA 94704-1113 TDD: (510) 981-7450
[email protected] Page 2 of 2 Fax: (510) 981-7450 Structural

1. Revise the plans to show that the structure will comply with the bracing requirements of the California Residential Code for the new opening. Where a building, or portion thereof, does not comply with one or more of the bracing requirements, the construction documents shall be designed, stamped and signed by a California licensed architect or engineer for that irregular or nonconforming portion of work. [CRC R602.10] Electrical

1. Indicate on the construction drawings ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for outlet receptacles installed in residential bathrooms, at all kitchen counter-tops, laundry rooms, outdoors, crawlspaces or unfinished basements, and where the receptacles are installed within 6 feet of the outside edge of the sink. [CEC 210.8(A)]

2. Specify that branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit kitchens, family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, bedrooms, closets, hallways, laundry rooms or similar spaces shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter. [CEC 210.12(A)]

3. Specify that all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles serving dwelling units shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles. [CEC 406.12(A)]
Mechanical

1. In single-family dwellings each kitchen shall be provided with a vented hood ducted to terminate outside the building, with a minimum air flow of 100 cfm and a maximum sound rating of 3 sones or shall be equipped with a local mechanical exhaust system installed in accordance with ASHRAE 62.2. [CMC 405.4.1 and BMC 19.32.040] Plumbing

1. Provide complete plumbing specifications including water heating specifications, fixture clearances, water consumption, tub/shower specifications for controls, enclosures, layout and size, and plumbing material specifications. [CPC 104.3.1] Energy

1. Submit the applicable Certificate(s) of Compliance for those portions of the proposed design regulated by the California Energy Code. Incorporate the Certificate(s) into the building design plans. Revise the drawings as required to reflect the requirements documented in the Certificate(s) of Compliance. [CAC 10-103(a)2A]

Department of Planning & Development
Plan Check Status
You can use this tool to review the status of your plan check for a building permit application that has been submitted for City review.

You may search for your permit application by Permit Application # (ex: 15-123) or by Street Address (ex: 123 Dwight Way).

Permit Application # or Street Address:
14-236
Search
Search on '14-236' returned 1 match. To see more details, click on App# in the table below.

App # Address Owner Name Date In Est Compl Application Status 14-236 2750 CEDAR ST LIN LOUIS B 6/11/2015 6/26/2015
Approved by all agencies, 7/1/2015. You
may call the Permit Service Center at 981-
7502 for an appointment to pick up your
permit(s). You will need to submit an
additional $2,859.50 in building permit fees
to complete the application process.

Electrical, mechanical and plumbing work
requires separate application and fees.

Home | Web Policy | Text-Only Site Map | Contact Us
Department of Planning & Development, 2120 Milvia St., Berkeley, CA 94704 Questions or comments? Email: [email protected] Phone: (510) 981-7400 (510) 981-CITY/2489 or 311 from any landline in Berkeley TTY: (510) 981-6903

From: Michael Tolleson, Architect [email protected] Subject: 2750 Cedar St > 14-00236
Date: December 17, 2014 at 12:11 PM
To: Thomas, Jeffrey [email protected]
Jeff,
Terrific.

I will revise the remaining Drawings affected by the Revision and Resubmit shortly.

Thanks, to David, as well.

This saves the Design!

Sincerely,
Michael Tolleson, Architect, LEED AP
1331 40th St
Unit 309
Emeryville, CA 94608
510 658 2945
510 332 9520 iPhone
[email protected]
www.michaeltolleson.com
On Dec 16, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Thomas, Jeffrey <[email protected]> wrote:

Michael,

I reviewed the proposed revised floor plan and detail with Deputy Building Official David Lopez.

We both concur that this new proposal is acceptable.

Feel free to call or write if you have any quesDons or other concerns.

Best regards,

Jeff Thomas, P.E.

Senior Building Plans Engineer
City of Berkeley
(510)981-7440

From: Michael Tolleson, Architect [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:13 AM
To: Thomas, Jeffrey
Subject: Re: 2750 Cedar St > 14-00236

Jeff,

Very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Michael Tolleson, Architect, LEED AP
1331 40th St
Unit 309

Unit 309
Emeryville, CA 94608
510 658 2945
510 332 9520 iPhone
[email protected]
www.michaeltolleson.com
<image001.gif>

On Dec 16, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Thomas, Jeffrey <[email protected]> wrote:

Michael,
Hope to have an answer for you today.
-Jeff

From: Michael Tolleson, Architect [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 9:08 AM
To: Thomas, Jeffrey
Subject: 2750 Cedar St > 14-00236

Jeff,

Attached find the FLOOR & ROOF PLANS (A-PLAN-FLOR-010.pdf) with the affected area highlighted in RED clarified as just the area < 3’ from the PL, not elements extending east from it.

Please use this version for your discussions.

Sincerely,

Michael Tolleson, Architect, LEED AP
1331 40th St
Unit 309
Emeryville, CA 94608
510 658 2945
510 332 9520 iPhone
[email protected]
www.michaeltolleson.com
<image001.gif>

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
1 May 26, 2024

Recipient Eysia Miller
[email protected]
Address Building & Safety
Permit Service Center
1947 Center St
3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1113
(510) 981-7440

Re Application B-2024-02077
2750 Cedar St

Eysia,

Below please find my responses highlighted in red below to your queries in black re the subject Project.

Preface

1 The SFR is an Existing < 50% partially demolished structure subject only to the 2022 California Existing Building Code (CEBC) and BMC Section 23F.04.10 or earlier editions as allowed.

This has been established with Permit Partial Demolition 13-4915 still noted in the B2014-00236 permit in the Permits record, inspected and approved by Berkeley inspector Greg Brovold.

See attached stamped 4-APPROVAL-PARTIAL DEMO-2750 CEDAR.pdf.

The currently submitted entire Project was approved at that time; see attached 3- APPROVAL ORIGINAL -2750 CEDAR.pdf.

The Project is not a “Remove all but one wall…” existing condition.

See also, Sheet A-2.2 Demolition plans, Demo Calcs and Modified Opening Calcs & Key Notes (Architect’s approval).

2 Per CEBC “401.2 Compliance. The work shall not make the building less complying than it was before the repair was undertaken.” This does not inhibit design that increases the building strength or otherwise complies with current or recent code sections of the

CEBC, CRC, CBC

3 The repaired SFR provides a new Automatic Residential Fire Sprinkler system, which is treated as a deferred permit until after Framing.

See Fire Sprinkler Notes, Sheet A-0.1 and Table R302.1(2) Exterior Walls - Dwellings and Accessory B uildings with Automatic R esidential Fire Sprinkler Protection.

4 See also CEBC “405.2.1 Repairs for less than substantial structural damage. Unless otherwise required by this section, for damage less than substantial structural damage, the damaged elements shall be permitted to be restored to their predamage condition.”

5 The CEBC generally allow s less restrictive application of codes than the CRC and CBC.

Glazing area, for example, may be greater than 20% of the floor area. 6 If Exterior Perspective, West Front, rendering on Sheet A-0.1 does not immediately display, please zoom in -out until viewed.

Administrative

1. Construction documents produced by licensed arch itects are required to be stamped with a wet or digital signature. Prior to permit approval for this project, the applicant responsible for the project shall submit a complete set of final construction documents with all sheets stamped and signed by the licensed individuals in responsible charge of their preparation. [CBPC 5536.1]

CBPC 5536.1.a does not specifically require that every sheet of the Construction Documents be stamped & signed prior to permi t.

Project Notes, Sheet A- 0.1, is stamped & signed as representative for all sheets articulated by the Index of Drawings on the same sheet.

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
2 This is done to protect the copyright and illegal use of the Construction Documents.

Nonetheless, I have stamped & signed each sheet per Berkeley preference.

2. The valuation of $50,000 as provided by the applicant is substantially understated. Please provide an updated valuation that includ es all work as required per CBC Section 109.3: “Permit valuations shall include total value of work, including materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment and permanent systems.” The updated valuation will b e considered by the building official; if the updated valuation is not accepted, a minimum valuation will be provided by the building official as authorized by City of Berkeley Resolution 67,047 -N.S.

$50,000 is the same valuation previously approved by Berkeley for B2014-00236, with the same conditions.

The SFR is only 728 sf, so 50,000/728 = $69 /sf, a reasonable valuation for Repair.

There are no foundation costs and most lumber is reused.

I have typically built ground-up (new) Owner/Builder projects at $80/sf to $150/sf over the past 10 years.

See just below @ $80/sf with similar construction and finishes :

Granted, very few Architects can build at this rate.

If Berkeley is bound to apply a higher ratio, please include these mitigating factors.

3. The reproduction quality of the drawings provided for plan check is inadequate because the drawings are imprope rly scaled, lightly rendered (pink font color), and/or difficult to read. Please provide clean clear drawings with dark lines a nd easily legible text that is a minimum ⅛ inch high. [CRC R106.1.1]

2022 CRC R106.1.1 requires that drawings be of “sufficient clarity”.

Note that CRC R106.1.1 does not specify 1/8” text, which would only be relevant for printed drawings.

The “scale” (inches:feet) of drawings is not applicable when drawings are digital, as drawings of any scale may be zoomed into or out of for ease of use and readability.

PDF is a vector-based file format, so it does not lose resolution when zoomed.

If you need a hard copy, I can print full-size 24” x 36” sheets, which provide the many scales of the drawings.

Highlighting reflects the most recent version of the Construction Documents.

The highlighted drawings and annotations are used in lieu of revision “clouding”, which burdens the drawings with chaotic graphics and poor

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
3 readability.

In this Set, I have used black exclusively for the base color for Berkeley and changed the “Revision Color” to red .

Creative Architects are always looking for ways to improve drawings fo r readability and comprehension, including the promotion of digital documentation and its numerous advantages.

Nonstructural

1. It appears that the scope of work includes newly framed walls, however, all walls are currently shown the same on the plans. Provide a construction legend and visual means of clearly distinguishing between existing walls to be removed, existing walls to remain and new walls.

Identify bearing walls and non -bearing walls. [CRC R106.1.1]

Wall types are AEC standard Line Weight Types an d gradation.

Zoom in to see the difference in Line Type s.

The Wall Type is communicated by the difference between one drawing and another.

See Wall Types, A-0.1 and A-2.2 Architectural.

Wall / Partition – Existing or Repaired are Heavy (.7 mm) Unfilled.

Wall / Partition - Removed are Light (.3 mm) Dashed.

Wall / Partition - New is Heavy (.7 mm) Filled.

Wall / Window or Slider - New is Medium (.4 mm).

Wall / Window or Slider - Removed is Medium (.4 mm) and Dashed (3 mm).

See Walls, S-3.1 and S-3.2 for Structural.

Wall /Bearing / Shear (SW) - New is Heavy (.7 mm) Unfilled with SW Length where occurs.

Beam is Heavy (.7 mm) Dot/Dash.

Post is Heavy (.7 mm) Filled.

Joist is Medium (.4 mm).

Non-Bearing Walls are not shown on Struct ural drawings.

Note that Dashed lines may also convey construction above or below.

All other construction is defined by number and leader in the Key Notes on each sheet.

2. Revise the drawings to visually identify and detail exterior wall assemblies tested for fire -resistance in accordance with ASTM E119, UL 263, or CBC 703.3 with exposure from both sides at locations with less than 5 feet of fire separation distance. [CRC R302.1]

The repaired SFR will provide a new Automatic Residential Fire Sprinkler system, which is treated as a d eferred permit until after Framing.

See Fire Sprinkler Notes A-0.1 and Table R302.1(2) Exterior Walls - Dwellings with Automatic Residential Fire Sprinkler P rotection, exposure one side.
5’ Separation is not applicable

See also special detail Wall Section 1/A-5.2 and, for orientation, Site Plan A-1.2 and Floor Plan A-2.4.

This assembly provides a clever solution to the fire-rating for walls separation < 3’ for the small area at the northwest corner, in which the bottom half of the wall is 1 -hour fire-rating and the geometrically skewed top half is not rated (NR).

This detail Partial-Rated Wall has been previously approved by plan checker Jeff Thomas and supervisor David Lopez.

See the attached approval correspondence 5-APPROVAL-PARTIAL RATED WALL -2750 CEDAR.pdf.

3. Openings in walls facing property lines located within 5 feet are limited to 25% maximum of the wall area. Openings in walls facing property lines located within 3 feet are not allowed. Please revise the drawings to provide a wall area to window opening area analysis demonstrating that the proposed design complies. [CRC R302.1]

The repaired SFR provide s a new Automatic Residential Fire Sprinkler system, which is treated as a deferred permit until after Framing.

See Fire Sprinkler Notes A -0.1 and Table R302.1(2) Exterior Walls - Dwellings with Automatic Residential Fire Sprinkler Protection, exposure one side.

No Openings occur < 3’.

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
4 Openings are unlimited in area > 3’.

4. This property is in Fire zone 2 and is required to comply with the Wildl and Urban Interface. Provide details and specifications showing that the proposed exterior wall covering or wall assembly shall be materials that are noncombustible, ignition -resistant, heavy timber construction, the exterior portion of a 1 -hour fire resistive wall assembly or comply with SFM Standard 12 -7A-1. [CRC R337.7.3]

See Wall Section A-5.1, Notes 1-3:

“Notes
1 Composition mineral-surface roll & shingle roofing shall be Class A fire, ASTM E108. 2 Fiber cement siding & cladding shall be non -combustible/incombustible, ASTM E 84 -99, UBC Class 1, NFPA Class A. 3 Metal venting louvers or perforated metal shall provide continuous 1/4" metal mesh on backside.”

5. Revise the drawings to provide details and specifications demonstrating that the proposed stairs will comply with the applicable requirements for sizing, clearance, landings, guards, handrails and illumination. [CRC R311.7]

The repaired SFR is one of several phases of work, including a new ADU.

The Entry Stair is annotated as a “Future (F)” el ement.

See:

“CRC R106.3.3 Phased approval. The building official is authorized to issue a permit for the construction of foundations or an y other part of a building or structure before the construction documents for the whole building or structure have been submitted, provided that adequate information and detailed statements have been filed complying with pertinent requirements of this code. The holder of such permit for the foundation or other parts of a building or structure shall proceed at the holder’s own risk with the building operation and without assurance that a permit for the entire structure will be granted. ”

The limited (F) Stair drawings are provided to assist contractors in the correct location of temporary staging.

See Abbreviations A-0.1.

Structural

1. Revise the plans to show that the structure will comply with the bracing requirements of the California Residential Code for the new opening.

Where a building, or portion thereof, does not comply with one or more of the bracing requirements , the construction documents shall be designed, stamped and signed by a California licensed architect or engineer for that irregular or nonconforming portion of wo rk. [CRC R602.10]

The structural design utilizes the CEBC to strengthen during repair by any number of methods.

Rather than using CRC R 602.10 or R602.12, the structure is calculated to comply with the CBC for both vertical and lateral loads at the time of the previous approval B2014 -00236.

This greatly increases the structural resistance of all e lements using continuous wood structural panel sheathing on all floor, wall and roof framing and calculation of all critical posts, beams and joists.

See attached 6-S-CALC-004-2750 CEDAR.pdf.

In addition, under this section CRC R60210 ,Architect -designed, -stamped and -signed Construction Documents may utilize rational alternative solutions.

Electrical

1. Indicate on the construction drawings ground -fault circuit-interrupter protection for outlet receptacles installed in residential bathrooms, at all kitchen counter-tops, laundry rooms, outdoors, crawlspaces or unfinished basements, and where the receptacles are installed within 6 feet of the outside edge of the sink. [CEC 210.8(A)]

See Electrical Notes and Abbreviations, Sheet E- 2.1

2. Specify that branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit kitchens, family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, bedrooms, closets, hallways, laundry rooms or similar spaces shall be protected by a listed arc -fault circuit interrupter. [CEC 210.12(A)]

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
5 See Electrical Notes, Sheet E -2.1

3. Specify that all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles serving dwelling units shall be listed tamper -resistant receptacles. [CEC 406.12(A)]

See Electrical Notes, Sheet E- 2.1

Mechanical

1. In single-family dwellings each kitchen shall be provided with a vented hood ducted to terminate outside the building, with a minimum air flow of 100 cfm and a maximum sound rating of 3 sones or shall be equipped with a local mechanical exhaust system installed i n accordance with ASHRAE 62.2. [CMC 405.4.1 and BMC 19.32.040]

See Note 3, Sheet M-2.1.pdf.

Plumbing

1. Provide complete plumbing specifications including water heating specifications, fixture clearances, water consumption, tub/s hower specifications for controls, enclosures, layout and size, and plumbing material specifications. [CPC 104.3.1]

See California Green Building Code Mandatory Notes, Residential Appendix, Note 04 “THE PLUMBING FIXTURES AND PLUMBING FITTINGS SHALL MEET THE STANDARDS BELOW (CPC 403.2) (CGBC (4.303.1), Sheet A -01.” Plumbing fixture use standards need not include specific fixtures per CPC 104.3.1.

Specific fixtures may vary contingent upon availability and the introduction of superior products over the forthcoming year.

Energy

1. Submit the applicable Certificate(s) of Compliance for those portions of the proposed design regulated by the California Energy Code.

Incorporate the Certificate(s) into the building design plans. Revise the drawings as required to reflect the requirements do cumented in the Certificate(s) of Compliance. [CAC 10 -103(a)2A]

See Sheet ENERGY NOTES, Sheet A-0.2, & PRESECRIPTIVE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: RESIDENTIAL.

Sincerely,

Michael Tolleson, Architect, C -22075

Attachments

1-SET-2750-CEDAR-002.pdf
2-2750-CEDAR-RESPONSE.pdf (This Document)
3-APPROVAL ORIGINAL -2750 CEDAR.pdf
4-APPROVAL-PARTIAL DEMO-2750 CEDAR.pdf
5-APPROVAL-PARTIAL RATED WALL -2750 CEDAR.pdf
6-APPROVAL-S-CALC-004-2750 CEDAR.pdf

Plan Check Correction List

Permit Service Center
Building & Safety Division
Planning and Development Department
Application #: B2024-02077 June 27, 2024
Project Address: 2750 Cedar St.

Dear Project Applicant,
The City of Berkeley has completed review of the construction documents submitted under the building permit application number specified above. This letter includes comments and corrections from all City of Berkeley reviewing agencies, which must be addressed in order to obtain the permits for the proposed work indicated in the construction documents.

Plans revised in response to corrections must be accompanied with a written response letter, which explicitly addresses each correction and the corresponding plan sheet number, revision number and date. A full plan set of ALL construction drawings is required when responding to corrections. Incomplete or unclear responses to corrections may result in delays.

Document formatting requirements:
• All permit documents must be submitted in electronic format, as unsecured PDF files. • D ocuments with multiple pages must be combined and named according to content. • Documents that are incomplete or improperly formatted will not be processed. • Code Enforcement cases must be indicated by case number. Dates specified in Notice(s) of Violation take precedence over any timelines specified in this document.

Document submittal options (choose one):
1) Permits Online:
a. Response to plan check comments: Upload submittal documents directly to the permit record at the Permits Online Portal, by selecting Record Info > Attachments > Add. Permit documents are accessible from the registered Accela Citizen Access (ACA) account associated with the permit. b. New/separate permit: Generate new request from a registered ACA account at the Permits Online Portal www.permits.cityofberkeley.info. Submit request under ‘Building Permits’ for work on private property, or ‘Public Works’ for work in the public right of way.
2) In-Person: Schedule an appointment for in-person processing through the Permit Service Center webpage. Note that for all in-person submittals, documents must be saved on a USB thumb drive.

Expiration of an application: An application for a permit for any proposed work shall expire one year after the date of filing, unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued. The building official or the permit service center coordinator are authorized to grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 180 days per extension. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. Requests for time extensions shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee set by resolution of the City Council. [BMC 105.3.2] To apply for an application extension, complete an Application Extension Request form, and choose one of the two submittal options listed above.

Permit Service Center
Building & Safety Division
Planning and Development Department June 13, 2024
1947 Center Street – 3rd Floor Tel: (510) 981-7440
Berkeley, CA 94704-1113 TDD: (510) 981-7450
[email protected] Page 1 of 5 Fax: (510) 981-7450

Building and Safety Prepared by: Jesse Bright, P.E.

Application #: B2024-02077 2750 Cedar St [email protected] Administrative

2. The valuation of $50,000 as provided by the applicant is substantially understated.

Please provide an updated valuation that includes all work as required per CBC Section 109.3: “Permit valuations shall include total value of work, including materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment and permanent systems.” The updated valuation will be considered by the building official; if the updated valuation is not accepted, a minimum valuation will be provided by the building official as authorized by City of Berkeley Resolution 67,047- N.S.

PC2: This comment was not addressed. Please provide a permit valuation for the total value of work, including materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued.

3. The reproduction quality of the drawings provided for plan check is inadequate because the drawings are improperly scaled, lightly rendered (pink font color), and/or difficult to read. Please provide clean clear drawings with dark lines and easily legible text that is a minimum ⅛ inch high. [CRC R106.1.1]
PC2: A hard copy of the approved drawings will be required to be on site for all City inspections. The requirements outlined above are necessary so that the drawings available to the Building Inspector will be of sufficient clarity without the benefit of digital manipulation. Additionally, the digital files must be produced at the intended printed page size for the drawings to be scalable. Currently the drawings provided for review are intended for physical reproduction on 24x36 inch sheets, but the pdf document sheets are sized 11x17 inches.

4. PC2: Please review and revise the drawing index provided as required to accurately reflect the contents of the drawing sets, including plans prepared by others. Revise the documents to provide a unique identifier for each sheet. [CBC 107.2.1 and CRC R106.1.1]

5. PC2: The City of Berkeley requires survey verification for any building, or modification of a building footprint or envelope, occurring within 12 inches of the point at which fire rated construction is required, opening limitations apply or the property line. Please provide the following or similar note on the site plan: [CRC R106.2] Prior to foundation inspection and pouring of concrete, provide a letter prepared by a California licensed land surveyor stating that “...the new structure is located in accordance with the approved plans.”
Nonstructural

1. It appears that the scope of work includes newly framed walls, however, all walls are currently shown the same on the plans. Provide a construction legend and visual means of clearly distinguishing between existing walls to be removed, existing walls to remain and new walls. Identify bearing walls and non-bearing walls. [CRC R106.1.1]

Permit Service Center
Building & Safety Division
Planning and Development Department June 13, 2024
1947 Center Street – 3rd Floor Tel: (510) 981-7440
Berkeley, CA 94704-1113 TDD: (510) 981-7450
[email protected] Page 2 of 5 Fax: (510) 981-7450 PC2: Many of the walls identified on the plans as existing have either been removed under permit application B2013-04915 or destroyed due to exposure to the elements. In particular the wall(s) at the main level on Grid Line 3 are completely gone but this condition is inconsistently depicted across the existing, demolition, architectural, structural, electrical, and mechanical plans. Please revise the drawings to reflect the existing and proposed conditions.

2. Revise the drawings to visually identify and detail exterior wall assemblies tested for fire-resistance in accordance with ASTM E119, UL 263, or CBC 703.3 with exposure from both sides at locations with less than 5 feet of fire separation distance. [CRC R302.1]
PC2: The proposed fire-resistance rated wall assembly utilizes concrete stucco finishes, however, this is not reflected on the building exterior elevations.

Additionally, please revise the stucco wall assembly details to demonstrate compliance with marine climate drainage requirements: [CRC R703.7.3.2] a. Provide two layers of 10-minute Grade D paper or have a water resistance equal to or greater than two layers of a water-resistive barrier complying with ASTM E2556, Type I with flashing installed in accordance with CRC R703.4 and intended to drain to the water-resistive barrier shall be directed between the layers. A space or drainage material not less than 3/16 inch in depth shall be added to the exterior side of the water-resistive barrier. [CRC R703.7.3.2(1)]
b. The water-resistive barrier shall be 60-minute Grade D paper or have a water resistance equal to or greater than one layer of a water-resistive barrier complying with ASTM E2556, Type II. The water-resistive barrier shall be separated from the stucco by a layer of foam plastic insulating sheathing or other non-water-absorbing layer, or a designed drainage space with a drainage efficiency of not less than 90 percent, as measured in accordance with ASTM E2273 or Annex A2 of ASTM E2925. [CRC R703.7.3.2(2)]

4. This property is in Fire zone 2 and is required to comply with the Wildland Urban Interface. Provide details and specifications showing that the proposed exterior wall covering or wall assembly shall be materials that are noncombustible, ignition-resistant, heavy timber construction, the exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive wall assembly or comply with SFM Standard 12-7A-1. [CRC R337.7.3]
PC2: The referenced notes on Sheet A-5.1 contain out-of-date references and indicate the use of fiber cement siding, however, the remainder of the drawings indicate that the structure is to be finished with asphalt shingles. Revise the drawings to coordinate the proposed design and demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards, including justification of the use of a roofing material as a wall covering, if applicable.

5. Revise the drawings to provide details and specifications demonstrating that the proposed stairs will comply with the applicable requirements for sizing, clearance, landings, guards, handrails and illumination. [CRC R311.7]

Permit Service Center
Building & Safety Division
Planning and Development Department June 13, 2024
1947 Center Street – 3rd Floor Tel: (510) 981-7440
Berkeley, CA 94704-1113 TDD: (510) 981-7450
[email protected] Page 3 of 5 Fax: (510) 981-7450 PC2: Applications for phased submittals require prior approval from the City of Berkeley Building Official. Building and Safety does not allow for phased permitting of one- and two-family dwellings. Please revise the drawings to provide complete details and specifications for the full proposed scope of work. [CRC R106.3.3]

6. PC2: The mechanical and electrical drawings appear to show an interconnecting door between the two bathrooms; however, this opening is not shown on the architectural drawings. Please revise the drawings as necessary to coordinate the proposed design.

CRC 106.1.1]

7. PC2: The drawings inconsistently depict the installation of a roof deck. Please revise the drawings to coordinate the proposed design by removing the roof deck or providing complete plans, details, and specifications demonstrating that the proposed design with comply with all applicable provisions including structural adequacy, access, egress, fall protection, lighting, electrical outlets, etc. [CRC 106.1.1]

8. PC2: In dwelling units, where the top of the sill of an operable window opening is located less than 24 inches above the finished floor and greater than 72 inches above the exterior finished grade or surface, the operable window shall either not allow a 4- inch-diameter sphere to pass through the opening or shall be provided with a window fall prevention device that complies with ASTM F2090. [CRC R312.2.1]

9. PC2: Section 2 on Sheet A-5.2 depicts an opening in the exterior wall with soffit covered in horizontal grating. Please revise the drawings to clarify how the proposed design will comply with weather protection from wind driven rains as applicable to walls and/or roofs. [CRC R703.1 and R903.1]

10. PC2: Revise the drawings to specify the minimum required roof slope(s) as required for the specific roofing material proposed. [CRC R905.1]
Structural

1. Revise the plans to show that the structure will comply with the bracing requirements of the California Residential Code for the new opening. Where a building, or portion thereof, does not comply with one or more of the bracing requirements, the construction documents shall be designed, stamped and signed by a California licensed architect or engineer for that irregular or nonconforming portion of work. [CRC R602.10] PC2: The calculations provided for review are out-of-date and do not reflect current code requirements. Please provide updated calculations demonstrating that the proposed design is adequate to resist the effects caused by the design forces specified in CBC Chapter 16, including overturning, uplift and sliding and provide a complete load path capable of transferring loads from their point of origin to the load-resisting elements. Please note that the shear wall lengths specified on the drawings do not correspond to the lengths of wall available based on the size of the building and available walls. [CBC 1604.1 and 1604.4]

2. PC2: Materials that are reused shall comply with the requirements of this code for new materials. As the existing materials have been damaged due to exposure to the elements, there exists a reasonable doubt as to the stability or load-bearing capacity of the existing structure, or portion thereof. Please revise the drawing notes to specify that

Permit Service Center
Building & Safety Division
Planning and Development Department June 13, 2024
1947 Center Street – 3rd Floor Tel: (510) 981-7440
Berkeley, CA 94704-1113 TDD: (510) 981-7450
[email protected] Page 4 of 5 Fax: (510) 981-7450 all damaged and/or exposed sawn lumber must be removed and replaced unless reinspected and grade marked by an inspection agency that has been approved by an accreditation body that complies with DOC PS 20 or equivalent. [CBC 104.9 and 2303.1.1]

3. PC2: The drawings depict cantilevered canopy roofs and door landings at either end of the structure. However, the design of these elements is incomplete and depicted inconsistently on the plans, details, and building sections. Please revise the drawings to coordinate the design and provide complete details and specifications of construction. [CRC R106.1.1]

4. PC2: The architectural drawings show multiple roof planes; however, the structural drawings only show and detail a single slope shed roof. Please revise the drawings to coordinate the proposed design and provide complete details and specifications of construction. [CRC R106.1.1]

5. PC2: Please revise the drawings to provide complete details and specifications for the construction of the underfloor soffit framing depicted in Section 2 on Sheet A-5.2.

Provide supporting calculations demonstrating that the proposed design is adequate to resist design loads. [CRC R106.1.1 and CBC 1604.4]

6. PC2: Columns and beams supporting vertically discontinuous lateral force resisting elements of irregular structures shall have the design strength to resist the maximum axial force that can develop in accordance with the load combinations with the overstrength coefficient, Ω0, of ASCE-7 12.4.3.2. The connections of such elements to the supporting members shall be adequate to transmit the forces for which the discontinuous elements were required to be designed. [ASCE-7 12.3.3.3]

7. PC2: For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E or F, the redundancy factor, ρ, shall equal 1.3 unless it can be shown that conditions have been met which permit the redundancy to be taken as 1.0. [ASCE-7 12.3.4.2]

8. PC2: Detail 25 on Sheet S-6.1 depicts structural work which, in addition to inspection by the City of Berkeley, requires special inspection. However, it is not clear if this detail applies to the project. Please remove this detail or, If applicable, prior to permit issuance for this project, the applicant responsible for the project shall submit signed copy of the City of Berkeley Special Inspection form; this form and a list of approved agencies are available at the Permit Service Center. Please note that this form must be completely filled-out and signed by all parties as a condition of approval prior to permit issuance. [CBC 1704.2.3]
Electrical

4. PC2: The electrical component identified by Keynote 16 on Sheet E2.1 appears to be a subpanel. Please verify that this component is not classified as electrical equipment and therefore subject to working clearance requirements. [CEC 110.26(A)]

5. PC2: The kitchen counter outlets are currently shown clustered together. Please revise the plans to show a receptacle shall be provided for each counter space wider than 12 inches and spaced no more than 4 feet apart, a maximum of 2 feet from the end of the counter. [CEC 210.52(C)(1)]

Permit Service Center
Building & Safety Division
Planning and Development Department June 13, 2024
1947 Center Street – 3rd Floor Tel: (510) 981-7440
Berkeley, CA 94704-1113 TDD: (510) 981-7450
[email protected] Page 5 of 5 Fax: (510) 981-7450

6. PC2: Balconies, decks and porches that are accessible from inside the dwelling unit shall have at least one GFCI protected receptacle outlet installed within the perimeter of the balcony, deck, or porch. The receptacle shall not be located more than 6 feet 6 inches above the balcony, deck, or porch surface. [CEC 210.52(E)(3)] Mechanical

2. PC2: Mechanical space-conditioning systems with ductwork >10 feet, supply-only ventilation systems and makeup air systems, and the supply side of heat or energy recovery ventilation systems shall be provided with minimum MERV 13 filtration. [CEnC 150.0(m)12C]
Plumbing

1. Provide complete plumbing specifications including water heating specifications, fixture clearances, water consumption, tub/shower specifications for controls, enclosures, layout and size, and plumbing material specifications. [CPC 104.3.1] PC2: The notes referenced do not address fixture clearances, tub/shower specifications for controls, enclosures, layout and size, and plumbing material specifications.

2. PC2: The maximum flow rate of residential lavatory faucets shall not exceed 1.2 gallons per minute at 60 psi and shall not be less than 0.8 gallons per minute at 20 psi. [CPC 407.2.1.2 and CGBSC 4.303.1.4.1]

3. PC2: For one- and two-family dwellings, storm water shall be permitted to be discharged on flat areas, such as streets or lawns, so long as the storm water shall flow away from the building and away from adjoining property, and shall not create a nuisance. Show how the storm water roof down spout termination will drain away from the adjoining property and be disposed through the use of swales, trench drains, dry wells, sump pump, etc. [CPC 1101.2]
Energy

1. Submit the applicable Certificate(s) of Compliance for those portions of the proposed design regulated by the California Energy Code. Incorporate the Certificate(s) into the building design plans. Revise the drawings as required to reflect the requirements documented in the Certificate(s) of Compliance. [CAC 10-103(a)2A] PC2: The energy notes provided are out-of-date and do not satisfy the requirements for certificates of compliance. Please update the energy notes throughout the drawings to reflect current code requirements and provide completed copies of certificates of compliance as approved and issued by the Energy Commission demonstrating that the proposed scope of work complies.

2. PC2: The water heating system in low-rise residential alterations shall be a natural gas or propane water-heating system or a heat pump water heater. Heat pump water heaters shall not be installed outdoors and shall be either NEEA Tier 3 minimum or installed on an incompressible, rigid insulated surface with a minimum thermal resistance of R-10. [CEnC 150.2(b)1H.iii]

Permit Service Center
Building & Safety Division
Planning and Development Department June 26, 2024
1947 Center Street Tel: (510) 981-7500
Berkeley, CA 94704-1113 TDD: (510) 981-7450
[email protected] Page 1 of 1 Fax: (510) 981-7450

Land Use Planning Prepared by: Waqar Shah
Application #: B2024-02077 2750 Cedar Street [email protected] Land Use Planning Requirements

1. After review of the
project plans and the photographs of the existing site, the proposed project constitutes a Demolition, as defined in Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section

23.502.020(D)(2), and creation of a new standing structure requires a Use Permit entitlement application f irst for the demolition of more than 50 percent or more of the enclosing exterior walls and 50 percent or more of the roof and another use permit i s required for the creation of a new and improved structure. a. If applicant proceeds with the Use Permit entitlement application, please review the use permit link for the application instructions under “Apply For A Use Permit” b. Please also note that thro ugh the setback determination as shown on page 5 of the Zoning Determination, the setbacks are shown for the irregular shaped lot and the new structure will need to comply with the setback requirements of the Residential Single -Family Hillside Ov erlay Zoning District, as provided in BMC Section 23.202.050(D)(2).
c. The plan submissions for the Use Permit Entitlement Application will need to show the demolition diagrams in elevation view and there will be no c redit for re-use of building materials from the existing residence.
d. Per BMC Section 23.322.030(A)(1), for properties located near a roadway less than 26 feet in width in the hillside overlay, one off street parking space is required per unit.

2. Please note that additional information may be requested upon review of resubmitted items.

Report Summary
2750 CEDAR St, Berkeley, CA 94709 APN: 58-2211-20-1
Last Evaluation July 1, 2024 10:26 AM
Street Only:

Inspectors were not able to evaluate the entire property. Observations included in this report were made from public spaces.

Summary Stats
0 Defensible Space Violations were observed
Violations must be corrected within 60 days. A reinspection will occur 60 days after the initial evaluation. If violations have not been corrected at the reinspection, a second notice will be issued. No reinspection fee will be assessed when violations are found to be corrected. A fee of $98 per 15 minutes of reinspection time will be assessed where violation(s) have not been corrected. A second reinspection will occur after an additional 14 days. If violations are still present, a citation will be issued.

Please click on the Defensible Space Tab to the left on a computer or upper right on a mobile device to access photos and actions required to correct violations.
5 Home Hardening Details
were observed
These are recommendations only and should be prioritized based on budget after defensible space issues are corrected. Evaluators have assessed your home to help you understand its vulnerability to wildfire and embers. Modifying your home using fire and ember resistant construction materials and features is often the most important factor in determining whether a structure will survive a wildfire.

Please click on the Home Hardening Tab to the left on a computer or upper right on a mobile device to access the Home Hardening Details.

Property Owner Responsibility
Property owners are responsible for addressing all violations on their property.

However, fire does not stop at property lines. It is essential that neighbors cooperate with one another to reduce hazards throughout the neighborhood.

Defensible Space Violations
2750 CEDAR St, Berkeley, CA 94709 APN: 58-2211-20-1
Violations must be corrected within 60 days. A reinspection will occur 60 days after the initial evaluation. If violations have not been corrected at the reinspection, a second notice will be issued. No reinspection fee will be assessed when violations are found to be corrected. A fee of $98 per 15 minutes of reinspection time will be assessed where violation(s) have not been corrected. A second reinspection will occur after an additional 14 days. If violations are still present a citation will be issued.

Home Hardening Details (5)
2750 CEDAR St, Berkeley, CA 94709 APN: 58-2211-20-1
These issues are not required and should be prioritized based on budget after any identified defensible space violations are corrected. The following recommendations are based on actual observations at your property. They will help you prioritize upgrades and retrofits using ember and ignition resistant construction materials and design practices that will improve a structure’s likelihood of surviving wildfire.

1. Unidentified Roofing Material
All roofs require regular cleaning and routine maintenance to maintain ignition resistance. Learn more about roofing and how to protect different types of roofs from wildfires, then take appropriate steps to protect the roof.

No roof

2. Any opening in siding where embers could enter
Openings in siding are similar to vents in that it can enable embers to enter the structure and ignite insulation or other material inside the walls.

Use caulk, fine metal mesh or similar non-combustible materals to prevent ember entry

3. Wood Plank Siding
Wood plank siding can be relatively resistant to ignition if well maintained. Pay attention to area where the siding meets the ground - the lowest 12" of siding are most vulner
able.

4. Vent screens are not ember resistant
Replace or retrofit with flame and ember resistant vent screens approved and listed by the California State Fire Marshal or WUI vents tested to ASTM E2886 and meeting acceptance criteria provided in Chapter 7A of the California Building Code.

Upgrade is recommended for existing structures.

5. Protect wood doors from embers
Wood doors have been shown to ignite when subject to an ember storm and heat of wildfire. Using a metal screen is a great mitigation approach Install metal screen or consider replacing the door with metal when possible

Access your report online
https:/ /www.defensiblespacereport.org/berkeley/reportlink/a6cd08a8-df75-46dc-ac7e-986d8184814c

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
1 July 10, 2024

Recipient David Lopez
[email protected]
Jessie Bright
[email protected]
Waqar Shah
WSHAH@cityofberkeley .info

Address Building & Safety
Permit Service Center
1947 Center St, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704 -1113
(510) 981-7440

Re Application B-2024-02077
2750 Cedar St

Introduction

The basis of Code application for 2750 Cedar uses the California Existing Building Code (CEBC).

My business partner, a structural engineer, and I purchased the property from my former client in late 2022.

The property was purchased spec ifically because it contained an Existing SFR that could utilize the CEBC.

CEBC allows “401.2 Compliance. The work shall not make the building less complying than it was before the repair was undertaken.”
CEBC allows “405.2.1 Repairs for less than substantial structural damage. Unless otherwise required by this section, for damage less than substantial structural damage, the damaged elements shall be permitted to be restored to their predamage condition.”

To this basis the desi gn utilizes Code enhancements, providing greater quality than the CEBC actually requires.

The California Buildin g Code (CBC), the California Residential Building Code (CRC) and Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) are all utilized where their application produces the most aesthetically and functionally favorable Code Path.

The CEBC should be assumed in all cases of Code application unless otherwise specified.

As a second basis the design also utilizes the California Green Building Code (CGBC).

CGBC allows “5.401.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall outline means of achieving material conservation and resource efficiency through protection of buildings from exterior moisture, construction waste diversion, employment of

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
2 techniques to reduce pollution through recycling of materials , and building commissioning or testing and adjusting. ” This Code section allows and promotes the reuse and incorporation of existing constructi on into the completed structure

The SFR is an Existing “lawful nonconforming” < 50% partially demolished structure as allowed by BMC Section 23F.04.10, which allowed the use of Permits 13-4915 Partial Demolition of Damaged Construction and 14-0236 Repair, Renovation & Alteration of (E) SFR .

Permits were obtained and inspection was completed by Berkeley inspector Greg Brovold to bring the structure to its current state.

These are now lawful entitlements by right that cannot be separated from the property.

Documentation of these approvals and inspections has been omitted, lost or deleted by Berkeley in its review, so they are provided again directly below.

As well, we find that BMC 23F.04.10 has been supplanted by BMC 23.324.050 Conforming and Nonconf orming Structures and Buildings, which states:

“ A. Maintenance and Repair. A lawful nonconforming structure or building may be maintained and repaired , as long as such maintenance or repair does not result in a change to the use of the structure or building.

B. Replacement. Replacing portions of a nonc onforming structure or building is allowed if the removed portions were lawfully constructed and are replaced to the same size, height, extent, and configuration as previously existed.” and:
“ F. Damage and Reconstruction.

2. Damage Less than 50 Percent . If 50 percent or less of its appraised value of a lawful nonconforming structure or building is damaged or destroyed for any reason, the replacement of the damaged portions of the structure or building is allowed by right if the replaced portions are the same size, extent, and configuration as previously existed. ”

CRC Definitions also define “REPAIR. The reconst ruction, replacement or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage .”

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
3 Site Plan, Partial Demolition, Permit 13-4915, A-1.2

The currently submitted entire project , which has not changed, was also approved at that time; see attached Project Permit Approval, Original, directly below.

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
4 Project Permit Approval, 14-236, Original

The current calculation for the use of BMC 23.324.050 F. Damage and Reconstruction is provided directly below.

Alameda County Assessor shows the appraised value of 2750 Cedar St as $1.5 million, the average of $972,000 and $1,920,000.
50% would be $1,236,000.

The estimated cost for Repair provided on page 8 below is the Preliminary Estimate of Construction Costs, SFR $94,497 or 7 %:
not even close to 50 %.

The supporting Alameda County Assessor Property Report Map is provided directly below.

The full report is available upon request.

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
5 Alameda County Asses sor Property Report Map

Review

At present, we find that the plan review process has been corrupted and misinformation generated by the intrusion of Councilperson Susan Wengraf and immediate neighbor Laura Schmidt on multiple occasions.

We find that the City Council and adjacent homeowners have neither the authority nor the qualifications to interject themselves into established procedures that are highly technical and in-process on private property.

Note that we have made every effort to find a common a nd constructive relationship with Ms. Schmidt, but she still exhibits nonsensical behavior , such as recently demanding Berkeley inspectors when we were trying to clear the property for Wildfire/Urban Interface as required by Berkeley Fire.

See inspector David Torres.

Our request of supervisor David Lopez , in three separate correspondences, to meet with the Council to explain the property history and Code Path have gone unanswered.

We had to de-encrypt internal correspondence from supervisor Lopez to learn of the involvement of the Council and City Attorney.

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
6 Conclusion

Given the Code Path above, we will first begin construction atop the existing foundation, using CRC “105.2 Work Exempt from Permit” which allows:

Decks < / = 200 square feet
One-story accessory structures < / = 140 square feet

Berkeley Zoning allows Roof Repair without permit, so the roof will be reframed throughout.

These will then be incorporated into the forthcoming framing, which will include CGBC material conservation reuse of exist ing framing, to be inspected continuously by the Architect, as approved by then Zoning supervisor Eric Angstadt.

Note that Architects are licensed to p ractice engineering through Exemption 6737 in the Engineers Practice Act.

Framing at this phase of compl etion will utilize R106.3.3 “Phased approval. “ …Permit for the construction of…any other part of a building… provided that adequate information and detailed statements have been filed complying with p ertinent requirements of this code”

At this phase of completion, the permit should be limited to a Zoning Certificate and does not require an AUP or UP.

Initially only the exterior envelope will be framed, fumigated and weatherproofed before the fall rain.

We will continue with the interior once that is done.

We will request inspections of each phase, as we normally would , or provide detailed reports from special inspectors for the record.

We would accept the original unpaid fees of $2,8 59.50 as shown above for Permit 14-236 as the cost of the permit, but the Assessor’s Report says these have been paid in full.

As established in the Construction Documents, the design of the new SFR is nearly identical to the original home of Eleanor Westphal, a draftsperson remembered fondly b y the entire hillside communi ty, who remarkably climbed the 75’ vertical rise of the stairs on a regular basis.

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
7 Review Responses

This Response Letter ( 240710-Corrections Second -Response.pdf) addresses Comments by Jessie Bright and Waqar Shah dated June 27, 2024.

Note that we do not use the term “Corrections”, which we consider to be terminology for contractors, not for discussions between licensed professionals.

We generally use the terms “Queries” or “Comments” for those originating from the governing body.

The Architect’s Responses are in red.

Berkeley Comments are in
black italic.

Administrative

2. The valuation of $50,000 as provided by the applicant is substantially understated. Please provide an updated valuation that includes all work as required per CBC Section 109.3: “Permit valuations shall include total value of work, including materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment and permanent systems.” The updated valuation will be considered by t he building official; if the updated valuation is not accepted, a minimum valuation will be provided by the building official as authorized by City of Berkeley Resolution 67,047 -N.S.

PC2: This comment was not addressed. Please provide a permit valuation fo r the total value of work, including materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued.

It is false that this issue was not addressed in the original Response (240522- Corrections First-Response.pdf) dated May 22, 2024, in quotes just below.

“$50,000 is the same valuation previously approved by Berkeley for B2014 -00236, with the same conditions.

The SFR is only 728 sf, so 50,000/728 = $69/sf, a reasonable valuation for Repair.

There are no foundation costs and most lumber is reused.

I have typically built ground -up (new) Owner/Builder projects at $80/sf to $150/sf over the past 10 years.

See 3-story SFR just below @ $80/sf with similar construction and finishes:

Hannah, Oakland (2004)

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
8 Granted, very few Architects can build at this rate.

If Berkeley is bound to apply a higher ratio, please include these mitigating factors. ”

The original valuation estimate was based only upon the Repair of the SFR.

The total estimate of Repair and New work, excluding Site work, a forthcoming phase, is shown directly below.

CBC 109.3, Permit valuations states, “ Final building permit valuation shall be set by the building official. ” We await your proposed valuation in cost per square foot. See Preliminary Estimate directly below.

Preliminary Estimate of Construc tion Costs, SFR

3. The reproduction quality of the drawings provided for plan check is inadequate because the drawings are improperly scaled, lightly rendered (pink font color), and/or difficult to read. Please provide clean clear drawings with dark lines and easily legible text that is a minimum ⅛ inch high. [CRC R106.1.1] PC2: A hard copy of the approved drawings will be required to be on site for all City inspections. The requirements outlined above are necessary so that the drawings available to the Building Inspector will be of suffi cient clarity without the benefit of digital manipulation. Additionally, the digital files must be produced at the intended printed page size for the drawings to be scalable. Currently the drawings provided for review are intended for p hysical reproduction on 24x36 inch sheets, but the pdf document sheets are sized 11x17 inches.

As stated in the original Response (240522 -Corrections First-Response.pdf) dated May 22, 2024, in quotes just below, full -size hard copies of the Construction Documents are availab le upon request.

“2
2022 CRC R106.1.1 requires that drawings be of “sufficient clarity”.

Note that CRC R106.1.1 does not specify 1/8” text, which would only be relevant for printed drawings.

The “scale” (fractional inches per foot) of drawings is not app licable when drawings are digital, as drawings of any scale may be zoomed into or out of for ease of use and readability.

PDF is a vector-based file format, so it does not lose resolution when zoomed.

If [Berkeley] needs a hard copies, we can print full-size 24” x 36” sheets, which comprise the many scales of the drawings.

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
9 Highlighting reflects the most recent version of the Construction Documents.

The highlighted drawings and annotations are used in lieu of revision “clouding”, which burdens the drawings with chaotic graphics.”

We always have full -size sets onsite for inspectors who should know that only dimensioned drawings are to be used and “scaling” off drawings is a violation of their use.

The Construction Documents are available in both reduced (11 x 17) and full-size (24 x 36) sets. 11 x 17 sets, the maximum size for Microsoft Word sheets, provide the multi -sheet digital Construction Documents sets required by Berkeley.

If Berkeley wants individual PDF 24 x 36 sheets, those can also be provided.

4. PC2: Please review and revise the drawing index provided as required to accurately reflect the contents of the drawing sets, including plans prepared by others. Revise the documents to provide a unique identifier for each sheet. [CBC 107.2.1 and CRC R106 .1.1]

The Index of Drawings is correct and provides Sheet Numbers, Descriptions, (Titles) and Digital (File) Names.

The sheet numbers are provided in the lower right corner of the sheet.

5. PC2: The City of Berkeley requires survey verification for any building, or modification of a building footprint or envelope, occurring within 12 inches of the point at which fire rated construction is required, opening limitations apply or the property line. Please provide the following or similar note on the site plan: [CRC R106.2]
Prior to foundation inspection and pouring of concrete, provide a letter prepared by a California licensed land surveyor stat ing that “...the new structure is located in accordance with the approved plans.”

The Moran Engineering Survey is shown directly below, but is not part of the Construction Document set.

It is standard and most efficient practice to provide the contractor with only the documents he requires for the work.

Nothing has physically changed at the site and the Repair does not increase square footage or footprint, so the cost of an updated Survey is not necessary.

The Repair includes no new foundations.

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
10 Survey, Moran Engineering, Job #03-5617

M I C H A E L T O L L E S O N , A R C H I T E C T
555 PIERCE ST
#1626
ALBANY, CA 94706

5 1 0 3 3 2 9 5 2 0
5 1 0 9 9 0 6 3 3 5
[email protected]
11 Nonstructural

1. It appears that the scope of work includes newly framed walls, however, all walls are currently shown the same on the plans. Provide a construction legend and visual means of clearly distinguishing between existing walls to be removed, existing walls to remain and new walls. Identify bearing walls and non-bearing walls. [CRC R106.1.1]
PC2: Many of the walls identified on the plans as existing have either been removed under permit applic ation B2013-04915 or destroyed due to exposure to the elements. In particular the wall(s) at the main level on Grid Line 3 are completely gone but this condition is inconsistently depicted across the existing, demolition, architectural, structural, electrical, and mechanical plans. Please revise the drawings to reflect the existing and proposed conditions.

The Construction Docum ents are correct and Wall Type legends are provided on the Demolition Plans (A -2.2) and Project Notes (A-0.1).

See Window/Slider – New and Window/Slider – Removed.

The original structure is deceptive, as it includes numerous glass doors and windows.

In Structural Line 3, with the windows and doors removed for safety, it could appear that a whole wall was rem oved, when in fact the framing involved was a few posts and headers being replaced , but only minimally affectin g the Demolition Calculations (A -

2.2).

Doors and windows are not walls.

2. Revise the drawings to visually identify and detail exterior wall assemblies tested for fire -resistance in accordance with ASTM E119, UL 263, or CBC 703.3 with exposure from both sides at locations with less than 5 feet of fire separation distance. [CRC R302.1] PC2: The proposed fire-resistance rated wall assembly utilizes concrete stucco finishes, however, this is not reflected on the building exterior ele vations.

See TABLE R302.1(2) EXTERIOR WALLS —DWELLINGS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITH AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER PROTECTION.

MINIMUM FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING
1 hour—tested in accordance with ASTM E119,
Fire-resistance rated UL 263 or Section 703 .2.2 of the California Building Code with exposure from the outside; [that is, only outside, one side].

MINIMUM FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE 0 Feet

We are choosing to provide fir e sprinklers as it increases the quality of the SFR, but the CEBC does not require this for the Repair.

See CEBC SECTION 403 FIRE PROTECTION
“403.1 General. Repairs shall be done in a manner that maintains the level of fire protection provided.” So we could omit the Wall Section ( 1/A-5.2) detail entirely.

The non-combustible asphalt shingles may also be applied over the cement plaster; thus the difference in the Exterior Elevations (A-3.2), both of which use the same massing.

If a Detail provides alternatives, both of which are allowed by Code, both Details may be included in the Construction Documents.

Additionally, please revise the stucco wall assembly de tails to demonstrate compliance with marine climate drainage requirements: [CRC R703.7.3.2] a.

Provide two layers of 10-minute Grade D paper or have a water resistance equal to or greater than two layers of a water -resistive barrier complying with ASTM E2556, Type I with flashing installed in accordance with CRC R703.4 and intended to drain to the water -resistive barrier shall be directed between the layers. A space or drainage material not less than 3/16 inch in depth shall be added to the exterior side o f the water-resistive barrier. [CRC R703.7.3.2(1)] b.